Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: February 11, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000386
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 32(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18. as amended
Applicant: David and Jane MacLaren
Appellant: Brent Hillier
Subject: Adoption of By-law 44-2025
Description: To repeal By-law 257-1985 and removing the heritage designation for the property located at 41 Bayfield Main Street
Reference Number: By-law 44-2025-MunicipalityofBluewater-Hillier-Appeal-05-26-2025
Property Address: 41 Bayfield Main Street South
Municipality/UT: Bluewater/Huron
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000386
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000386
OLT Case Name: Hillier v. Bluewater (Municipality)
Heard: January 29, 2026, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Agent*
David and Jane MacLaren (Applicant)
Self-Represented*
Brent Hillier (Appellant)
Self-Represented*
DECISION DELIVERED BY J. INNIS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This appeal arises from a decision of Council for the Corporation of the Municipality of Bluewater (“Council”) to repeal a heritage designation under s. 32 (8) of the Ontario Heritage Act (“Act”).
2On April 22, 2025, Council enacted By-law No. 44-2025, repealing By-law No. 257-1985, which had designated the property municipally known as 41 Bayfield Main Street South, Bluewater (“Subject Property”) under s. 29 of the Act.
3The repeal followed a request from the then-owner of the Subject Property. At the time the request was considered and when this appeal was initiated, the Subject Property was owned by David and Jane MacLaren. Ownership has since transferred to Sheri Durksen.
4Brent Hillier (“Appellant”) appealed Council’s decision to the Tribunal.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
5At the outset of the Hearing, the Tribunal addressed certain procedural matters. The Appellant, who is self‑represented, expressed the view that the appeal should be dismissed on the basis that the Subject Property had been sold and that the original applicant and owner was no longer involved. The Tribunal clarified that heritage designations and related appeals attach to the property itself, not to the individual owner, and accordingly the matter remained properly before the Tribunal.
6With respect to Party status, Sheri Durksen, the current owner, advised the Tribunal in advance that she would not be attending the Hearing and would not be seeking status. David MacLaren (“Applicant”), the former owner and original applicant, requested Party status in order to participate and provide evidence, given his involvement in the application and initial appeal process. The Appellant opposed granting Party status on the basis that Mr. MacLaren was no longer the owner. The Tribunal exercised its authority under its Rules of Practice and Procedure to add a party to the proceeding, finding that Mr. MacLaren’s direct involvement in the matter’s history and his familiarity with the issues would assist the Tribunal in adjudicating the appeal effectively and completely.
7No one else attended seeking either Party or Participant status.
8Prior to the commencement of the Hearing, the Tribunal was informed that the Municipality of Bluewater would not be participating.
9The Appellant requested that a one minute and sixteen second video clip, identified as “Council Member video” dated January 20, 2026, be entered into evidence. The Appellant submitted that the video reflected the opinion of Council with respect to heritage properties. The Tribunal declined to admit the video. The clip was not from a Council meeting at which the subject application was considered, and the comments of a single council member do not represent the position of Council as a whole. Further, given the brevity of the clip and the lack of surrounding context, the Tribunal was unable to determine with certainty what matter, or property, the comments related to, or the circumstances in which they were made.
10Lastly, no expert evidence or testimony was presented during the Hearing. As a result, the Tribunal’s consideration is based entirely on the evidence and submissions provided by the self-represented Parties. The Tribunal has reviewed all materials before it, including written submissions, oral testimony, the Council Report (Exhibit #2), and the Notice of Repeal (Exhibit #10). In the absence of expert evidence, the Tribunal has had to consider the information provided by the Parties themselves and weigh it in the context of the statutory requirements and the records before the Tribunal.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
11In deciding the appeal, the Tribunal's role is not to reconsider the matter anew, but to determine whether Councils’ decision should be confirmed, modified, or set aside based on the requirements of the Act. In doing so the Tribunal considers:
whether Council followed the procedural requirements set out in the Act when repealing the designation; and
whether Council considered the cultural heritage value or interest of the property in accordance with the criteria prescribed by the Act and its Ontario Regulation 9/06.
EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
Whether Council followed the proper process under the Ontario Heritage Act
12The Appellant did not raise any concerns or provide evidence suggesting that Council failed to follow the procedural requirements of the Act. The materials before the Tribunal, including the Council Report dated April 7, 2025 (Exhibit #2) regarding the repeal and the Notice of Repeal (Exhibit #10) show that the required steps were taken.
13Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied that the procedural requirements of the Act were met.
Whether Council considered the heritage value of the property in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act and Ontario Regulation 9/06
14The Appellant argued, in both oral and written submissions, that Council’s decision to repeal the heritage designation relied solely on the former owner’s financial circumstances and failed to properly consider the Subject Property’s heritage value. The Appellant did not call expert evidence in support of this position. Further, the Appellant submitted that Council erred in reaching its decision and suggested that the Municipality of Bluewater’s absence at the Hearing reflected this.
15The Applicant testified that his request to repeal the designation was based on two factors: (i) difficulties obtaining insurance and associated costs, and (ii) that the by-law did not identify heritage features of the Subject Property, which is now required under the Act. In a letter from the Applicant to the Municipality of Bluewater, received January 17, 2025, it stated: “the designating by-law does not identify any heritage features of the property or any structures on the property. The heritage value is the cultural significance of the Woods family and their role in the development of Bayfield” (Exhibit #1).
16The Tribunal acknowledges that financial considerations were raised as part of the request to repeal the designation and also that By-law No. 257-1985 does not list specific heritage attributes. Further, the Tribunal concurs with the Appellant that financial hardship is not a criterion for assessing cultural heritage value or interest under the Act or regulations.
17However, the documentary evidence before the Tribunal does not support the Appellant’s assertion that Council failed to consider the statutory criteria. The Appellant submitted into evidence correspondence to the Mayor and Council from the Municipality of Bluewater’s Heritage Advisory Committee (“HAC”) dated March 12, 2025. In that correspondence, the HAC acknowledged that detailed information about the Subject Property was not contained within the designating by-law itself but noted that relevant heritage information was contained in the Municipal Heritage Register adopted by By-law No. 46-2015, as well as in historical research prepared by local author David Gillians, which was attached.
18While the Tribunal is unable to determine the weight, if any, Council gave to this information, the burden rests with the Appellant to demonstrate that Council failed to consider the cultural heritage value or interest of the Subject Property in accordance with the Act and Ontario Regulation 9/06. The Tribunal finds that the Appellant has not met that burden. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal presumes that Council properly discharged its statutory obligations.
19In regard to the Appellant’s suggestion that Council's decision must have been incorrect because the Municipality of Bluewater did not participate in the Hearing, the Tribunal finds that the absence of the Municipality of Bluewater does not in itself indicate any error in Council's decision making. Whether or not a Party chooses to participate in the Hearing is not a reflection of the correctness of Council’s prior actions.
20In conclusion, the Tribunal finds that the burden of proof rested on the Appellant. The Appellant did not provide any evidence that Council failed to follow the procedural requirements of the Act, nor did the Appellant provide evidence to demonstrate that Council failed to consider the cultural heritage value or interest of the property in accordance with the criteria prescribed by the Act and Ontario Regulation 9/06. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the Appellant has met the burden required to overturn Council’s decision.
ORDER
21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS the appeal against Repealing By-law No. 44-2025 of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bluewater is dismissed. The Repealing By-law remains in full force and effect.
“j. innis”
j. inniS
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.