Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 9, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000548 OLT-24-000592

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

Appellant: Philip Schultz Subject: Refusal of Application Description: Objection to designation By-law Reference Number: By-law No. 11-2024 Property Address: 524 Brant Street Municipality/Upper Tier: Burlington/Halton OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000548 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000548 OLT Case Name: Schultz v. Burlington (City)

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

Appellant: Greg Eade Subject: Refusal of Application Description: Objection to designation By-law Reference Number: By-Law 26-2024 Property Location: 620 Brant Street Municipality/UT: Burlington/Halton OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000592 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000592 OLT Case Name: Eade v. Burlington (City)

Heard: May 27 and June 23, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel*/Representative
Greg Eade	Self-Represented
Philip Schultz	No-one Appearing
City of Burlington (the “City”)	Brittany Maione* (May 27, 2025 only) Hannah Ruby* M. Mosher* (June 23, 2025 only)

DECISION DELIVERED BY D. ARNOLD AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1These proceedings pertain to a hearing on the merits of the appeal filed by Philip Schultz (“Appellant Schutz”) pursuant to subsection 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, (the “Act”) of the City of Burlington’s By-law 11-2024 passed under the Act designating the property municipally known as 524 Brant Street in the City of Burlington (the “524 Brant Property”) as being of cultural heritage value or interest (the “524 Brant Designating By-law”) and the appeal filed by Greg Eade pursuant to subsection 29(11) of the Act of By-law 26-2024 passed under the Act designating the property municipally known 620 Brant Street in the City of Burlington (the “620 Brant Property”) as being of cultural heritage value or interest (the “620 Brant Designating By-law”). In this decision, the foregoing appeals are referred to as the “524 Brant Appeal” and the “620 Brant Appeal” respectively and the “Brant Appeals” collectively. The Brant Appeals are being heard together but are not consolidated.

2A hearing on the merits of the Brant Appeals convened on May 27, 2025 pursuant to the Procedural Order issued by the Tribunal dated December 31, 2024 (the “Procedural Order”). The Appellant Schultz did not appear and, upon communication with the case co-ordinator, the Tribunal was informed that there was an emergency on the part of Appellant Schultz. On no objection of the other parties, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings to June 23, 2025 in order to provide an opportunity for Appellant Schultz to attend the hearing on the merits of the 524 Brant Appeal. Appellant Schultz did not attend the proceedings on June 23, 2025 nor provide any communication to the Tribunal through the case co-ordinator regarding the 524 Brant Appeal and these proceedings. On June 23, 2025, the Tribunal commenced the hearing on the merits of the 524 Brant Appeal and the 620 Brant Appeal after waiting 15 minutes from the scheduled 10 a.m. start time in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules including Rule 3.3 specifically.

3The following documents were entered as Exhibits in evidence at the hearing:

• Exhibit 1: Joint Document Book dated May 16, 2025
• Exhibit 2: Visual Evidence 524 and 620 Brant Street dated May 2025
• Exhibit 3: Witness Statement of Rebecca Sciarra dated April 11, 2025 (the “Sciarra Witness Statement”)
• Exhibit 4: Witness Statement of Greg Eade regarding 620 Brant Street
• Exhibit 5: Additional Documents of the City dated June 23, 2025

4At the hearing, the Tribunal heard evidence from one expert witness, being Rebecca Sciarra, who was called by the City. Ms. Sciarra was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion heritage planning evidence. Ms. Sciarra’s Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty are found at Appendices A and B, respectively, of the Sciarra Witness Statement. With regard to the 620 Brant Appeal, the Tribunal also heard Appellant Eade’s oral evidence at the hearing.

5The following issues were set out in the Issues List of the Procedural Order pertaining to the 524 Brant Appeal:

1. Does the property at 524 Brant Street meet the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act?
2. Has the City of Burlington demonstrated that 524 Brant Street 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 as required by criterion 1 of Ontario Regulation 9/06?
3. Has the City of Burlington demonstrated that Brant Street has a character and that the property at 524 Brant Street defines, maintains, or supports that character as required by criterion 7 of Ontario Regulation 9/06?

