Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 13, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003943
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended
Appellant: Brodie Limited
Subject: Appeal of the passing of By-law (2022)-20689 to designate the heritage property as being of cultural heritage value or interest
Property Address: 895 and 919 York Road
Reference Number: By-law (2022)-20689
Municipality: City of Guelph
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003943
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003943
OLT Case Name: Brodie Limited vs. Guelph (City)
Heard: May 09, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Brodie Limited
Kevin Thompson
City of Guelph
Ian White
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED ON MAY 09, 2025 BY J. CAMPBELL AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Final Order
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision arises from a Settlement Hearing (the “Hearing”) before the Ontario Land Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) regarding an appeal by Brodie Limited (the “Appellant”) of Heritage Designation By-law No. (2022)-20689 (the “By-law”) concerning the designation by the City of Guelph (the “City”) of certain portions of the property located at 895 and 919 York Road, Guelph (the “Subject Property”) as being of cultural heritage value or interest under Part IV, section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18 (the “OHA”).
BACKGROUND
2The Subject Property is located in east Guelph on the south side of York Road, west of the intersection of York Road and Watson Parkway South. The Subject Property consists of approximately 6.522 hectares and contains three built heritage resources, being:
(i) A stone gate at the entrance to the Subject Property on York Road;
(ii) A farmhouse known as the Matthews farmhouse; and
(iii) A detached stone shed located adjacent to the Matthews farmhouse.
3Prior to the passage of the By-law at issue in this appeal, the Matthews farmhouse, stone shed, stone gate, and surrounding property had been listed as non-designated built heritage resources on the City’s Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties under Part IV, section 27 of the OHA since 2009.
4On July 21, 2021, the City issued an order to the Appellant with two options: either demolish the Matthews farmhouse or restore the building and the roofing system and make the building secure to bring it into compliance with applicable Property Standards By-laws.
5On July 20, 2021, the Appellant applied for Demolition Permit No. 2021-004258DP in respect of the Subject Property, which was refused by the City. A report to City Council was subsequently presented on December 13, 2021, requesting direction to publish the intention to designate the heritage resources on the Subject Property under the OHA.
6Notice of Intention to Designate the Subject Property was published on December 23, 2021, and a Notice of Passing of the By-law was published on April 28, 2022. The Appellant appealed the passing of the By-law to the Tribunal on May 30, 2022.
SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS
7Following previous Case Management Conferences held on February 14, 2023, June 8, 2023, and July 9, 2024, the Parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a settlement in respect of the matters under appeal.
JOINT SUBMISSIONS
8As a result of the settlement between the Parties, the Appellant and the Respondent made the joint submission (the “Joint Submission”) to the Tribunal at the Hearing that:
(i) The Appeal be allowed, in part;
(ii) The By-law be amended to repeal and replace Schedule A: Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest with a revised version of Schedule A attached hereto as Appendix I, in order to relocate the last sentence of the seventh paragraph to the end of the eighth paragraph; and
(iii) The By-law be amended to repeal and replace Schedule B: Description of Heritage Attributes, with a revised version of Schedule B attached hereto as Appendix II, in order to strike the reference to “The portion of the driveway within the subject property from the gate to the east side of the farmhouse and shed”.
9In support of their Joint Submission, the City called Mr. Stephen Robinson as a witness who is engaged as a Senior Heritage Planner for the City. Mr. Robinson provided the Tribunal with his curriculum vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty. Mr. Robinson’s curriculum vitae indicates extensive knowledge and experience with regard to heritage matters including: a Master of Arts degree in Art & Architectural History from Concordia University; experience in the field of heritage planning since 2001 in municipal planning departments and also as a private heritage planning consultant; and a membership with the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals. The Tribunal is of the view that Mr. Robinson has sufficient expertise in heritage matters to be qualified as an expert in such regard, and accordingly, he was qualified to provide opinion evidence in the matters under review in this Hearing.
10Mr. Robinson testified that as the Matthews farmhouse and stone shed located on the Subject Property have been vacant since being originally listed on the City’s Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties in 2009, the Subject Property has been considered to be at risk due to the poor condition of the roof and the challenges associated with unauthorized entry into the buildings. As the Appellant’s attempts to tarp the roof and to block entry at the ground floor level had not been successful, it became clear to City staff that a plan that would, at a minimum, stabilize the Matthews farmhouse was required until decisions could be made with respect to a longer-term conservation plan.
11In consideration of the foregoing, the Parties entered into settlement negotiations with a view to facilitating the stabilization of the Subject Property and its potential integration into the Ontario Reformatory Heritage Conservation District boundary. As a result of their discussions, the Parties made the Joint Submission to the Tribunal set forth above.
12Mr. Robinson testified that the modifications proposed to the Schedules of the By-law pursuant to the Joint Submission are not inappropriate as:
(i) The modification in Schedule A of the By-law is editorial and non-substantive in nature and does not alter the underlying meaning, content or intention of the By-law; and
(ii) The modification in Schedule B of the By-law only removes the reference to a modern driveway, which is not an essential heritage attribute.
13Mr. Robinson further testified that in his professional opinion, the Order jointly sought by the City and the Appellant pursuant to the Joint Submission:
(i) Represents good heritage planning;
(ii) Would achieve the City’s objectives under the OHA and respect applicable policies of the City’s Official Plan; and
(iii) Would facilitate the stabilization of the Subject Property and its potential integration into the Ontario Reformatory Heritage Conservation District boundary.
FINDINGS
14The Tribunal accepts the analysis and conclusions provided by Mr. Robinson.
15Pursuant to section 29(15) of the OHA, the Tribunal has the authority to allow an appeal of a designating by-law under the OHA, in whole or in part, and to amend the by-law in such manner as the Tribunal may determine.
16Accordingly, the Tribunal will allow the Appeal in part and direct that the By-law be amended to:
(i) Repeal and replace Schedule A: Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of the By-law with a revised version of Schedule A attached hereto as Appendix I, in order to relocate the last sentence of the seventh paragraph to the end of the eighth paragraph; and
(ii) Repeal and replace Schedule B: Description of Heritage Attributes, of the By-law with a revised version of Schedule B attached hereto as Appendix II, in order to strike the reference to “The portion of the driveway within the subject property from the gate to the east side of the farmhouse and shed”.
ORDER
17THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is allowed in part.
18THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that the City of Guelph Heritage Designation By-law No. (2022)-20689 is hereby amended to:
(i) Repeal and replace Schedule A: Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest thereto with the Schedule A attached as Appendix I to this Order; and
(ii) Repeal and replace Schedule B: Description of Heritage Attributes thereto, with the Schedule B attached as Appendix II to this Order.
“Jennifer Campbell”
JENNIFER CAMPBELL
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.
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX II