Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 07, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000020
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended
Appellant: Stanislaus Goveas Subject: Refusal of Application Description: Objection to designation By-Law Reference Number: By-law #23-56 Property Address: 92 Trafalgar Road Municipality/UT: Erin/Wellington OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000020 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000020 OLT Case Name: Goveas v. Erin (Town)
Heard: March 20-21, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Stanislaus Goveas | Harjinder Chahal |
| Town of Erin | Alexandra Whyte |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY F. LAVOIE ON MARCH 21, 2025, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1In the historic downtown of the Village of Hillsburgh (“Hillsburgh”), centered on the facade of a two-storey cannabis store at 92 Trafalgar Road, is a circular date stone engraved “Hillsburgh Town Hall 1887”. On November 23, 2023, the Town of Erin (“Town”) passed By-law #23-56 (“By-law”) designating that property (“Subject Property”) as being of cultural heritage value or interest, pursuant to s. 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. O.18, as amended (“Heritage Act”). Stanislaus Goveas (“Appellant”), who states in his witness statement that he is the principal of the owner of the Subject Property, appealed the By-law.
2The Appellant’s grounds of appeal are the following: that he was not provided notice of the Town’s intention to designate the Subject Property; that the Town has failed to establish the Subject Property satisfies any of the nine criteria prescribed in O. Reg. 9/06: Criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest (“O. Reg. 9/06”); that the Subject Property has changed ownership several times and gone through various alterations; that the adjacent property “is owned by the same owner thus, [sic] potentially contravening the planning Act as the properties may have meagered [sic]”; and that the Subject Property “has structural issues and [sic] currently temporarily stabilized with steel beams”.
3Though the Appellant argued the Town did not establish any of the prescribed criteria were met, they brought no evidence whatsoever before this Tribunal challenging the Town’s 40 page report (“Report”) titled “Evaluation of 92 Trafalgar Road According to Ontario Regulation 9/06 Hillsburgh Urban Area Town of Erin” (“ARA Report”), dated October 4, 2023.
4For the reasons that follow, the appeal is allowed in part, as requested in the alternative by the Town, amending the By-law to remove references to the Subject Property’s use as a school and direct associations with the municipal government of Hillsburgh.
THE HEARING
5The Tribunal held a two-day Hearing on the Merits (“Hearing”) for this appeal.
6At the onset of the Hearing, the Tribunal inquired whether the Appellant, who did not serve the Town a notice of objection, could appeal the By-law. Subsections 29(5) and 29(11) of the Heritage Act are set out below:
Objection
(5) A person who objects to a proposed designation shall, within thirty days after the date of publication of the notice of intention, serve on the clerk of the municipality a notice of objection setting out the reason for the objection and all relevant facts.
Appeal to Tribunal
(11) Any person who objects to the by-law may appeal to the Tribunal by giving the Tribunal and the clerk of the municipality, within 30 days after the date of publication under paragraph 4 of subsection (8), a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the by-law and the reasons in support of the objection, accompanied by the fee charged by the Tribunal.
(emphasis added)
7The Town did not take the position that the notice of objection was a pre-condition to appeal a by-law. They provided a decision of this Tribunal, wherein the panel agreed an objection was not a “pre-condition” to filing a s. 29(11) appeal.1
8In the Tribunal’s view, the right to appeal in s. 29(11) for “any person who objects” should be read in its context, particularly s. 29(5), which requires a “person who objects” to serve a notice of objection on the clerk of the municipality. However, given the Town’s position, the lack of motion materials from the Parties on this point, and that the Parties wished to proceed with the Hearing, the Tribunal finds it would be fair, just, and expeditious to continue with the Hearing.
9Three exhibits were marked during the Hearing:
- Exhibit 1: By-Law #23-17 Being a By-law to prescribe application requirements and delegate Council’s power under the Ontario Heritage Act, passed on April 27, 2023;
- Exhibit 2: Witness Statement of Ms. Barnes; and
- Exhibit 3: Joint Book of Documents.
10The Town called Amy Barnes, whom the Tribunal qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of cultural heritage. Ms. Barnes is a Heritage Project Manager with Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (“ARA”) and has completed over 250 heritage related projects. She indicates that while other staff at ARA authored the ARA Report, she provided senior review of drafts and the final version.
11The Appellant testified as a lay witness, and called Samir Vyas, whom the Appellant sought to have qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of structural engineering. Mr. Vyas holds the professional engineer designation and has practiced for about a decade. Counsel for the Town, Ms. Whyte, did not object to the proposal to qualify Mr. Vyas, but raised concerns that Mr. Vyas’ Curriculum Vitae (“CV”) was not written by him, but rather, were a few lines written by Appellant’s counsel, Mr. Chahal, in an email to the Tribunal. The Tribunal also notes these few lines are essentially a work description of Mr. Vyas’ typical responsibilities, rather than a CV, which would list education and work. Despite these concerns, the Tribunal qualified Mr. Vyas to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of structural engineering.
ISSUES
12These are the issues for this appeal:
a) Did the Appellant have notice of the intention to designate the Subject Property?
b) Should the By-law designating the Subject Property as a property of cultural heritage value or interest be repealed?
LAW
13A property may be designated as a property of cultural heritage value or interest by the council of a municipality pursuant to s. 29(1) of the Heritage Act if it meets at least two of the nine prescribed criteria set out in s. 1(2) of O. Reg. 9/06.
14For this designation, the following three prescribed criteria are relevant:
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 contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE AREA, AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
15The Subject Property is located on the southwest side of Trafalgar Road, previously known as Main Street. Fronting Trafalgar Road, the two-storey Italianate commercial building was constructed in 1887, to serve as a town hall.
16Around the Subject Property are more nineteenth century properties, including 87, 90, and 96 Trafalgar Road. The streetscape is comprised of predominantly one to two-and-a-half storey residential and commercial buildings, of primarily brick construction, with modest setbacks and stylistic similarities such as dichromatic brickwork.
17The Subject Property continued to be used as a town hall until 1959, when a new town hall was constructed. During that time period, town halls were an important place of gathering and provided a space for civic, social, and recreational matters. Council meetings were not conducted at the Subject Property, but it was used by local societies, organizations, and institutions of Hillsburgh. The uncontested evidence of Ms. Barnes shows the following activities were held at the Subject Property:
a) First public library in the community, run by librarian Joe MacMillan;
b) Seasonal events, such as a flower show;
c) Gathering place for the literary society;
d) Dance hall in the war years (1914-1918);
e) Medicine shows and rabies clinics;
f) Card parties;
g) Sunday school concerts, Christmas concerts, and school concerts;
h) In 1922, a course about farming and agriculture organized by the Department of Agriculture and “Junior Farmers Clubs”;
i) Events hosted by the Junior Women’s Institute;
j) Events of the Hillsburgh Women’s Auxiliary Institute;
k) Art events, especially theatrical plays;
l) Musical gatherings and formal performances;
m) Fundraising dances and events to support local soldiers;
n) Public speaking events; and
o) Presentations, luncheons, banquets, wedding celebrations, etc.
HERITAGE EVIDENCE
18Ms. Barnes gave her uncontested opinion evidence on the heritage value of the Subject Property for each relevant criteria, set out below.
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.
19Ms. Barnes opined the Subject Property has design value or physical value as a representative example of the Italianate commercial architectural style. The building exhibits nine out of twelve characteristics of this style:
a) Square, rectangular, or rows;
b) Brick or stone constructions;
c) Flat roof and wide overhanging eaves;
d) Decorative brackets and/or detailed cornice;
e) Large windows, typically with rounded or semi-elliptical window openings;
f) Heavily moulded openings (windows, doors);
g) Rhythmic and balanced façade (composed of flush surfaces and evenly spaced openings);
h) Quoin corners; and
i) Frontispiece (formal and detailed entryway).
20Ms. Barnes testified that the building’s attributes representative of this style include it being a two-storey, rectangular plan, Italianate commercial building with a flat roof, symmetrical façade, segmentally arched openings with stone sills, decorative buff brick voussoirs assemblage creating a hood mould effect, red brick construction with dichromatic brickwork, dentils on cornice, and red brick buttressing.
Criterion 4: 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.
21Though town halls are often associated for their role in municipal government, Ms. Barnes revised her opinion after her research, such that the Subject Property’s value to the community was for its civic, social, and recreational role.
22Ms. Barnes opined the association was both direct and significant, as it was purpose-built for use as a town hall for the village and provided a community place for civic, social, and recreational matters to be carried out, respectively.
Criterion 7: The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area.
23In Ms. Barnes’ opinion, the Subject Property is important in supporting the nineteenth century character of Trafalgar Road in the historic Hillsburgh. It is located centrally in Hillsburgh and contributes to the historic fabric of the streetscape. Ms. Barnes provided a chart showing a selection of 16 buildings located on the Trafalgar Road streetscape, which demonstrates the character of the streetscape and historic village. Most are red brick residences dating from the nineteenth century with dichromatic brickwork. She explained that the Subject Property’s importance lies in its heritage attributes of being a two-storey, rectangular plan, Italianate commercial building, and the overall massing, setback, and decorative details which support the nineteenth century character of Trafalgar Road in Hillsburgh.