6Appellant Schultz did not appear nor did anyone appear on Appellant Schultz’s behalf at the hearing. No evidence was called by or on behalf of Appellant Schultz at the hearing. The reasons for appeal of the 524 Brant Designating By-law set out in the Notice of Appeal filed by Appellant Schultz stated:

We believe that the heritage study was done in a none bias way. The characteristics of the architecture are not rare or unique in downtown. It is a common design throughout the downtown core. The building is in disrepair and needs brick painting due to sand basting. With wood rotted we feel that heritage will cause even more degradation due to the cost limits.

7Ms. Sciarra provided expert professional heritage planning opinion evidence at the hearing with respect to the 524 Brant Property as summarized below.

8The 524 Brant Property is located on the west side of Brant Street between Caroline Street and Birch Avenue. There is a two-and-a-half storey building that was constructed as a residence circa 1910 that has since been converted to a commercial use.

9Pursuant to the Act and Regulation 9/06 as amended by Regulation 569/22 under that Act (the “Heritage Regulation”), a municipality may pass a by-law designating a property as being of cultural heritage value or interest if at least two of the criteria prescribed by the Heritage Regulation are met. With reference to the evaluation report completed by Archeological Services Inc. dated November, 2023 (the “ASI Report”) found at Tab 11 of Exhibit 1, Ms. Sciarra opined that she agreed with and adopted the findings and opinion in the ASI Report including that the 524 Brant Property meets two of the criteria for designation set out in the Heritage Regulation, being paragraphs 1 and 7 of subsection 1(2) of the Heritage Regulation.

10Ms. Sciarra opined that the 524 Brant 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” as set out in the criterion of Subsection 1(2) Paragraph 1 of the Heritage Regulation. In this regard, Ms. Sciarra testified that a subject property needs only to meet one of “rare, unique, representative or early example” and it is not required that a subject property be “rare or unique” to satisfy this criterion. Ms. Sciarra opined that the 524 Brant Property “is a good representative example of the Edwardian Classical style, a residential building type that developed during the early twentieth-century in the historical Downtown core of the City of Burlington.” (see Paragraph 46 of the Sciarra Witness Statement) With reference to the characteristics of the Edwardian Classical style as identified in two reference publications, Robert Mikel’s publication Ontario House Styles (2004) and John Blumenson’s publication Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building terms from 1784 to Present (1990), Ms. Sciarra provided the following evidence regarding the 524 Brant Property (see Table 1 “Characteristics of the Edwardian Classical Style and 524 Brant Street” at Paragraph 49 of the Sciarra Witness Statement):

Characteristics of the Edwardian Classical style (adapted from Mikel 2004, Blumenson 1990, and City of Burlington 2006)	524 Brant Street Characteristics	Relevant Heritage Attributes
Simple balanced designs with most doors and windows having flat arches or plain stone sills and/or lintels	Yes	Segmental arch window openings with masonry sills
Smooth surfaces and many windows; less elaborate colour schemes	Yes	Red brick exterior
Square or rectangular footprint	Yes	Rectangular floor plan
2 to 2 ½ storey massing	Yes	Two-and-a-half storey residential building
Hipped roof	Yes	Hipped roof with overhanging eaves
Front-porch	No; Altered/replaced with a canopied entrance	N/A
Non-symmetrical plan and façade; Off-centre doorway	Yes	Asymmetrical arrangement of the primary elevation and side-hall plan
Dormer window, often shingled and with paired windows, often featuring a central Palladian window	Yes	Decorative elements featured in the gable end of the primary elevation, including the wood shingle cladding and Palladian window
Occasional integration of more typical “Queen Anne” style elements, such as bay or oriel windows, c cross gabled rooflines and oval windows	Yes	Oriel window, semi-circular window opening, and hipped roof with front gable feature

11The following issues were set out in the Issues List of the Procedural Order pertaining to the 620 Brant Appeal:

1. Does the property at 620 Brant Street meet the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act?
2. Has the City of Burlington demonstrated that 620 Brant Street 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 as required by criterion 1 of Ontario Regulation 9/06?
3. Has the City of Burlington demonstrated that Brant Street has a character and that the property at 620 Brant Street defines, maintains, or supports that character as required by criterion 7 of Ontario Regulation 9/06?

