Schemool v. Richmond Hill (City), 2025 CanLII 121096

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

November 19, 2025

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-24-000741

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18. as amended

Appellants:

Oren and Lily Schemool

Subject:

Objection to designation By-law No. 29-24

Property Address:

111 Richmond Street

Municipality/Upper Tier:

City of Richmond Hill, York Region

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-000741

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-24-000741

OLT Case Name:

Schemool v. Richmond Hill (City)

Heard:

July 8 – 9, 2025 by video hearing

Written submissions completed by August 5, 2025 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

Oren and Lily Schemool (“Applicant” or “Appellant”)

Self-represented*

City of Richmond Hill (“City”)

Carlton Thorne

DECISION DELIVERED BY W. DANIEL BEST AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

1This Decision and Order arises from an appeal filed by the Appellant pursuant to s. 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.18 as amended (“OHA”) concerning an objection to by-law No. 29-24 (“Designation By-law”) passed by the City authorizing the designation of the property located at 111 Richmond Street (“Subject Property” or “Gaby House” ) as being of cultural heritage value or interest (“CHVI”).

2The Subject Property is located on the north side of Richmond Street, approximately 400 metres west of Yonge Street between Reaman Street and Elmdale Court. The Subject Property is irregularly shaped and is approximately 0.20 hectares in size.

BACKGROUND

3The Subject Property was listed on the City’s Inventory of Buildings of Architectural and Historical Importance (“Inventory”) that was compiled by the Local Architectural Conservancy Advisory Committee (“LACAC”) in 1985.

4On June 19, 2007, the Subject Property was formally listed on the City’s Heritage Register (“Heritage Register”) as a property of CHVI.

5On November 28, 2022, the Province passed Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (“Bill 23”). Changes to the OHA as a result of Bill 23 can be summarized as follows:

• Increased restrictions on a municipality’s ability to issue a Notice of Intention to Designate (“NOID”) a property;

• Prescribed criteria to designate properties;

• Stricter rules on requirements to remove properties from the register;

• Prescribed criteria to designate Heritage Conservation Districts; and

• Permitting retroactive Ministerial review of Provincial heritage properties

6The City’s response to Bill 23 was to identify and designate “listed” properties most at risk and with the highest cultural heritage value, evaluated by Provincial criteria, within the identified limited timeframe.

7A NOID was prepared by City staff in accordance with s. 2(3) of Ontario Regulation 9/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (“O.Reg 9/06”) for the Subject Property. O.Reg 9/06 specifies that a property must meet two or more prescribed criteria as set out in in s. 1(2) of O.Reg 9/06 to warrant a designation under Part IV, s. 29 of the OHA.

8City staff identified the Subject Property as meeting four of the nine criteria prescribed in O.Reg 9/06 as follows:

• Criterion 1: The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method.

• Criterion 4: The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to a community.

• Criterion 7: The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of an area.

• Criterion 8: The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings.

9On March 7, 2024, City Staff submitted a report to Heritage Richmond Hill, recommending the designating of the Subject Property under Part IV, s. 29 of the OHA in recognition of its CHVI, as it met four prescribed criteria. Heritage Richmond Hill endorsed the recommendations in the staff report.

10On March 20, 2024, the Committee of the Whole endorsed the recommendations of Heritage Richmond Hill.

11On March 27, 2024, City Council authorized staff to proceed with the NOID process for the Subject Property.

12On June 5, 2024, City Council passed the Designation By-law for the Subject Property.

13On July 11, 2024, the Appellant appealed the Designation By-law for the Subject Property.

DECISION

14The Tribunal dismisses the appeal.

