17 Elm GP Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2025 CanLII 33065

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement

du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

April 08, 2025

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-23-000881

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

Appellant:

17 Elm GP Inc.

Subject:

Objection to Designation By-law 742-2023

Property Address:

15 Elm Street

Municipality/UT:

City of Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000881

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000881

OLT Case Name:

17 Elm GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Heard:

July 10-11, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

17 Elm GP Inc.

Rodney Gill

City of Toronto

Michael Mahoney

Matthew Longo

DECISION DELIVERED BY DANIEL NELSON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

Introduction

1The City of Toronto (“City”) has designated the property located at 15 Elm Street (“Property”) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (“OHA”) by operation of By-law No. 742-2023, which was adopted on July 20, 2023.

2The City issued its Notice of Intention to Designate the Property on May 16, 2023. 17 Elm GP Inc. (“Appellant”) objected to the designation and filed a letter of objection on May 19, 2023.

3There were no requests for status at the Hearing. The only Parties to the Hearing were the City and the Appellant.

4The Parties’ Joint Book of Documents was entered into evidence as Exhibit 1. The Appellant’s Photo Book was marked as Exhibit 2, and the Appellant’s Witness Statement was entered as Exhibit 3. The City’s Witness Statement was entered as Exhibit 4, the Reply Witness Statement was entered as Exhibit 5, and The City’s Photo Book was entered as Exhibit 6.

Background

5Located in the historic St. John’s Ward, in the City, which is often referred to as simply “The Ward” (“The Ward”), the Property is a two-story masonry building that was constructed circa 1867-1868 in a vernacular Georgian or Georgian Revival style. It was originally a residence and built for Robert Kennedy, an Irish Canadian bricklayer. Alterations in circa 1922-1924 resulted in a storefront on the ground floor and an offset entrance with a residence above.

Issues

6The issue before the Tribunal is whether the Property meets at least two of the following criteria from O Reg 9/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (“O Reg 9/06”), as identified by the City:

• Criterion 1: Is the Property a rare, unique, or early example of a style, type, or expression?

• Criterion 5: Does the Property have historical value, or associative value, because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture?

• Criterion 7: Does the Property have contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of an area?

• Criterion 8: Does the Property have contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings?

CASE FOR THE APPELLANT

7The Appellant’s position is that the Property meets none of the specified four criteria. The building is not important and has been too heavily degraded by changes to warrant designation.

8The Appellant called Andrew Pruss, a Principal at ERA Architects Inc. with over 35 years of experience in architecture, specializing in heritage architecture, as an expert witness with the consent of the City.

9Mr. Pruss directed the preparation of the Heritage Impact Assessment (“HIA”) and Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (“CHER”), both of which are set out in Exhibit 1, and these found, in his view, that the Property did not meet the criteria for cultural heritage value under O Reg 9/06. The following is a summary of those conclusions:

1. The Property lacks significant design, craftsmanship, or technical achievement. The building on the Property has undergone extensive alterations that have significantly impacted its integrity and original design. These changes have diminished the Property's ability to convey its historical and architectural significance.

2. The Property does not display direct associations with significant historical events, persons, or organizations. The historical research conducted as part of the CHER did not uncover any notable connections that would warrant heritage designation. The Property does not contribute to an understanding of the historical development of the area in a meaningful way.

3. The building on the Property is in poor condition. The poor state of the building further undermines its heritage value and raises concerns about the feasibility and cost of preservation, although it is important to note that this is not a criterion and cannot be considered.

10His testimony began with a review of photographs and much speculation that the Property had been heavily altered not only in circa 1924, but since 1952 as well, based on an oblique angle photo of the building, as well as photographs from 1991. His view was that the Property was degraded with the significant alterations that have taken place since it was built.

Rare, Unique, or Early Example of a Style, Type, or Expression

11Mr. Pruss argued that the Property was neither Georgian nor Georgian Revival, and since this Property was vernacular, and as that is not a style, the Property cannot be designated under this criterion. Rather, it is, in his view, a Confederation-era house-form building on the Property, although how this cannot be a type or expression (in the words of the criterion) was not made clear.