12The 620 Brant Property is located at the southwest corner of the Baldwin Street and Brant Street intersection with frontage on Brant Street. The property contains a two-and-a-half storey building that was constructed circa 1912 as a residence and has since been converted to a commercial use.

13In Appellant Eade’s testimony, he stated that the 620 Brant Property does not have “any distinct attributes that have heritage value” and there are many other properties in the downtown core area that have similar features that are not “particularly unusual or architecturally significant.” Appellant Eade provided evidence that “there is nothing special or unusual about the property. Its plans could have been ordered through an Eaton’s or Sears catalogue during this period [of construction.]” Appellant Eade testified that he believed that the 620 Brant Designating By-law was passed by the City in order to be “used as a barrier to future development” and that it is “not fair to the current owners.” Appellant Eade stated (at p.1 of the Eade Witness Statement):

There are a number of buildings in the core of Burlington that are similar to 620 Brant Street that have not been designated historical which gives the [620 Brant Property] an expensive punishing stigma going forward. Only 620 Brant, 524 Brant and 574 Brant are being designated out of a long list of similar properties. 620 Brant and 574 Brant are both corner properties and 524 is the closest residential property to its corner. Picking these properties is not about historical significance but as a barrier to future development on these sections of Brant.

14With regard to the “character of the area”, Appellant Eade stated (at p. 4 of the Eade Witness Statement):

Our neighbours have paved parking lots to the sidewalk with no pedestrian walkway. Their lots are completely paved. The area has not been recognized as a Heritage Conservation District or as a known or potential cultural heritage landscape. We have two buildings within the Caroline and Baldwin area with the same footprint as 620 Brant that one has been painted yellow and the other painted pink and white. They are not considered heritage.

This short street scape is not a “Rosedale” of Burlington or Toronto. Across the street is a No Frills plaza and Tim Hortons. To portray this small area as a quaint little street scape is a stretch of reality.

15With reference to the evaluation report set out in the ASI Report, Ms. Sciarra opined that she agreed with and adopted the findings and opinion in the ASI Report including that the 620 Brant Property meets two of the criteria for designation set out in the Heritage Regulation, being paragraphs 1 and 7 of subsection 1(2) of the Heritage Regulation.

16Ms. Sciarra opined that the 620 Brant 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” as set out in the criterion of Subsection 1(2) Paragraph 1 of the Heritage Regulation. In this regard, Ms. Sciarra testified that a subject property needs only to meet one of “rare, unique, representative or early example” and it is not required that a subject property be “rare or unique” to satisfy this criterion. Ms. Sciarra opined that the 620 Brant Property is representative of and “illustrates the Foursquare style as it is defined in various publications that have addressed historical architectural residential styles in the Ontario and historic downtown Burlington contexts. It was built within the time period associated with the style and is representative because it depicts features that portray Foursquare homes that are documented to have once been an ‘Ontario standard’ and a common residential heritage building style in Downtown Burlington.” (see Paragraph 54 of the Sciarra Witness Statement)

17With reference to the characteristics of the Foursquare style and heritage attributes identified in two reference publications, Robert Mikel’s publication Ontario House Styles (2004) and John Blumenson’s publication Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building terms from 1784 to Present (1990), Ms. Sciarra provided the following evidence with respect to the 620 Brant Property (see Table 2 “Characteristics of the Foursquare Style and 620 Brant Street” at Paragraph 53 of the Sciarra Witness Statement):