ISSUES

15There is only one issue before the Tribunal set out in the Issues List of the Procedural Order for this Hearing. The Tribunal must determine if the Subject Property meets two or more of the criteria set out in paragraphs 1 to 9 of s. 1(2) of O.Reg 9/06, to permit designation of the Subject Property under s. 29 of the OHA.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

Late Submission of Materials

16The City sent an email to the Appellant and Tribunal at 8:59 a.m. on the morning of the first day of the Hearing. The contents of the email was a decision of the Tribunal in its previous incarnation as the Ontario Conservation Review Board. The City was informing the Appellant and Tribunal that it was going to reference the Decision Faghani v. Toronto (City) 2018, CanLII 37799 (ON CONRB) (“Faghani”) in opening submissions and highlighted the importance of the knowledge and experience necessary to conduct historical research. Upon receipt of the email and in advance of the start of the Hearing, the Tribunal reviewed the Faghani Decision. The Tribunal did not find any prejudice to the Appellant by allowing the City to introduce the Faghani decision as part of opening submissions.

17The Tribunal asked the Appellant if they would like time to review the Faghani Decision before proceeding further with the Hearing. The Appellant requested a recess. The Hearing was reconvened at 11:05 a.m.

Review of Hearing Process For the Appellant

18For the convenience of the self-represented Party, the Tribunal reviewed in detail the framework of the Hearing of the Merits, including an explanation of the differences between opening statements/submissions, presentation of testimony and documentation, and closing submissions.

WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS

19The following witnesses appeared before the Tribunal:

Name

Party

Evidence

Oren Schemool

Appellant

Unrepresented Litigant Appearing on their Own Behalf. Factual Evidence Only.

Julia Smith

City

Qualified to provide Opinion Evidence in Heritage Planning

20The following materials were identified as Exhibits and marked as follows:

• Exhibit 001 - Joint Document Book

• Exhibit 102 - Witness Statement of Julia Smith

• Exhibit 103 - Reply Witness Statement of Julia Smith

• Exhibit 104 - Visual Evidence

• Exhibit 105 - High Resolution 1879 Gibson Plan

• Exhibit 201 - Witness Statement of Oren Schemool

• Exhibit 202 - Visual Evidence Part 1

• Exhibit 203 - Visual Evidence Part 2

• Exhibit 204 - Visual Evidence Part 3

• Exhibit 205 - Visual Evidence Part 4

Position of the City

21The position of the City is that the appeal should be dismissed as the Subject Property has CHVI and has met at least two of the nine criteria for designation under O.Reg 9/06. This position is supported by the expert heritage planning evidence of Ms. Smith, using primary and secondary sources.

Position of the Appellants

22Mr. Schemool, acting as a self-represented litigant, stated that the Subject Property does not contain the requisite CHVI prescribed under O.Reg 9/06 to warrant designation under s. 29 of the OHA. Mr. Schemool advised that there are errors and mischaracterizations in the City’s evidence that are inconsistent with research he conducted.

23As residents of the home, Mr. Schemool identified that he and his spouse bring a unique and irreplaceable perspective to this Hearing that the City cannot.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

24The fundamental purpose of the OHA is to preserve the cultural heritage of Ontario. The OHA does this by empowering municipalities to identify and protect real properties that have CHVI as determined by the designation criteria set out in O.Reg 9/06.

25If there is disagreement on a designation, an owner can appeal to the Tribunal. In some matters, the determination of the CHVI is apparent. In others, it is less clear, and it is crucial that the Parties bring forth evidence to the Tribunal to aid in its determination of CHVI.

26Evidence before the Tribunal can take many forms. Some examples are as follows:

• Oral Evidence: testimony by witnesses

• Affidavit Evidence: testimony in documentary form

• Documentary evidence: documents

• Other forms of evidence: photos, videos, and electronic evidence like emails

27The types of witnesses that are before the Tribunal fall into two categories: expert witnesses or lay or fact witnesses.

28The Tribunal determines, based on a review of an individual’s qualifications including specific education and/or experience in a particular field, whether that individual is qualified to provide opinion evidence in a specific discipline/field of expertise at a hearing. The individual qualified to provide opinion evidence may or may not have personal involvement/knowledge of the facts but is qualified to provide opinions in their field of expertise in light of facts presented at the Hearing. An expert witness is also required to sign an Acknowledgement of Expert Duty (“AED”), which confirms that the opinion evidence must be independent and objective.

29A lay or fact witness has direct knowledge of relevant facts and should testify about those facts, not their opinion on the facts. This type of witness may express their personal opinions on general matters at a hearing, however, these opinions are differentiated from professional opinions in specific professional fields of discipline by those with special expertise who have been qualified by the Tribunal.

