Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 05, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000324

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

Appellant: JSF Investments Ltd.

Subject: Objection to By-law 2024-542

Description: To designate 159 Montréal Road to be of cultural heritage value or interest

Property Address: 159 Montréal Road

Municipality/UT: City of Ottawa

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000324

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000324

OLT Case Name: JSF Investments Ltd. v. Ottawa (City)

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
JSF Investments Ltd. (“Appellant”)	Michael Polowin, Jacob Polowin (in absentia)
City of Ottawa (“City”)	Timothy Marc, Meagan Brodie

Heard: August 7, 2025, by video hearing

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D. ARNOLD ON AUGUST 7, 2025, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was held to prepare for a hearing on the merits of the Appellant’s appeal to the Tribunal of By-law No. 2024-542 (the “Designation By-law”) passed by the City to designate the property municipally known as 159 Montreal Road in the City (the “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 (the “Appeal”).

2There were no requests for additional Party or Participant status in these proceedings.

MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS

3The Parties indicated that they anticipate meeting in early Fall 2025 in an effort to resolve or narrow some or all of the issues of the Appeal. The Tribunal encouraged the Parties in these efforts. If the Parties so wish, they may make a request for consideration for Tribunal-facilitated mediation through the case co-ordinator.

HEARING DATES AND PROCEDURAL ORDER

4The Parties provided the Tribunal with a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) including a draft Issues List (“IL”) prior to this CMC. The Appellant wishes to include the following issues (numbered as in the draft PO provided to the Tribunal) and the City is opposed to such inclusion:

5. Given the building’s placement on the lot, will the proposed heritage designation facilitate good urban design and renewal of Montreal Road Main Street corridor?

6. Does the proposed heritage designation appropriately balance cultural heritage preservation and intensification?

7. Does the proposed heritage designation conflict with the strategic directions and policy of the City of Ottawa Official Plan (the “OP”)?

8. Does the proposed heritage designation conflict with the strategic directions and policy of the Montreal Road Secondary Plan (the “SP”)?

9. Does the proposed By-law Amendment [sic] represent appropriate and good land use planning?

5The Parties were offered the opportunity to bring a motion for consideration of whether certain of the proposed issues should be included in the IL, but declined this opportunity, and instead requested that the Tribunal make a determination with the oral submissions provided at the CMC.

6At the outset of submissions, the Appellant withdrew its proposed Issue #9 from consideration for inclusion in the IL.

7The Appellant submitted that proposed issues #5 through #8 above should be included in the IL as the Designation By-law may create a “chill on future development applications.” Moreover, the Appellant submitted that if the Designation By-law is upheld by the Tribunal without consideration of the proposed issues, then decisions arising from subsequent development applications made to the City in respect of the Subject Property may be appealed to the Tribunal. The Appellant submitted that this future “multiplicity of proceedings” may be avoided by including the proposed issues as part of the adjudication on the merits of the Appeal in these proceedings. The Appellant submitted that the proposed issues should be included in these proceedings, and the City may make submissions on the weight to be afforded evidence in respect of those issues.

8The City submitted that proposed issues #5 through #8 should not be included in the IL, as these issues are outside of the scope of the “guiding documents” that are relevant in the consideration of the merits of the Appeal, being the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18 (the “Heritage Act”) and Regulation 9/06, as amended, made thereunder (the “Heritage Regulation”) that sets out the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest.

9The Appellant submitted that the proposed issues #7 and #8 should be included in the IL in order to consider the requirement of s. 24 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, (the “Planning Act”) that “no by-law shall be passed for any purpose that does not conform [with the official plan].” The City submitted that consideration of the requirement of s. 24 with regard to the specificity of the proposed issues and potential future development are not within the “guiding documents” that are relevant in the consideration of the merits of the Appeal: Neither the Heritage Act nor the Heritage Regulation prescribe such a consideration.