Characteristics of the Foursquare style (adapted from Mikel 2004, Blumenson 1990, and City of Burlington 2006)	620 Brant Street Characteristics	Relevant Heritage Attributes
Hipped roof with wide overhanging eaves	Yes	Hipped roof
2 to 2 ½ storey massing	Yes	Form, scale and massing of the building as a rectangular, two-and-a-half storey residential building
Hipped dormer windows	Yes	Hipped roof with centred dormers
Brick construction	Yes	Red brick exterior
Front-porch, full width of front elevation and with half columns, sometimes paired	Yes	Front porch supported by piers and clustered columns
Centre or side-hall plans	Yes	Centre-hall plan
Square or rectangular footprint	Yes	Rectangular residential building
Generally simple in design, and minimizing decorations and adornment; straight stone window accents, plain roof eaves	Yes	Symmetrical arrangement of the primary elevation; Rectangular window openings with masonry lintels and sills

18Ms. Sciarra opined that each of the 524 Brant Street Property and the 620 Brant Street Property individually satisfy the criterion set out in paragraph 7 of subsection 1(2) of the Heritage Regulation, specifically: “The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area.” In this regard, Ms. Sciarra opined that the Ontario Heritage Property Evaluation Guide (draft May 2021, see Tab 5 of Exhibit 1) provides direction that can be instructive in considering how to apply this criterion, specifically (at p. 39):

To meet this criterion the property needs to be in an area that has a definable character and it is desirable to maintain the character. The character of a place need not be attractive or picturesque for it to be meaningful. For example, places with an industrial character can be of cultural heritage value.

The research needs to consider how much or to what degree, the property contributes to determining, establishing, or affirming the character. For example, the research should consider what would happen to the character of the area if the property was considerably altered or lost.

Character: the combination of physical elements that together provide a place with a distinctive sense of identity. It may include geomorphology, natural features, pattern of roads, open spaces, buildings and structures, but it may also include the activities or beliefs that support the perceptions associated with the character. Area: refers to a street, neighbourhood, park, landscape, community, district, region, etc.

19Ms. Sciarra opined, with reference to the Downtown Burlington Heritage Study and Engagement Program (see Tab 11 of Exhibit 1 and paragraph 59 of the Sciarra Witness Statement), that the character of the area in which the 524 Brant Street Property and 620 Brant Street Property are located is defined by:

early twentieth-century residential building typologies displaying a range of architectural styles, materials, palettes, and forms typical of the period. Many have now been converted to commercial or mixed-use commercial/residential properties. The properties on the west side of Brant Street generally have consistent setbacks from the sidewalk, paved pathways to the front entrance, and many with maintained lawns or landscaping that reflect their historical residential functions. From Caroline Street to Baldwin Street, the vast majority of properties feature purpose-built residential structures dating to the first half of the twentieth century. A definable historical residential streetscape character on Brant Street in this location has been recognized in Official Plan policy documents.

20Ms. Sciarra provided evidence that the 524 Brant Property and the 620 Brant Property are located on the portion of the west side of Brant Street that “is part of a well-defined historical residential corridor that has a character that is strongly expressed from Baldwin Street to Caroline Street.” Ms. Sciarra opined that this streetscape “retains a good representative collection of buildings that exhibit physical features that are qualitatively experienced as an early twentieth-century streetscape expressive of the historic downtown’s residential development patterns.” Ms. Sciarra opined that although many have now been converted to commercial uses, “these adaptations have been relatively sensitive and have been implemented in a way that allows the street to maintain legibility as an early-twentieth century residential streetscape….This streetscape is considered a surviving component of the earlier residential development pattern that characterized Brant Street but which has since nearly vanished on the east side and south of Caroline Street through the replacement of buildings and/or very substantial alterations to purpose built residences.” (see paragraphs 69, 75 and 76 of the Sciarra Witness Statement)