12He also argued that the Property had been degraded and significantly altered, which, while not a criterion, can affect the ability of a property to meet a criterion. It was not a good example of an historic form of construction, nor good for redevelopment. However, in cross-examination, he did acknowledge that no examination of the condition or structure was performed.

Historic of Associative Value that Contributes to an Understanding

13Mr. Pruss agreed that it was within an area of the City associated with early immigrant buildings but there was, in his view, no connection to give rise to such an understanding. There was no evidence to suggest that it had any associations with significant events, activities, or persons, and was otherwise unremarkable. In his view, the previous assessments conducted by the City in 1973-1974, 1990, and 2017 also concluded that the Property did not have sufficient historical or associative value to warrant designation.

Defining, Maintaining, or Supporting the Character of an Area

14The area, in Mr. Pruss’ view, being Elm Street between Yonge Street and Bay Street, was very diverse and eclectic, and therefore, this Property did not define, maintain, or support the character of the area.

15The Property does not contribute significantly to the contextual value of the area. Although it is located within the view corridor Old City Hall, the building itself does not enhance or support the character of the surrounding area. The extensive alterations and poor condition of the building have diminished its ability to contribute to the historical and architectural context of Elm Street.

Physically, Functionally, Visually, or Historically Linked to Its Surroundings

16Again, in Mr. Pruss’s view, the Property was separate from the rest of Elm Street’s development, and even if it was, it would not merit designation.

17The building does not form an integral part of a larger group of buildings that collectively represent a significant historical or architectural theme, nor any uniformity of scale, material, form, or era.

18Some of the properties on Elm Street have similar setbacks. They are house-form buildings, two storeys, similar in scale to their neighbours, but in his view, it was not harmonious with its surroundings, and therefore, not linked.

CASE FOR THE CITY

19The City takes the position that the Property meets all four of the identified criteria, and should therefore, be designated.

20The City called, as its expert witness, Liz McFarland, without objection of the Appellant. She is a Senior Heritage Planner in the Heritage Planning Division of City Planning for the City. She is a Doctor of Philosophy candidate in the History of Architecture and Urban Development at Cornell University, where she also earned her Master of Arts in the same field, with a minor concentration in Historic Preservation Planning.

21In her expert witness statement, Ms. McFarland argued that the Property has cultural heritage value or interest because it meets four out of the nine criteria set out in O. Reg. 9/06. Specifically, she stated that the Property has design value as a rare example of a Confederation-era house-form building in the Georgian Revival style, historical value for its contribution to understanding the City's first immigrant neighbourhood, and contextual value for its importance in defining the character of Elm Street and its historical links to the surroundings.

22She argued that designation is not about just preserving “pretty properties in wealthy neighbourhoods.” Often these types of modest vernacular properties are lost over time because of redevelopment and being undervalued.

23Ms. McFarland's evidence included a detailed historical overview of the Property and its context within the neighbourhood of The Ward, which was a significant immigrant neighbourhood in the City from the 1840s to the 1950s. She described the architectural features of the Property, including its red brick construction, rubble stone foundation, and the early 1920s storefront addition. She also highlighted the Property's significance as part of a collection of nineteenth century house-form buildings that contribute to the unique quality of Elm Street. This Property was altered over time to serve the needs of the occupants.

Rare, Unique, or Early Example of a Style, Type, or Expression

24Ms. McFarlane argued that the Property is valued because it is a remaining example of a Confederation-era house-form building designed in the Georgian style. This is made evident, in her view, because of the brick construction, rubble stone foundation, and the various brick, stone, and wood details on the building, and in particular, the symmetrically arranged windows on the upper storey, which contain masonry sills and segmental arched brick headers in a soldier course pattern.

25She suggested that Confederation was a significant event in Canada’s history and this Confederation-era house-form building provided an understanding of that time.

26Ms. McFarlane’s view was that the Property reflected a Georgian vernacular style, with balanced facade, symmetry, simplicity, use of brick, balanced chimneys, and minimal detailing, but was a local interpretation of the Georgian style applied later, during the reign of Queen Victoria, making it Georgian Revival. It was a well-tried type made of local materials.

27Built between October 1867 and April 1868, the Property represents one of the surviving Confederation-era house-form buildings in the City and East York district. She testified that only 2% of the properties on the City’s Heritage Register, listed or designated, were built before 1870.