10The Tribunal considered the submissions of the Appellant and the City and determined that proposed issues #5 to #8 are not appropriate for inclusion in the IL of the PO to be approved for the hearing on the merits of the Appeal. While mindful that s. 24 of the Planning Act is relevant in relation to passage of any by-law, including the Designation By-law, the Tribunal found that the requirement of s. 24 does not extend to consideration of official plan policies that may be relevant with regard to future potential development applications pertaining to the Subject Property. To embark on a consideration of evidence relating to these proposed issues would entail speculation on the merits of future potential and unknown development applications. There is no provision in either the Heritage Act or the Heritage Regulation which prescribes criteria pertaining to such consideration. The Designation By-law, if ultimately approved by the Tribunal either in whole or with modifications after a hearing on the merits of the Appeal, does not preclude future development applications under the Planning Act nor future consideration of the Designation By-law or applications relating thereto by the City’s Council as contemplated pursuant to the Heritage Act.

11The proposed issues #1 to #4 submitted by the Parties that pertain to the prescribed criteria under the Heritage Regulation are relevant, and appropriate for inclusion in the IL of the PO for these proceedings. Accordingly, the PO Order with an IL comprised of the proposed issues #1 to #4 attached as Schedule A to this Decision is approved.

HEARING

12The Tribunal directs that a two-day hearing of the Appeal is scheduled to proceed by video Hearing, commencing on Tuesday, December 9, 2025, at 10 a.m.

13Parties are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/656004293

Access Code: 656-004-293

14Parties are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoTo Meeting, or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

15Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application, or who only wish to listen to the event, can connect to the event by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The Access Code is as indicated above.

16Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the Hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the Hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

ORDER

17The Tribunal Orders as follows:

a) A two-day hearing of the Appeal is scheduled to take place by video commencing on Tuesday, December 9, 2025, at 10 a.m. and continuing on Wednesday, December 10, 2025.

b) The Procedural Order attached as Schedule A to this Decision is approved.

18The Member is not seized in this matter, but will remain available for continued case management to the extent that the Tribunal calendar permits.

19No further notice is required or will be given.

“D. Arnold”

D. ARNOLD

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: 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.

SCHEDULE “A”

Case No: OLT-25-000324

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

Appellant: JSF Investments Ltd.

Subject: Objection to By-law 2024-542

Description: To designate 159 Montréal Road to be of cultural heritage value or interest

Property Address: 159 Montréal Road

Municipality/UT: City of Ottawa

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000324

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000324

OLT Case Name: JSF Investments Ltd. v. Ottawa (City)

Procedural Order

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on Tuesday, December 9, 2025, at 10 a.m.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 2 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

8. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before October 7, 2025, and in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before November 10, 2025 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before November 21, 2025.

11. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 13 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.

12. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 13 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 13 below.

13. On or before November 4, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their [witness and] expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

14. N/A (no participants).

15. On or before November 4, 2025, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before November 25, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

17. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence within ten (10) days after the evidence is received and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before November 25, 2025.

19. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

20. A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

21. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before November 25, 2025 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

22. All filings shall be submitted electronically unless otherwise directed. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.

23. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

24. The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 4.

This Member is not seized

So orders the Tribunal

ATTACHMENT 1

LIST OF PARTIES

1. JSF Investments Ltd.
2. City of Ottawa

ATTACHMENT 2

ISSUES LIST

1. Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, does the property have design value or physical value because it is a ‘rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method’?

2. Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, does the property have 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’?

3. Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, does the property have contextual value because it is important in ‘defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area’?

4. Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, does the property have contextual value because it is ‘physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings'?

ATTACHMENT 3

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. JSF Investments Ltd.
2. City of Ottawa
3. JSF Investments Ltd. (Reply)

ATTACHMENT 4

PURPOSE OF THE PROCEDURAL ORDER AND MEANING OF TERMS

Party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

Participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include the expert’s (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
• direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
• cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
• re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
• another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.