30The Tribunal recognizes the efforts of Mr. Schemool, as a self-represented litigant who clearly went to considerable effort to prepare for and present his case, including conducting a great deal of research on his own.

31Mr. Schemool, as a lay or fact witness, and owner of the Subject Property provided his own witness statement and visual evidence containing factual information. He also made assertions regarding the qualifications of the City’s expert witness and provided opinion evidence. Mr. Schemool does not possess the requisite qualifications to provide opinion evidence in heritage planning. In this matter, even if Mr. Schemool had the requisite qualifications, he would not be able to sign the AED, as his personal involvement in the appeal would preclude him ability to execute the obligations under the AED. Although Mr. Schemool was subject to cross-examination, his evidence can only be given weight in the context of a lay or fact witness.

32Ms. Smith’s testimony was comprehensive in its support of the Designation By-law. Ms. Smith is a qualified expert with the professional background to be able to opine on the issues. Ms. Smith signed a Witness Statement, Reply Witness Statement, and an Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty. Ms. Smith provided her professional opinions, on the issues before the Tribunal through visual evidence and oral testimony, all of which was tested through cross-examination by the Appellant.

33The Tribunal was persuaded by and assigned greater weight to the evidence of Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith was the only witness qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of heritage planning and her testimony was ultimately more assistive than that of Mr. Schemool in determining the issues before it.

34Turning to the matter before it, the Tribunal must now assess the evidence to determine if the Subject Property meets at least two of the criteria identified in this Hearing under O.Reg 9/06.

Criterion 1: The Property Has Design Value or Physical Value

35Ms. Smith stated that the Subject Property has design or physical value as a representative example of the Picturesque Gothic Revival architectural style in Richmond Hill.

36Ms. Smith relied on and referenced the Draft Heritage Property Evaluation Guide (“Draft Evaluation Guide”) from the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture (“Ministry”) on how to interpret and apply O.Reg 9/06 criteria to assess the CHVI of the Subject Property.

37Ms. Smith explained that in order to satisfy Criterion 1, a property must meet a two-part test. The first part is to illustrate or exemplify a style, type, expression, material, or construction method. The second part is to be a rare, unique, representative, or early example of said style, type, expression, material, or construction method.

38Ms. Smith indicated that the Draft Evaluation Guide defines “style” as shared characteristics that make up a recognizable look or appearance of a building or constructed landscape that is typical of a group, time, or place. She continued that the Draft Evaluation Guide defines “representative” as serving as a portrayal or symbol.

39Ms. Smith opined that following the guidance and definitions in the Draft Evaluation Guide that for a building to be considered representative of a style, it must serve as a portrayal of or symbol of a collection of shared characteristics making up a recognizable look or appearance typical of a group, time, or place.

40Referencing John Blumenson’s Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms 1784 to the Present (“Blumenson”), Ms. Smith identified that the Subject Property possesses nine key characteristics of the Picturesque Gothic Revival style as applied to modest residential buildings in Southern Ontario. She continued that the presence of a central gable within a building’s ell has been identified as a defining feature of Picturesque Gothic Revival houses in Ontario. She noted that a local Richmond Hill variation has been identified through comparative analysis of the building style which demonstrates a preference for a lack of a central gable in the Richmond Hill area.

41Mr. Schemool stated that the Subject Property is not representative of the Picturesque Gothic Revival structure as he cites many of the original materials having been replaced or obscured, undermining the authenticity of the style. Mr. Schemool cites the fact that the Subject Property is painted white, which diminishes the visual heritage value of the property with respect to red brick and quoining.

42Mr. Schemool commented that the term “Picturesque Gothic Revival” is broad as noted in Blumenson and Harold Kalman’s A History of Canadian Architecture: Volume 1 (“Kalman”). He continued that the position of the City is more interpretive than factual.

43Mr. Schemool advised that key Gothic Revival elements are missing or modified. He continued that in his view, true Gothic Revival homes feature pitched gables, pointed-arch windows, and ornate base trim. Mr. Schemool commented that these features are absent or minimal.