28Later, in circa 1922-1924, a storefront was added at street level with an off-set entrance to the residence on the upper storey. This entrance to the upper residence maintains its wood and glass transom and door surround.

29In her view, this residential/commercial mixed-use variant of house-form building is considered a defining feature of the south side of Elm Street today.

Historic of Associative Value that Contributes to an Understanding

30The Property has significant historical or associative value as it represents this surviving Confederation-era house-form in the Toronto and East York district. The Property stands as part of a remnant collection of heritage buildings from this earliest period of subdivision and urban development along the south side of Elm Street

31It was Ms. McFarlane’s testimony that this Property is part of a significant collection of nineteenth century house-form buildings that represent the early development of Elm Street between Yonge Street and Bay Street within the historically important neighbourhood of The Ward. This collection of diverse nineteenth century building types and uses has contributed to the unique character of Elm Street today. It is located in a neighbourhood originally developed with mainly residential properties in the mid-to-late nineteenth century, and it shares similarities in type, scale, placement, and setback with other properties on the City's Heritage Register on the south side of Elm Street.

32The physical form of the Property is a “visual clue” as to how the people living in The Ward, which was ethnically and culturally diverse, and saw waves of immigrants, lived and worked, in layers, over time.

33The building also represents the historical evolution of the area, starting in the 1920s, when house-form buildings on the south side of Elm Street between Yonge Street and Bay Street were converted to mixed commercial and residential uses. This variant of the house-form building typology represents a visible layering of building additions and patterns of adaptation that reflect the contributions of various immigrant communities to the area.

Defining, Maintaining, or Supporting the Character of an Area

34In Ms. McFarlane’s view, the Property is part of this remnant collection of heritage buildings from the earliest period of subdivision and urban development along the south side of Elm Street. The Property stands as part of this historical context, along with nearby properties that have been identified as having cultural heritage value or interest.

35The Property contributed to the visual character of the area by maintaining that streetscape. The building's design and physical features are visually consistent with other heritage properties in the vicinity. An examination of the photographs provided in Exhibit 1 showed, in her view, this similar scale and setback. The north side was institutional and grand while the south side was residential and vernacular because they were, generally speaking, built earlier and part of the subdivision of James Fleming, who had purchased the land in 1837.

36This visual consistency helps to define and support the character of the area.

Physically, Functionally, Visually, or Historically Linked to Its Surroundings

37McFarlane also testified that, in a neighbourhood that was primarily developed with residential properties in the mid-to-late 19th century, the Property stands out. Located on the south side of Elm Street between Yonge Street and Bay Street, it is surrounded by numerous properties of similar type, scale, placement, and setback, all of which are recognized on the City's Heritage Register.

ANALYSIS

38It is, fundamentally, the role of the Tribunal to, in cases of dispute, evaluate the evidence before it to determine, in cases such as this, whether a property meets two or more of the criteria set out in O. Reg. 9/06. This is done by examining both primary and secondary historical sources within the context of the words of the criteria established by the Ontario Legislature.

39As is usual in cases of this nature, the Tribunal is faced with sifting through the evidence of two expert witnesses and their interpretations of historical sources.

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 ([O. Reg. 9/06](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-9-06/latest/o-reg-9-06.html)(2)(1))

40The analysis of this criterion in respect to this Property consists of two steps:

1. Is the Property an example of a style, type, or expression?

2. Is the Property a rare, unique, representative, or early example of that style, type, or expression?

Style, Type, or Expression

41Much was made, in this case, of whether the Property constituted a style or not, since it is vernacular. Firstly, any expert must be cautious in any architectural analysis of a property. While some buildings may neatly fall within one style or another, as determined by academic rubrics, many do not and that does not preclude designation.

42The Tribunal, in its earlier incarnation as the Conservation Review Board, noted in Faghani v. Toronto (City), (“Faghani”):

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.¹

43The property in Faghani was analysed within the context of known architects but what of properties, such as the one under consideration here, that were built without architects in the modern sense of the word? What of buildings constructed without experts and without architectural knowledge? It cannot have been the intention of the Ontario Legislature that only elite building forms, reflecting accepted academic norms for such structures, are to be designated.