21Ms. Sciarra opined that the 524 Brant Property and the 620 Brant Property each provide contextual value because they are important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, specifically as purpose-built residences that individually define and maintain the historic residential streetscape character of Brant Street between Caroline Street and Baldwin Street. In this regard, Ms. Sciarra provided the following evidence (see paragraphs 77 and 78 of the Sciarra Witness Statement):

The following characteristics of 524 Brant Street define and maintain the expression of a historical residential streetscape on Brant Street:

• Two-and-a-half storey massing;
• Red brick exterior;
• Ca. 1910 construction date;
• Expression of the Edwardian Classical style as discussed in Paragraph 49;
• Front-yard setback that is consistent with other residential buildings built in the first half of the twentieth century between Baldwin Street and Caroline Street;
• Orientation of the house to, and location on Brant Street;
• Landscaped lawn separating the roadway and primary building; and
• Side yard driveway

The following characteristics of 620 Brant Street define and maintain the expression of a historical residential streetscape on Brant Street:

• Two-and-half storey massing;
• Red brick exterior;
• Ca. 1912 construction date;
• Expression of the Foursquare style as discussed in Paragraph 53;
• Front-yard setback that is consistent with other residential buildings built in the first half of the twentieth century between Baldwin Street and Caroline Street;
• Orientation of the house to, and original location on Brant Street;
• Location at the northern limits of the historical Village of Burlington;
• Landscape lawn separating the roadway and primary building;
• Pedestrian walkway from Brant Street and Baldwin Street sidewalks to primary entrance of house; and
• Access from Baldwin Street to rear parking

22In cross-examination by Appellant Eade, Ms. Sciarra testified that other properties in the vicinity were evaluated with reference to the criteria for designation set out in subsection 1(2) of the Heritage Regulation and some were determined to not meet at least two of the criteria in order to be eligible for a designating by-law under Part IV of the Act. Ms. Sciarra testified that a change of the paint colour of a building would not be considered a reason in and of itself to “eliminate” a property from consideration.

23Both in direct examination and cross-examination, Ms. Sciarra testified that the criterion described in paragraph 1 of subsection 1(2) of the Heritage Regulation does not require a building to be “one-of-a-kind”, unique or rare. Ms. Sciarra testified that paragraph 1 identifies that a property may be “representative” of a “style, type, expression, material or construction method” in order to satisfy this criterion.

24Ms. Sciarra provided evidence that the City’s Official Plan in force (1997) has recognized the portion of Brant Street on which the 524 Brant Property and the 620 Brant Property are located as “having a specific character that should be preserved” and noted Policy 5.5.8 (see paragraph 70 of the Sciarra Witness Statement):

Notwithstanding the above policies, the lands on the west side of Brant Street, between Baldwin Street and Caroline Street, shall be subject to site-specific zoning regulations designed to preserve the existing low-rise, residential appearance and character of this area and to ensure compatibility with the abutting residential neighbourhood to the west (italics in original)

The 1997 Official Plan defines “preserve” as:

“To maintain the quality or condition of a resource in its current form, and to retard deterioration of the resource.” (Part VIII, 18)

25Ms. Sciarra opined that the City’s adopted 2020 Official Plan (under appeal currently) “builds upon Policy 5.5.8.2(g) of the 1997 Official Plan.” The 524 Brant Property and the 620 Brant Property are located within the Neighbourhood Mixed Use Precinct, of which nearly half of this precinct is comprised of the west side of Brant Street from Caroline Street to Baldwin Street (the location of the subject properties). The preamble to the policies for this Precinct states:

The Neighbourhood Mixed Use Precinct recognizes and conserves the historic character of Downtown along sections of Brant and Locust Streets, including the area’s buildings, streetscapes and parcel fabric. Priority within the precinct will be for the adaptive re-use of existing buildings. It is intended that development be limited and where development occurs within the precinct, it will respect and maintain the existing historic character of the area’s parcel fabric and buildings through the use of lotting patterns and building forms and materials currently existing within the precinct (Italics in original) (8-31).