44Mr. Schemool stated that the Subject Property may borrow elements of the Picturesque Gothic Revival style, but that does not make it a strong or rare example.

45Mr. Schemool indicated that given the painting of the exterior brickwork, the heritage value of the property is diminished significantly. He continued that if the defining features are no longer visible, the property cannot contribute meaningfully to the community's heritage landscape.

46Mr. Schemool summarized that the architectural classification of Picturesque Gothic Revival used by the City is inconsistent and unsupported by authoritative sources.

47A great deal of discussion surrounded terminology of architectural style types and their applicability to the Subject Property. The Tribunal looked to Faghani to provide assistance on Criterion 1 in this Hearing:

Thus, in many ways, the Review Board considers the Owners’ great effort…over what precisely constitutes the Georgian and Georgian Revival architectural styles was not helpful to the Review Board in making its determination. Some architectural styles (including the Georgian style), and the buildings that reflect them, are easily understandable and, therefore, easily categorized. Some designs are less obvious and pull together a variety of design elements, making it difficult to taxonomize them. Such difficulty does not vitiate the cultural heritage value or interest of such a design. There is a very good reason for that: architecture is both an art and a science. Artists, in every generation, attempt to push boundaries and play with the ideas and designs of those who have come before. Architectural style can often only be successfully analysed by looking backwards and detecting broad trends while understanding that any particular building may be a paragon of such a style or constitute a transitional version between styles.

48The Tribunal also reviewed the Heritage Structure Report on the Harrison-Gaby House at 111 Richmond Street, completed by George Duncan in 2000 (“Duncan Report”). Mr. Duncan provided the following assessment of the Subject Property:

In any case, based on the exterior, the appearance of the Harrison-Gaby House reflects the mid 1880s period. The authenticity of the materials - including the brick, windows and front verandah is somewhat impaired by the white painting of the walls, otherwise, the building would be almost a museum piece in its good state of exterior preservation. Fortunately, the historical photograph in the collection of the Richmond Hill Public Library provides a view of the house in its pristine period condition. The photograph also confirms how little the building has changed. The only regrettable loss has been the lacy bargeboards that once graced the street-facing gable. The missing bargeboards appear to have resembled those still seen on 132 Richmond Street and 17 Elizabeth Street North. The irregular outline, multiple gabled roofline and decorative details such as the bay window, bellcast verandah, and now absent bargeboards place the Harrison-Gaby House in the stylistic category of the Picturesque, as defined in the Parks Canada guidebook The Buildings of Canada.

Picturesque houses, often relatively small and reflecting the individual tastes of builders or owners, have decorative elements of Gothic Revival origin...

49Ms. Smith referenced Blumenson’s main characteristics of the Picturesque Gothic Revival style and determined that the Subject Property had nine key characteristics of the Picturesque Gothic Revival style. The absence of the central gable as a local variation or preference was supported by findings in the Duncan Report.

50The Tribunal found the submissions of Mr. Schemool challenging in evaluating this criterion. In providing evidence on the design or physical value criterion, the Tribunal found Mr. Schemool strayed into providing opinion evidence in an area where he does not possess the requisite qualifications. Accordingly, the Tribunal preferred the opinion of Ms. Smith and finds that the Subject Property is representative of the characteristics of the Picturesque Gothic Revival style, modified by local interpretation, and therefore meets this criterion for designation under the O.Reg 9/06.

Criterion 4: The Property Has Historical Value or Associative Value

51Similar to Criterion 1, Ms. Smith explained that the Draft Evaluation Guide requires a property meets a two-part test. The first part is that the association must be direct – meaning the property exemplifies or has strong evidence of its connection to a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution. The second part is that the association is significant to the community – because a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution has made a strong, noticeable, or influential contribution to the evolution or pattern of settlement and development in the community.

52Ms. Smith opined that Gaby family’s association with the Subject Property meets this two-part test, as it is both direct and significant to the Richmond Hill community.

53Ms. Smith provided archival evidence that established a link between the Gaby family and the Subject Property. She continued that the Gaby family owned the Subject Property between 1859 and 1937.