44This style, whether one calls it Georgian, or Georgian Revival (or indeed a host of other alternate names used by academics to describe the style), became a safe and conservative style, or type, that evolved over time and was adapted and reinterpreted at the hands of untrained architects. It was a style that never really disappeared but was reimagined and reconfigured over and over again to suit the needs of architects, builders, their clients and driven by cost, availability of supplies, and many other cultural and economic forces.

45This Property is vernacular in design and the Parties agree on that. But do we exclude vernacular buildings because they do not conveniently fit a style? The answer, surely, must be no. To argue that a vernacular building does not express a style smacks of architectural elitism. But, even if we accept the argument that a vernacular design is not a style per se, then it surely constitutes a type or expression within the meaning of the criterion. That it is modest and built for a working-class resident of Toronto does not exclude it from this step in the criterion.

46Despite its alterations over the years, this Property clearly expresses a vernacular Georgian style, type, or expression with its balanced façade, its restrained decoration, and symmetry. It is, in the words of Ms. McFarland, a “modest vernacular interpretation” of the style. Thus, the first step in the test for this criterion has been met.

47For convenience, the Tribunal will refer to the Property’s style or type throughout the rest of the decision as “Georgian” or “Georgian vernacular”.

Rare, Unique, Representative, or Early Example

48While none of the Parties made it explicit, it appears that no one believed that the Property in question is unique in the way, for example, that the Sharon Temple in East Gwillimbury is completely one-of-a-kind, and so this aspect of the second step can be safely skipped over.

49Nor was it made clear whether or not the Parties considered it representative, which requires a high level of analysis, as was noted in Baker v. Port Hope (Municipality):

To be representative of a style or type, the Review Board considers that the proponent should first describe the benchmark characteristics of a recognized style or type within the context of architectural history, and then provide evidence as to how the present example meets or is typical of that benchmark. Several classically inspired revival styles were prevalent in the first few decades of the 20th century, including the Beaux-Arts style, the Edwardian Classical style, the Modern Classical style and the Georgian Revival style. Each had their own characteristics and approach to using classical elements, varying in form, scale, decorative program, surface treatment and materials. Classical styles were also employed during the early 19th century in Canada: Palladian, Neoclassical, and Italianate…What are the characteristics that distinguish that style from others? In what ways are the buildings in their current condition, typical of the style? All of these components are necessary in order to determine the extent to which each building conforms to the expected elements of the style.²

50While some time was spent on whether or not it was Georgian or Georgian Revival, no rigorous analysis of the Property was attempted to demonstrate whether it was representative or not. It would also, necessarily, be difficult to analyse a vernacular example of a style or type as representative, since vernacular buildings are often idiosyncratic interpretations of a style or type rather than being representative in the academic sense.

51Thus, we are left with the question of whether or not the Property is either a rare or early example of a vernacular Georgian type or expression.

52The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Ms. McFarland who provided evidence from land registry and tax records that the Property was constructed between October 1867 and April 1868. As noted above, only some 2% of the properties on the City’s Heritage Register for the City and East York district, whether listed or designated, were built before 1870, which appears to, prima facie, make this Property rare.

53The City’s analysis of existing buildings from the Confederation era demonstrates, markedly, the rarity of this built form, particularly where it was vernacular and modest (as opposed to surviving elite examples). As Ms. McFarlane noted, all too often, it is only these elite structures that survive, and that is a disservice to the history of the lives of the majority of Torontonians, who have lived here since its foundation.

54Is it also early? It depends, of course, on the definition of “early”. As The Tribunal has noted repeatedly, the terms in O. Reg. 9/06 must be viewed within their context, and the context here is whether it is early within the context of the City and The Ward.

55Academically, it is either too late to be Georgian, and arguably, too early to be Georgian Revival. The Property falls between these periods. But, again, this is vernacular architecture, which does not necessarily follow elite trends and cannot be analysed rigorously within academic rubrics. As this was not really explored to any extent by the Parties, it is impossible to determine, on the evidence before the Tribunal, whether the Property is an early example of vernacular Georgian architecture within its context in the City and The Ward.

56However, what remains clear, on the evidence before the Tribunal, is that this Property is a rare example of a modest working-class vernacular Georgian built form and, therefore, meets this criterion for designation under the O. Reg. 9/06.

