Anglican Diocese of Toronto v. City of Mississauga, 2025 CanLII 60364

ISSUE DATE: June 20, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001080

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

Appellant: Anglican Diocese of Toronto

Subject: Objection to Designation By-law 11-2024

Description: To facilitate heritage designation

Reference Number: Heritage By-Law BL-0154-2024

Property Address: 26 Stavebank Road

Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001080

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001080

OLT Case Name: Anglican Diocese of Toronto vs. Mississauga (City)

Heard: May 30, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Anglican Diocese of Toronto

David Tang

City of Mississauga

Kathryn Pfaff

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED ON MAY 30, 2025 BY J. CAMPBELL AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision arises from a settlement Hearing (the “Hearing”) before the Ontario Land Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) regarding an appeal by the Anglican Diocese of Toronto (the “Appellant”) of By-law 0154-2024 (the “By-law”) concerning the designation by the City of Mississauga (the “City”) of the subject property located at 26 Stavebank Road, Mississauga (the “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 (the “Heritage Act”).

BACKGROUND

2The Property is located south of Park Street East on the west side of Stavebank Road in the Port Credit Local Area Plan in the City of Mississauga. It has a property area of 3492.83m² and a depth of approximately 63m. The Property hosts a church structure which is located on the south side of the Property and which consists of a two-storey church built in 1931, which expands upon an original 1866 structure. The current sanctuary and nave were expansions added in 1947-49, with final additions added in 1955. A historic cemetery dating back to the original 1867 church extends across the northern portion of the Property.

3On September 11, 2024, the City passed the By-law to designate the Property as having cultural and heritage value and interest under Section 29 of the Heritage Act.

4The Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest notes that the church is a 1950s Contempo style of architecture and that it is representative of a rare example of this style of architecture in Mississauga with an historic cemetery associated with early families within the Port Credit area.

APPEAL AND SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS

5The Appellant appealed the By-law to the Tribunal on October 24, 2024, following which the Appellant and the City engaged in settlement negotiations. At the Hearing, the Parties advised the Tribunal that a full settlement had been reached.

JOINT SUBMISSIONS

6As 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; and

(ii) the By-law be amended to repeal and replace Schedule B thereto, with a revised version of Schedule B attached hereto as Appendix I.

8In support of their Joint Submission, the City called as a witness Mr. John Dunlop, who is a qualified heritage professional in the Province of Ontario and is currently employed as the Manager, Indigenous Relations, Heritage and Museums section of the Parks, Forestry and Environment Division with the City. Mr. Dunlop provided the Tribunal with his curriculum vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty. Mr. Dunlop’s curriculum vitae indicates extensive knowledge and experience with regard to heritage matters including a Master of Arts degree in Applied Archaeology from the University of Western Ontario; membership with the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals, and more than 25 years of experience with regard to Heritage and Land Planning related matters. The Tribunal is of the view that Mr. Dunlop 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.

9Mr. Dunlop summarized the modifications being proposed to Schedule B of the By-law pursuant to the Joint Submission as follows:

a. the views and the locations of the stone walls and the elevations containing the rectilinear windows which constitute heritage attributes are particularized;

b. removal of glass blocks from the physical attributes;

c. addition of the dated cornerstones to the associative attributes;

d. removal of the general contextual description of the property and its surroundings; and

e. the removal of the stone walls being noted as dry laid stone walls, as portions do feature mortared joins from the contextual attributes.

10Mr. Dunlop also testified that the Property continues to meet at least two of the criteria set forth in Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Heritage Act, as follows:

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.
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.
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.
The Property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area.
The Property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings.

11Mr. Dunlop further testified that the proposed amendments to Schedule B of the By-law (i) are consistent with Section 29 of the Heritage Act and the corresponding Ontario Regulation 9/06; (ii) are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024; (iii) conform with the City’s Official Plan; and (iv) represent good heritage planning in the public interest.

12Lastly, Mr. Dunlop 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; and (ii) strengthens the designation By-law by providing sufficient clarity as to the heritage attributes of the Property.

FINDINGS

13The Tribunal accepts the analysis and conclusions provided by Mr. Dunlop.

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 the by-law in such manner as the Tribunal may determine.

15Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Appeal should be allowed in part and the By-law be amended to repeal and replace Schedule B of the By-law with a revised version of Schedule B attached hereto as Appendix I.

ORDER

16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is allowed in part.

17THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that the Corporation of the City of Mississauga By-law No. 0154-2024 is hereby amended to repeal and replace Schedule B thereto, with the Schedule B attached as Appendix I 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.