54Ms. Smith identified through probate records that Levi and Sarah Jane Gaby built the existing house on the Subject Property circa 1885 and resided in it from the time of its construction until at least 1901.

55Ms. Smith detailed that both Frederick Gaby and his son Levi, are significant to the Richmond Hill community due to their contributions to the evolution or pattern of settlement and development in the community.

• Frederick Gaby was an early English settler and farmer who assembled the Subject Property lands between 1859 and 1860. He and his family resided on the Subject Property during the 1860s and 1870s.

• After Frederick Gaby’s death in 1880, the property was bought by his son, Levi, who expanded and over-bricked the house circa 1885.

• Levi Gaby was active in the village. He was a member of the fire brigade, served as a local councillor, and worked to support the establishment of key public services and amenities after the village was officially incorporated in 1873.

• Levi Gaby ran an express cartage business from the village to Toronto, known as the Gaby’s Express during the 1890s.

56Ms. Smith indicated that Levi Gaby’s wife was granted the property following her husband’s death in 1900 and owned the Subject Property until her death in 1937.

57Mr. Schemool argued that there is credible and reasonable doubt that the Subject Property was owned and constructed by the Gaby family, circa 1885.

58Mr. Schemool identified that the Subject Property originated as part of Lot 47, Concession 1 of the Vaughan Township. An east-west road was established through this original 210-acre property which resulted in the creation of smaller lots. The 1879 Gibson Plan identifies the approximate boundary of the Subject Property in reference to the former village lots (namely lots 26, 27, and 28).

59Mr. Schemool argued that through his research, there is no direct evidence that Frederick Gaby or any of his family members lived in the home on the Subject Property.

60Mr. Schemool reviewed his historical research of the home on the Subject Property and stated that he found that it was built prior to 1885. Initially being a log home built in 1832 with an addition built in 1860, Mr. Schemool indicated that this contradicted the City’s position that it was representative of the Gothic Revival style and built in 1885.

61Mr. Schemool stated that Subject Property was identified as the Stockdale House in the Explore Centennial Richmond Hill document dated 1973 that identified the original structure was built of logs and that a two-storey addition including a dining room, hall, additional bedroom, and basement was added in 1860.

62Mr. Schemool supported his position that the home was built in stages prior to 1885 and not built by the Gaby family through his visual evidence of the interior of the home.

63Mr. Schemool submitted that the Gaby family did not make significant contributions to the evolution and pattern of settlement of early Richmond Hill.

64Mr. Schemool stated that Frederick Gaby was a common farmer who suffered brain damage from a fall while on route to plow his fields in 1871. He continued that Frederick Gaby’s only recorded public contribution was serving one year on the Agricultural Society's 50-member board.

65Mr. Schemool stated that although his funeral was well attended, large attendance at a funeral does not denote historical importance.

66Mr. Schemool identified that the public service of Levi Gaby included four years with the Fire Department and one year on City Council, all during the tenure of his father-in-law who was the Reeve/Mayor. He continued that Levi Gaby was involved in 11 municipal projects over a 20-year span, many of these occurred during the tenure of his father-in-law as Reeve/Mayor.

67Mr. Schemool argued that the advertising of the freight and delivery business owned by Levi Gaby in the newspaper does not establish historical importance. He continued that in the document Excerpts in Early Days of Richmond Hill an overview of Richmond Hill's train, stagecoach, and post office services, identified stagecoach owners, but Levi Gaby was not included. Ms. Smith noted that as an owner of an express delivery business was of particular significance to the village identity and survival as a small community on Yonge Street during the late nineteenth century, as it fulfilled the important role of transporting goods along Yonge Street to and from Toronto when the village was bypassed by the railways between 1853 and 1896.

68Mr. Schemool stated that the City’s presentation of the Gaby family as historically significant and upstanding members of the community is not without contradiction. He cited a newspaper article identifying an unnamed Gaby family member being involved in an assault and found guilty.

