Daniel Nelson

The Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake issued Notices of Intention to Designate three adjacent properties under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The objector argued that the properties did not constitute a 'nested cultural heritage landscape' (CHL) and that their deep setbacks were not heritage attributes.

The Conservation Review Board found that while the properties could be considered a nested CHL for planning purposes under the Provincial Policy Statement, they could not be designated as such under the Act without improperly creating a de facto heritage conservation district.

However, the Board agreed with the Town that the deep setbacks, historically driven by a now-extinct watercourse and changing cultural norms, were valid heritage attributes that contributed to the properties' cultural heritage value.

The Board recommended designation with the nested CHL concept removed from the attributes.

The City of Mississauga issued a Notice of Intention to Designate a property under section 29(5) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The objectors argued that because the property was previously designated in 1983, the notice should have been issued under section 30.1.

The Conservation Review Board agreed that this was a procedural defect.

Although the defect caused no prejudice to the objectors, the Board found it had no statutory authority to cure the defect and dismissed the matter.

The objectors opposed the City of Niagara Falls' Notice of Intention to Repeal a designating by-law under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Following a ruling on a jurisdictional motion, a pre-hearing conference was held where the parties agreed to resume the hearing in writing.

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order setting out the schedule for written submissions.

The City of Niagara Falls issued a Notice of Intention to Repeal the heritage designation of a municipally-owned property.

Objectors referred the matter to the Conservation Review Board.

During the hearing, the City brought a motion seeking to introduce non-heritage evidence (e.g., logistical concerns, restoration costs) to justify the repeal.

The Review Board dismissed the motion, holding that its jurisdiction in both designation and repeal matters is strictly limited to an independent evaluation of the property's cultural heritage value or interest under O. Reg. 9/06, and it does not review the broader policy decisions of the municipality.

The objectors filed an objection to the municipality's Notice of Intention to Designate their property under the Ontario Heritage Act but subsequently failed to participate in the proceedings.

After failing to attend a pre-hearing conference and failing to respond to a procedural order requiring written submissions on why the matter should not be dismissed, the Conservation Review Board dismissed the objection.

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order regarding multiple objections to Notices of Intention to Designate various properties under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Several objectors withdrew their objections, leading the Board to close those files.

The remaining objectors, who had failed to participate in previous proceedings, were ordered to either withdraw their objection or provide written submissions explaining why their matter should not be dismissed.

The scheduled hearing was canceled.

The objectors opposed the City of Niagara Falls' Notice of Intention to Repeal Designating By-law No. 2010-90 for a property.

At the hearing, the City raised a jurisdictional issue regarding the type of evidence the Conservation Review Board may hear.

The Board adjourned the hearing and issued a procedural order directing that the jurisdictional issue be considered by way of a motion in writing, setting out the schedule for the parties to serve and file their written materials.

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order regarding objections to Notices of Intention to Designate multiple properties in the Town of Aurora under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Due to the provincial emergency, the hearing was scheduled to proceed by video conference.

The previously scheduled site visit was cancelled, and the parties were directed to jointly provide photographs of the properties in lieu of a site visit.

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order rescheduling a hearing regarding the proposed repeal of a heritage designation by-law for a property in Niagara Falls.

Due to the provincial emergency, the hearing was rescheduled to be held by video conference.

The Board also directed the parties to provide joint photographs in lieu of a site visit and set deadlines for document exchange.

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order following pre-hearing conferences regarding an objection to a Notice of Intention to Designate the property at 64 Wellesley Street East in Toronto.

The order sets out the conduct of the hearing, document exchange deadlines, and directions for providing photographs in lieu of a site visit due to the provincial emergency.

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order setting the schedule and procedures for a hearing regarding objections to Notices of Intention to Designate multiple properties in the Town of Aurora under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The order established dates for a site visit, exchange of witness lists, expert meetings, and document disclosure.

The Board also noted that the hearing format could be altered due to the ongoing provincial emergency.

Procedural order arising from a pre-hearing conference regarding objections to Notices of Intention to Designate multiple properties under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Conservation Review Board consolidated the hearings, granted party and participant status, noted the failure of several property owners to attend, and set a schedule for disclosure and the finalization of an Agreed Statement of Facts and Issues List.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding multiple objections to Notices of Intention to Designate several properties under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Several property owners failed to attend the conference despite receiving proper notice.

Pursuant to section 7(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Conservation Review Board ordered that it would proceed in their absence and that they are no longer entitled to further notice.

The Board also established a procedural schedule for the remaining active parties to finalize disclosure, an Agreed Statement of Facts, and an Agreed Issues List ahead of a 3-day hearing.

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order following a pre-hearing conference regarding an objection to a Notice of Intention to Designate a property.

The order sets out the organization and conduct of the upcoming three-day hearing, including dates for the hearing, site visit, and deadlines for the exchange of witness lists, expert reports, and documentary evidence.

The Conservation Review Board held a pre-hearing conference regarding objections to Notices of Intention to Designate four properties.

The community group SORE Association sought party status, which the objectors opposed.

The Board granted SORE party status, finding it had a genuine interest, would make a useful contribution, and its addition would not cause prejudice or delay.

The Board also ordered concurrent hearings for the four related proceedings and directed the scheduling of a pre-hearing settlement conference.

The City of Toronto issued Notices of Intention to Designate several properties on College Street.

Three objectors filed objections.

At the first pre-hearing conference, none of the objectors attended.

The City moved to dismiss the proceedings.

Two objectors failed to respond to a subsequent direction from the Conservation Review Board and were removed as parties.

The third objector explained they had forgotten to attend but wished to continue and intended to call expert evidence.

The Board found the third objector's reasons for objection were not frivolous and their failure to attend did not amount to an abuse of process.

The motion to dismiss the entire proceeding was denied, and a second pre-hearing conference was ordered.

The City of Toronto issued a Notice of Intention to Designate the property at 276 Forest Hill Road under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The property owners objected, arguing the property did not meet the prescribed criteria and the designation was in bad faith.

The Conservation Review Board held a hearing to evaluate the property's cultural heritage value.

The Board found the property is a fine representative example of the Modern Georgian style and reflects the work of the significant architectural partnership of Allward and Gouinlock.

The Board recommended that City Council designate the property.

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order following a pre-hearing conference regarding an objection by the University of Toronto to a Notice of Intention to Designate a property.

The order set the hearing dates, established the list of parties and participants, and outlined the schedule for the exchange of witness lists, expert reports, and documentary evidence.

The Objector requested an adjournment of the Conservation Review Board proceeding regarding a heritage designation pending an Ontario Municipal Board hearing concerning the same property.

The City of Toronto and a residents' association opposed the adjournment.

The Review Board denied the adjournment request, finding that the heritage determination was not contingent on the OMB matter and that scheduling the hearing would best serve the just, expeditious, and cost-effective determination of the proceeding.

The objector initiated a proceeding to object to a Notice of Intention to Designate a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The objector subsequently failed to participate in three scheduled pre-hearing conference calls and did not respond to the Conservation Review Board's communications.

The Board found that the objector's conduct caused undue delay and prevented the fair and expeditious resolution of the matter.

Consequently, the Board exercised its discretion under Rule 15.03 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to dismiss the proceeding.