Criterion 5: The Property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture.

57This is an underexamined criterion and is often related to archeological sites rather than buildings. Archaeological sites rarely come before the Tribunal.

58Nevertheless, to analyse this criterion, it is clear that the Tribunal must determine the following three questions:

1. What is the information that the Property yields, or could yield?

2. What is the applicable community or culture?

3. How does that information contribute to an understanding of that community or culture?

The Information

59The facts relative to the Property have been largely discussed above, but in summary, the Property is a rare surviving vernacular Georgian building, built between 1867-1868 for an Irish Canadian bricklayer, in a working-class immigrant part of the City known as The Ward. It later evolved, along with Elm Street, into a low-rise, mixed-use street used for both residential and commercial purposes.

60There was no particular evidence to argue that the information contributed to an understanding of a culture, but rather it was the City’s contention that the information contributed to a community, as it demonstrated a built form in the City’s first immigrant neighbourhood. It is part of a remnant collection of heritage buildings from this earliest period of subdivision and urban development of this community driven by larger historic trends in immigration, like the Irish potato famine and the escape of American slaves to Canada via the Underground Railroad. The first owner of this Property was from Ireland.

61The Property provides information on an historic community, but how does the information contribute to an understanding of this immigrant community thrown together by socio-economic conditions? It is a vernacular modest building befitting an immigrant working-class member of this community. It serves as a powerful reminder that not everyone in the Confederation era of the City enjoyed elegant and gracious living in grand homes like the Grange or Campbell House.

62In the end, the Tribunal must accept the evidence of the City. The Property clearly yields information about the lives of working-class immigrant residents of The Ward, which contributes to an understanding of that community. Therefore, the Property meets this criterion for designation under O. Reg. 9/06.

Criterion 7: Does the Property have contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area?

63This criterion was discussed at length in Zhang v. Amherstburg (Township), (“Zhang”), which set out the test for evaluating it:

To determine whether a property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of an area, it is first necessary to ask the following questions:

a) What is the area in question?

b) What is the character of the area today?

c) Does the property define, support, or maintain the character of that area?

d) Is it desirable to maintain the character of the area as it is today?³

What is the Area?

64The determination of the area in question is not formulaic. As noted in Zhang:

In order to determine the metes and bounds of an area under analysis, one must understand the character of that area. It is only through an understanding of the qualitative character does the boundaries become clear, or at least, less mirky. Yet, an understanding of the area is necessary to discern any particular character. Too big an area can make the discernment of a character impossible; too small and it may be irrelevant. Thus, in many respects, the determination of character and the area are necessarily interwoven into a common determination of a ‘sense of place’ rather than being an algebraic equation. It is not a priori knowledge but, rather, experiential.⁴

65One must also remember that hard boundaries to an area are likewise impossible to define, as was highlighted in Cassone v. Ottawa (City): “Boundaries of areas, in respect to this criterion, will always be necessarily fuzzy. There will be transitional spaces between areas. There is no hard line to an area in applying this criterion.”⁵

66Elm Street, part of The Ward, is a well-preserved area that has largely survived over the past 150 years, while much of the remainder of The Ward has been erased. The reports set out in Exhibit 1 make this point clearly.

What is the Character of the Area Today?

67Most of the time, when designating a property under the OHA, it is necessary to look into the past. The Tribunal must sift through primary and secondary sources, along with expert testimony that interprets those sources. But while this a process of hindsight, it is also of fundamental importance, albeit obvious, to note that designation means protecting a property as it stands today, and within its context, today.

68As was noted in Zhang, this ‘sense of place’ is not intended to be frozen in time. Indeed, it cannot be so for streets evolve over time and there will be new construction inserted into that area. Living things, like trees, grow and die. Change cannot invalidate contextual value, otherwise, meeting this criterion would be impossible.

69A review of the Property, in its context, in the pictures and reports provided by the Parties, it is possible to discern this ‘sense of place’: it is a collection of older, vernacular buildings, of modest scale and form.

70The properties along Elm Street exhibit comparable architectural styles and setbacks, which have been specifically identified as heritage attributes in other cases.⁶

Does the Property Define, Support, or Maintain the Character of that Area?