69Mr. Schemool indicated that the above reference casts doubt about the uniformly positive portrayal of the family advanced by the City, and it cannot be asserted with certainty that the Gaby family's legacy is wholly positive or historically significant to the degree claimed.

70Mr. Schemool advised that he conducted extensive research through the Richmond Hill Public Library (“RHPL”) and other public sources that contradicted the findings of Ms. Smith. The challenge of Mr. Schemool’s research is that it is predominantly secondary sources with unknown authorship with no reference to primary or archival material.

71Ms. Smith’s opinion is drawn from both primary and secondary sources establishing a direct link of the Gaby Family to the Subject Property. The sources provided by Ms. Smith included relevant Land Registry records, Census Records, Deeds, Indentures and Mortgages, the 1862 Radcliffe Map, the 1879 Gibson Plan, the 1938 Reuben Plan, Probate Records, archival photographs and newspaper articles, the Duncan Report, and the current parcel registry number (PIN) information applicable to the Subject Property, as further confirmation that the chain of title established through the Land Registry Records pertains to the Subject Property specifically.

72Looking once more to the Duncan Report, the following was identified which brings into question the secondary sources relied upon by Mr. Schemool and his conclusions regarding the Subject Property. The Duncan Report states:

Information in the Local History Collection of the Richmond Hill Public Library confuses the history of 111 Richmond Street, stating that the original part of the house was a log building built about 1832 by Joseph Gaby, livery stable operator. Thomas Stockdale, a tailor, is credited in the same source as adding a two-storey addition in 1860. There are three problems with these claims. The first is that Joseph Gaby did not arrive in the area from his native England until the early 1850s. The second is that the building's underlying structure is not log. The third is that Thomas Stockdale never owned the parcel of land where the house now stands.

It is likely that the information noted above has been somewhat muddled over time. Levi Gaby, Joseph's nephew, did nm a cartage business from this site during the 1890s. Thomas Stockdale was a tailor who lived somewhere on Richmond Street from about 1859 to 1869. The 1861 census lists Stockdale in a one storey frame house in the area, while Frederick Gaby is in a two-storey frame house. Perhaps Martha Harrison's modest cottage was moved to a neighbouring lot (Lot 24 or 121 Richmond Street) when Frederick Gaby built a new, two storey frame house on Lot 27 (111 Richmond Street) about the time of his purchase in 1859. This would perhaps explain the association of the house at 121 Richmond Street with the Gaby family, who did not own that particular property. The dates certainly correspond to these suppositions. If the above speculation about 121 Richmond Street is true, then Thomas Stockdale did once live in the Martha Harrison House, but not on its original site. Possibly, the same house was later used as a blacksmith shop by Joseph Gaby after Stockdale's departure about 1869.

73Ms. Smith identified Frederick Gaby as an early settler to the village who began accumulating property on the north side of Richmond Street in 1859. He contributed to the community through agricultural production, and community organizations. Ms. Smith continued that Levi Gaby built the home on the Subject Property circa 1885. She further stated that Levi Gaby made a strong and noticeable contribution to the evolution or pattern of settlement and development in Richmond Hill and was active in village affairs, serving as a councillor and a member of the fire brigade prior to his death in 1900.

74Overall, the Tribunal found that Mr. Schemool relied heavily on secondary sources compared to Ms. Smith, who drew on both primary and secondary sources. The Tribunal found the evidence of Ms. Smith more assistive and reliable in evaluating this criterion.

75The Tribunal finds that the Subject Property has historical and evaluative style and therefore meets this criterion for designation under the O.Reg 9/06.

Criterion 7: The Property is Important in Defining, Maintaining or Supporting the Character of an Area

76Ms. Smith opined that the Subject Property is important in defining, maintaining, and supporting the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century residential village character of Richmond Street, as well as that of Richmond Hill’s village core more broadly.

77Ms. Smith reviewed the Draft Evaluation Guide and analyzed the contribution of the Subject Property to the surrounding context by establishing the area in question; defining its character; proving that this character is desirable to maintain; and considering how much or to what degree the Subject Property contributes to defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of the area.

78Ms. Smith stated that 59% of the buildings in the surrounding context of Richmond Street were built prior to 1940, and 50% of the surrounding buildings are included on the City’s Heritage Register.

