Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 23, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001257
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended
Appellant: DGB Trafalgar Limited
Subject: Objection to designation By-law 2023-154
Description: Bentley Family Farmhouse
Property Location: 3444 Trafalgar Road
Municipality: Town of Oakville
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001257
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001257
OLT Case Name: DGB Trafalgar Limited vs. Oakville (Town)
Heard: May 14, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| DGB Trafalgar Limited | Russell Cheeseman |
| Town of Oakville | Dennis Perlin |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED ON MAY 14, 2025 BY J. CAMPBELL AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision arises from a Settlement Hearing (“Hearing”) before the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”) regarding an appeal by DGB Trafalgar Limited (“Appellant”) of By-law 2023-154 (“By-law”), concerning the designation by the Town of Oakville (“Town”) of the building known as the Bentley Family Farmhouse (“Farmhouse”) on the subject property located at 3444 Trafalgar Road, Oakville (“Property”), as being of cultural heritage value or interest under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18 (“Heritage Act”).
BACKGROUND
2The Appellant is the registered owner of the Property. On November 15, 2023, the Town passed the By-law to designate the Farmhouse under s. 29 of the Heritage Act as being of cultural heritage value and interest (“Decision”).
3In order for a property to be designated under s. 29 of the Heritage Act, it is required to meet a minimum of two of the nine of the following criteria set forth in Ontario Regulation 09/06 (“Regulation”):
The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.
The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community.
The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2).
4The Decision was based upon a report entitled “Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report – Bentley Family Farmhouse, 3444 Trafalgar Road, Oakville, Ontario” prepared by Town and dated June 2023 (“Town Report”), which concluded that the Farmhouse met five of the nine criteria of the Regulation, being subsections 1(i), 2(i), 2(ii), 3(ii) and 3(iii) thereof.
5On November 28, 2023, the Appellant appealed the Decision to the Tribunal pursuant to Section 29(11) of the Heritage Act, on the basis that the Farmhouse met only one of the nine criteria set forth in the Regulation and therefore was not eligible for designation under s. 29 of the Heritage Act.
6The Appellant also had a detailed structural condition assessment of the Farmhouse conducted by John G. Cooke and Associates Limited, Consulting Engineers (“Structural Assessment”). The findings of the Structural Assessment were outlined in a report dated May 16, 2024, and identified a numerous number of structural issues including significant water damage and rot in the roofing system, very weakly bonded mortar in the masonry walls, cracking in the masonry walls, and significant deterioration and structural failure in the foundation walls. The Structural Assessment concluded that (i) while the Farmhouse could be retained in situ, it would need to be reconstructed piece by piece, including the roof, walls and foundation with new and salvaged materials; (ii) the Farmhouse was not a good candidate for relocation due to the very fragile and deteriorated condition of the walls and roof system; and (iii) the rubble masonry construction of the Farmhouse made it more difficult to reconstruct even if relocation was successful.
SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS
7Following the appeal of the Decision and review of the Structural Assessment, 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 Town made the joint submission (“Joint Submission”) to the Tribunal at the Hearing that:
(i) the appeal be allowed; and
(ii) the By-law be repealed.
9In support of their Joint Submission, the Appellant submitted an Affidavit of Vincent James Santamaura who is engaged as the Principal Architect and President of Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc. Mr. Santamaura provided the Tribunal with his curriculum vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty. Mr. Santamaura’s curriculum vitae indicates extensive knowledge and experience with regard to heritage matters including past employment as the founding Principal Architect and President of SRN Architects Inc., and being a member in good standing with the Ontario Association of Architects, the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, and the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (Building Specialist). The Town did not object to Mr. Santamaura being qualified as an expert in these proceedings. The Tribunal was of the view that Mr. Santamaura had 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.
10The affidavit of Mr. Santamaura reviewed the five criterion of the Regulation that were set forth in the Town Report and had formed the basis of the Decision, and concluded as follows:
(i) the Farmhouse meets the criteria set forth in s. 1(i) of the Regulation due to the construction technique used which involved stacked lake/river stone and is a testament to the resourcefulness of the settlers of the township;
(ii) the Farmhouse does not meet the criteria set forth in s. 2(i) of the Regulation as the activities of the prior owners of the Property did not rise to the level of significance to satisfy this criterion;
(iii) the Farmhouse does not meet the criteria set forth in s. 2(ii) of the Regulation as there was no evidence of any significant event or relationship to any community organization on the Property, and no other remaining structures on the Property which could contribute to yielding or communicating an understanding of a community or culture;
(iv) the Farmhouse does not meet the criteria set forth in s. 3(ii) of the Regulation as the absence of any outbuilding structures on the Property seriously diminishes the ability of the Property to illustrate its linkage to the surroundings; and
(v) the Farmhouse does not meet the criteria set forth in s. 3(iii) of the Regulation as the Property does not have a strong visual presence to the street nor does it have a connection to the Town’s collective consciousness such as a church, an arena or a general store which would render it a landmark.
11In conclusion, Mr. Santamaura’s professional opinion is that the Farmhouse does not meet the minimum required two of nine criteria under the Regulation in order to qualify for designation under s. 29 of the Heritage Act, and accordingly, the Appeal should be allowed and the By-law repealed.
12In consideration of the foregoing, the Town and the Appellant have agreed to salvage historic materials from the Farmhouse before or as part of its demolition and to relocate and/or reconstruct some of the historic materials in a new commemorative display, with a capital contribution from the Appellant, in lieu of a designation of the Farmhouse under the Heritage Act.
FINDINGS
13The Tribunal accepts the analysis and conclusions provided by Mr. Santamaura.
14Pursuant to Section 29(15) of the Heritage Act, the Tribunal has the authority to allow an appeal of a designating by-law under the Heritage Act in whole or in part, and to amend or repeal the by-law in such manner as the Tribunal may determine.
15Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Appeal be allowed in whole and that the By-law be repealed.
ORDER
16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is allowed in whole and By-law 2023-154 as set forth in Appendix “I” hereto be repealed pursuant to s.29(15)(b)(i) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18, as amended
“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