24Ms. Barnes concluded by opining the Subject Property met the three aforementioned criteria and can therefore be designated as a property of cultural heritage value or interest.
APPELLANT’S EVIDENCE
25The Appellant testified that he was not provided notice of the Town’s intention to designate the Subject Property. He says he was “away” in October 2023 when the Town says the notice was sent and that he did not receive it. He showed an email chain between the Appellant and the Town. In the first email of the chain, titled “92 Trafalgar building”, dated November 6, 2023, the Appellant wrote “I got the letter from your office regarding the proposed heritage designation to the above property”, as well as “I left you a message last week”. The Appellant testified that the letter he was referring to was not the notice, but By-Law #23-17 (Exhibit 1). By-Law #23-17 does not refer to the Subject Property, nor any specific property.
26The Appellant’s structural engineer, Samir Vyas, also testified. Mr. Vyas’ evidence was that he conducted a site visit at the Subject Property on November 14, 2024. He said the building’s existing slab is reinforced with a series of steel beams on the ground and second floors. Further, there is a “severe vibration” when walking on the floors. In his opinion, the structure is unsafe, despite being reinforced, due to the “alarming vibrations”, which needs to be rectified or demolished.
FINDINGS
27The Tribunal accepts the entirety of Ms. Barnes’ evidence. While the Appellant claimed the Town has failed to show how the Subject Property meets the prescribed criteria, he provided no heritage evidence to the contrary, nor did he point out any errors in the Town’s evidence.
28The Tribunal rejects the evidence of the Appellant that he did not receive notice of the intention to designate the Subject Property, dated October 16, 2023. The Appellant’s explanation that he was referring to By-Law #23-17 and not the notice is implausible. First, the Appellant’s email indicates the letter concerned the Subject Property being designated, but By-Law #23-17 does not refer to the Subject Property. Second, the Appellant did not explain why the Town would have sent a copy of the By-Law #23-17 to the Appellant. Third, seven months elapsed between the passing of By-Law #23-17 and the Appellant’s email to the Town. The Tribunal finds that the letter the Appellant referred to was not By-Law #23-17, as he claims, but was in fact the very notice of intention to designate he denies having received. The Tribunal finds the Town served the Appellant with the notice of intention to designate in accordance with s. 29(3) of the Heritage Act.
29Mr. Vyas’ evidence does not assist the Appellant. Counsel to the Appellant did not explain how the structural issues raised by Mr. Vyas support the relief sought to repeal the By-law designating the Subject Property. To be clear, the Tribunal is not making any finding of fact regarding the structural integrity of the Subject Property, which has no relevance to this appeal.
30The Tribunal finds that three prescribed criteria are met. Counsel for the Town seeks to allow the appeal in part, to amend the second paragraph of Schedule “A” of the By-law in accordance with revised wording. The revised statement of cultural heritage value or interest removes references to direct associations with the municipal government of Hillsburgh and as a school room, which Ms. Barnes’ research showed was incorrect.
ORDER
31THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal against By-law #23-56 of the Town of Erin is allowed in part, and By-law #23-56 is amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. In all other respects, the Tribunal Orders the appeal is dismissed.
“F. Lavoie”
F. LAVOIE 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.
Attachment 1
Schedule “A” of By-law 23-56 is amended as follows:
“92 Trafalgar Road has direct associations with the municipal government of Hillsburgh Village as the site of the former Town Hall. 92 Trafalgar Road has direct associations with the Town of Hillsburgh’s municipal government and other community organizations as the site of former Town Hall. It is also associated with the International Order of Oddfellows and the Ancient Order of United Workmen, two fraternal benefit societies who sponsored the construction of the new Town Hall in 1887 and used the second floor as Lodge Rooms. In addition to meetings held by the local government, the structure was also used as a school room in the late 1800s, a meeting space for the congregation of two churches (Christian Disciple and United Churches, respectively), an Orange Lodge, an event space for the Hillsburgh Women’s Auxiliary Institute, among other uses.”
is replaced with
“92 Trafalgar Road has historical value for the civic, social, and recreational role it fulfilled as the community Town Hall from 1887 to the early 1960s. It is also associated with the International Order of Oddfellows and the Ancient Order of United Workmen, two fraternal benefit societies who sponsored the construction of the new Town Hall in 1887 and used the second floor as Lodge Rooms. In addition to being a space for meetings and a place of community events, it was also used by the congregation of two churches (Christian Disciple and United Churches, respectively), an Orange Lodge, an event space for the Hillsburgh Women’s Auxiliary Institute, among other community uses.”
Footnotes
- Bayview Woods Neighbourhood Association v Toronto (City), 2024 CanLII 145867 (ON LT) at para 23.