79Ms. Smith advised Richmond Street does contain residential development that is post-1940; however, the developments have tended to follow the established historical patterns of development.

80Ms. Smith identified the Subject Property as a “historical anchor;” being one of the earlier buildings in the surrounding context on Richmond Street, it would have helped establish the distinct pattern of built and spatial features that now characterize the area, which would later be emulated in subsequent development.

81Ms. Smith opined that the character of Richmond Street is desirable to maintain, as it represents a stable residential streetscape that is picturesque and attractive. She continued that the character is supported by City guidelines that have maintained the character of the area and helped guide new development on Richmond Street for over two decades.

82Ms. Smith maintained that the quality and nature of Richmond Street would be negatively altered if the Subject Property were considerably altered or lost.

83Ms. Smith analyzed 12 streetscape features identified on Richmond Street and assessed the Subject Property for its contribution to the collection of features. Based on her findings, the Subject Property reflects, including but not limited to, 12 of the features that contribute to the character of Richmond Street.

84Mr. Schemool stated that the Subject Property lies outside the Village Local Centre (“VLC”) and that the VLC standards do not apply in this case.

85Mr. Schemool asserted that the City's photographic and descriptive evidence failed to demonstrate a cohesive or historically meaningful streetscape.

86Mr. Schemool argued that only two of the 12 streetscape and physical elements cited by Ms. Smith bear any resemblance to the 23 elements for in-fill lot development in the Village Core Neighbourhood Design Guidelines, and they share only partial similarity.

87The Tribunal notes that that the following framework provides design guidance for proposed developments in the Village Core Neighbourhood Design Guidelines:

The following checklists should be used by applicants in the design of proposed developments in the Village Core neighbourhood. The checklist should form part of the submission for single lot residential infill, townhouse and apartment developments. As mentioned in Chapter 4, it is not necessary to meet every single guideline. There are no rules regarding the minimum or maximum number of guidelines that have to be met. Some guidelines may be irrelevant to the application. There is no priority given to the importance of any of the individual guidelines. This will vary with each application.

The conformity with the intent of the guidelines will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Where guidelines cannot be met, a brief explanation should be provided. In the end, care must be taken to not offend the principles that form the basis of the guidelines.

88It is the Tribunal’s view that the purpose of the Village Core Neighbourhood Guidelines is to harmonize proposed development with existing development in the area that is described in the document as follows:

This neighbourhood is the antithesis of modern neighbourhood planning and engineering. It has evolved organically over two hundred years, accommodating changing architectural styles, and the needs of its residents. The lot patterns, setbacks, building forms and road standards and the interrelationships among those physical factors reflect this evolution. And, as obvious from the analysis below, the evolution did not adhere to any strict rules about how architecture, land use planning, landscape architecture and municipal engineering should interact with each other in any uniform manner. This is a good thing, but also a difficult concept to “plan” for.

89In her witness statement, Ms. Smith identified that the “appropriate area” to analyze for this criterion was surrounding the Subject Property on both sides from Richmond Street – from approximately Elizabeth Street North in the east to Elmdale Court in the west. Ms. Smith analyzed this section of Richmond Street reflecting a late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century residential village character established by the presence and combination of the 12 common streetscapes and physical elements, which the Subject Property reflects.

90The Tribunal again found the submissions of Mr. Schemool challenging in evaluating this criterion. In providing evidence the Tribunal found Mr. Schemool strayed into providing opinion evidence in an area where he does not possess the requisite qualifications. The Tribunal found the evidence of Ms. Smith more assistive and reliable in evaluating this criterion.

91The Tribunal is satisfied that the Subject Property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining, and supporting the character of Richmond Street as a late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century residential village street, meeting this criterion under O.Reg 9/06.

Criterion 8: The Property is Physically, Functionally, Visually or Historically Linked to Its Surroundings

92Ms. Smith opined that the Subject Property meets Criterion 8 because it is functionally and historically linked to its surroundings; in particular, the Eliza Gaby House located directly to the east of the Subject Property at 103 Richmond Street. She continued that the Eliza Gaby House was previously designated under Part IV, s. 29 of the OHA.

93Ms. Smith stated that the Subject Property and the neighbouring Eliza Gaby House were both originally part of a larger parcel of land that Frederick Gaby consolidated on the north side of Richmond Street between 1859 and 1860.

94Ms. Smith applied the Draft Evaluation Guide to interpret and apply O.Reg 9/06 to Criterion 8 to assess the Subject Property’s contextual value. She stated that a property must have a relationship to its broader context that is important to understand the meaning of the property and/or its context. She continued that the Draft Evaluation Guide also defines a “functional” link as being “necessary to fulfill a particular purpose” while “historical” link is defined as “when there is a connection to the historic context”.

95Ms. Smith advised that the Subject Property was home to two successive generations of the Gaby family.

96Ms. Smith maintained that the Subject Property and the Eliza Gaby House are functionally and historically linked as they were built with the common purpose of housing different generations of the Gaby family within the large family property on the north side of Richmond Street.

97Ms. Smith opined that there are existing contextual links between the Subject Property and the adjacent Eliza Gaby House in their similar Picturesque Gothic Revival architectural design and consistent setbacks. She further opined that the enduring links between the two properties contribute to the contextual value of the Subject Property, as they reveal how the original property and its built form evolved over time to meet the changing needs of this multigenerational farming and business family.

98Ms. Smith identified through probate records that following Frederick Gaby’s death, his son, Levi Gaby, constructed the home on the Subject Property circa 1885, and shortly thereafter built a smaller frame house for his widowed mother immediately to the east circa 1886. She continued that the two houses are functionally and historically linked as they were built with the common purpose of housing different generations of the Gaby family within the large family property on the north side of Richmond Street.

99Mr. Schemool maintained that Richmond Street features a mix of architectural styles and eras, including heritage homes, mid-century bungalows, and modern infill. He continued that the Subject Property does not serve as a landmark, nor does it anchor a consistent streetscape.

100Mr. Schemool identified that the current appearance of the Subject Property is not reflective of a preserved heritage character, and it does not contribute meaningfully to the visual identity of the area.

101Mr. Schemool advised that his evidence shows that although Frederick Gaby owned land where the Subject Property is located, there were multiple structures on the parcel. He continued there was no evidence to show that the Gaby family ever resided in the home.

102Mr. Schemool stated that after 1890, the Gaby family did not own Lot 27, where Subject Property is located. He continued that the historical link between the Subject Property and the Eliza Gaby House remains unverified.

103Mr. Schemool noted that in comparing the Subject Property to the Eliza Gaby House, the architectural styles differ and the historical narrative surrounding the Subject Property is inconsistent and unsupported.

104Mr. Schemool summarized that in the absence of a clear connection between the Gaby family and both properties, the heritage rationale lacks foundation.

105As previously noted, Mr. Schemool testimony repeatedly providing opinion evidence. The Tribunal recognizes that his arguments and opinions were based upon his research; the quantum of his research was derived from secondary sources. The Tribunal found the evidence of Ms. Smith more assistive and reliable in evaluating this criterion.

106Accordingly, the Tribunal preferred the opinion evidence provided by of Ms. Smith and finds that the Subject Property is functionally and historically linked to its surroundings, and therefore meets this criterion for designation under the O.Reg 9/06.

SUMMARY

107For a property to be considered to be designated under Part IV, s.29 of the OHA, two of the nine criterion under O.Reg 9/06 must be met.

108Based on the evidence presented in this Hearing, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Subject Property meets four criterion prescribed in O.Reg 9/06 as follows:

• Criterion 1: The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method.

• Criterion 4: The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to a community.

• Criterion 7: The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of an area.

• Criterion 8: The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings.

109Accordingly, the Tribunal determines that the Subject Property contains CHVI to satisfy designation under Part IV, s. 29 of the OHA.

ORDER

110THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal against By-law No. 29-24 of the City of Richmond Hill is dismissed. The by-law remains in full force and effect.

“W. Daniel Best”

W. DANIEL BEST

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.