71Scrolling through the photographs of Elm Street provided by the Parties demonstrates the sense of place of this street. There is a mix of designated and non-designated properties, generally fairly narrow in width, of two-three storeys, built through the 1860s-1890s. The Property itself fits into this sense of place clearly and easily. Thus, by being an early building on Elm Street, it helps define, support, and maintain that character. It is, therefore, a patently important part of the sense of place, as defined in Zhang.

Is it desirable to Maintain the Character of the Area as it is Today?

72The Appellant is appealing this designation in order to demolish the Property. That is, of course, not, strictly speaking, relevant to a designation analysis, but does go to the heart of this question. The loss of this Property will necessarily weaken this sense of place and further erase the largely expunged immigrant working-class’ story of The Ward in the City. To maintain the character of the area is to preserve this important, but often ignored, story. To maintain this Property is to help maintain that character and, therefore, support the preservation of that story.

73By defining, supporting, and maintaining the character of the area, the Property must have contextual value, and therefore meets this criterion for designation.

Criterion 8: Does the Property have contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings?

74The issue of whether a property is linked or not was discussed in Black v. Niagara-on-the-Lake (Town) (“Black”). In Black, the Conservation Review Board, as the Tribunal was known then, defined “linked” as requiring a substantial or important connection between a property and its surroundings that contributes to the cultural heritage value or interest of that property. This connection must be more than just physical proximity; it must establish a meaningful relationship that enhances the understanding and appreciation of a property's heritage value:

In undertaking such an analysis of each individual property, it is important to understand the concept of what “linked” means within the context of this criterion. It is not enough, for example, to say that one property is “linked” to another simply because they are side-by-side. Such a definition, reductio ad absurdum, would mean that every property in Ontario could qualify for designation, as a daisy-chain, and this cannot be the intention of the Ontario Legislature. Rather, in the view of the Review Board, to be “linked” within the context of this regulation necessarily means there must be some substantial or important connection between the property and its surroundings that ‘ensure[s] the attainment of the legislature’s objectives.’ In other words, this important connection must establish CHVI [cultural heritage value or interest].⁷

75The issue of whether the Property was physically or functionally linked to its surroundings was not discussed in detail at the Hearing and therefore will not be addressed in this Decision. Nor was there any particular evidence to support that the Property was visually linked, except for the fact that there were some similarities to other properties on Elm Street.

76Thus, the Tribunal is left with the question of whether the Property is historically linked to its surroundings, and whether such linkage creates cultural heritage value or interest.

77Even here, the evidence was not particularly strong or compelling to establish the historic linkages. There are the general historic links to The Ward as an important immigrant community, and James Fleming’s early subdivision of his property that established Elm Street and the plot upon which this Property was built, but to hold that that link alone creates cultural heritage value or interest would mean that every property on Elm Street would require designation. Thus, it is clear that while there are links, there is no substantial or important connection between the Property and its surroundings to give rise to cultural heritage value or interest to justify designation. Therefore, the Tribunal concludes that the Property does not warrant designation under this criterion.

ORDER

78Having considered the evidence before it, and the submissions of the Parties at the Hearing, and for the reasons set forth above, the Tribunal orders that the appeal against designation be denied in part and granted in part.

79The appeal is denied in part because the Property has cultural heritage value or interest as it meets criteria 1, 5, and 7 of O. Reg. 9/06, and therefore must be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.

80The appeal, however, is granted in part as the Property does not warrant designation under criterion 8.

81The City is ordered to amend By-law No. 742-2023 in accordance with this Decision.

“Daniel Nelson”

DANIEL NELSON

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.

Footnotes

1. 1Faghani v. Toronto (City), 2018 CanLII 37799 (ON CONRB) at para. 59.
2. 2Baker v. Port Hope (Municipality), 2019 CanLII 20795 (ON CONRB) at para. 70.
3. 3Zhang v. Amherstburg (Township), 2021 CanLII 83338 (ON LT) at para. 28.
4. 4Ibid, at para 29.
5. 5Cassone v. Ottawa (City), 2024 CanLII 14494 (ON LT) at para. 55.
6. 6See, for example, Black v. Niagara-on-the-Lake (Town), 2021 CanLII 44083 (ON CONRB) at para 54.
7. 7Ibid, at para 45.