26In conclusion, Ms. Sciarra opined that the 524 Brant Property is a good representative example of the Edwardian Classical style while the 620 Brant Property is a good representative example of the Foursquare style, both of which were typical house styles that emerged as part of the historic residential development of downtown Burlington and, as such, these Properties meet the criterion set out in paragraph 1 of subsection 1(2) of the Heritage Regulation. Ms. Sciarra further opined that the location of the subject Properties on Brant Street between Baldwin Street to Caroline Street has a historical residential character and that the subject Properties individually and separately maintain and define this character and, as such, these Properties meet the criterion set out in paragraph 7 of subsection 1(2) of the Heritage Regulation. In view of the foregoing, Ms. Sciarra opined that the 524 Brant Property and the 620 Brant Property each individually meet two criteria set out in Subsection 1(2) the Heritage Regulation and therefore are appropriate for designation pursuant to a municipal by-law passed under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and as was the case with the 524 Brant Designating By-law and the 620 Brant Designating By-law respectively (see Tabs 9 and 10 of Exhibit 1).

FINDINGS

27Pursuant to the Act and the Heritage Regulation, a municipality may pass a by-law designating a property as being of cultural heritage value or interest if at least two of the criteria prescribed by the Heritage Regulation are met and the designation is made in accordance with the process set out in section 29 of the Act. The Tribunal considered the documentary evidence set forth in the Joint Documents Book entered into evidence as Exhibit 1 (see in particular Tabs 7 and 8) and is satisfied that the latter requirement of the Act was met.

28The Tribunal considered Ms. Sciarra’s oral testimony at the hearing and also considered the evidence contained in the Sciarra Witness Statement as well as the other documents entered as exhibits in evidence at the hearing. The Tribunal also considered Appellant Eade’s oral evidence at the hearing and considered the evidence contained in Appellant Eade’s Witness Statement.

29With regard to the criterion set out in paragraph 1 of subsection 1(2) of the Heritage Regulation, the Tribunal finds that the words “rare, unique, representative or early example” (emphasis added) are disjunctive and accordingly only one of these descriptions must be met. In the case of the Brant Appeals, the Tribunal finds that the preponderance of evidence establishes that the 524 Brant Property and the 620 Brant Property are each individually “representative” of a style and, accordingly, the criterion set out in paragraph 1 of subsection 1(2) of the Heritage Regulation has been satisfied with respect to the 524 Brant Property and the 620 Brant Property.

30With regard to the criterion set out in paragraph 7 of subsection 1(2) of the Heritage Regulation, the Tribunal accepts the expert opinion evidence of Ms. Sciarra that the “character of an area” entails identifying a “definable character” that is “desirable to maintain” and need not be, in the words of Appellant Eade, a “quaint little street scape.” The Tribunal finds that the preponderance of evidence establishes that the 524 Brant Property and the 620 Brant Property satisfy the criterion set out in paragraph 7 of subsection 1(2) of the Heritage Regulation as each of these properties has contextual value because they are important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, specifically as purpose-built residences that individually define and maintain the historic residential streetscape character of Brant Street between Caroline Street and Baldwin Street.

31In summary, the Tribunal finds that two of the criteria of subsection 1(2) of the Heritage Regulation were met and that By-law 11-2024 and By-law 26-2024 of the City of Burlington designating, respectively, the 524 Brant Property and the 620 Brant Property to be of cultural heritage value or interest were passed in accordance with the requirements of subsection 29(1) of the Act.

ORDER

32THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Schultz Appeal against By-law 11-2024 and the Eade Appeal against By-law 26-2024 of the City of Burlington are dismissed. The said By-laws remain in full force and effect.

“D. Arnold”

D. ARNOLD 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.