Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 02, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000439
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended
Appellant: Peace Tower Church Inc.
Subject: Objection to designation By-law No. 2025-174
Property Address: 343 Bronson Avenue
Municipality/Upper Tier: Ottawa
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000439
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000439
OLT Case Name: Peace Tower Church Inc. v. Ottawa (City)
Heard: February 13, 2026 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Peace Tower Church Inc. | Rachel Kuchma Roberto Aburto (in absentia) |
| City of Ottawa | Timothy Marc |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY Jennifer CAMPBELL ON FEBRUARY 13, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision arises from a settlement hearing (“Hearing”) before the Tribunal regarding an appeal by Peace Tower Church Inc. (“Appellant”) of By-law No. 2025-174 (“By-law”) concerning the designation by the City of Ottawa (“City”) of the property located at 343 Bronson Avenue, in the City (“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, as amended (“Heritage Act”).
BACKGROUND
2The Appellant is the registered owner of the Property, which houses the former Erskine Presbyterian Church. On February 6, 2025, the City issued a notice of intent to designate the Property under s. 29 of the Heritage Act as being of cultural heritage value and interest (“Notice of Intent”). The Appellant did not submit an objection to the Notice of Intent within the 30 day objection period specified by the Heritage Act.
3On April 30, 2025, the City passed the By-law designating the Property under s. 29 of the Heritage Act as being of cultural heritage value and interest (“City’s Decision”).
4In order for a property to be designated under s. 29 of the Heritage Act, it is required to meet a minimum of two of the following nine criteria set forth in s. 1(1) of Ontario Regulation 09/06 (“Regulation”):
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 design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit.
The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.
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 historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who 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 property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings.
The property has contextual value because it is a landmark.
5The City’s Decision was based upon a report entitled “Designation of 343 Bronson Avenue under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act” authored by Greg MacPherson and submitted January 31, 2025 (“Original Report”), which concluded that the Property met seven of the nine criteria of the Regulation, being ss. 1(1)1., 1(1)2., 1(1)4., 1(1)6., 1(1)7., 1(1)8., and 1(1)9. thereof.
6On June 20, 2025, a representative of the Appellant appealed the City’s Decision on the basis that: (i) the designation would have an adverse impact on the value and future use of the Property; and (ii) there existed issues of financial instability and potential deterioration of the Property as a result of the designation.
SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS
7Following the appeal of the City’s Decision, the Parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a settlement in respect of the matters under appeal.
JOINT SUBMISSIONS
8As a result of the settlement between the Parties, the Appellant and the City made the joint submission (“Joint Submission”) to the Tribunal at the Hearing that:
(i) the appeal be allowed; and
(ii) the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and Description of Heritage Attributes (“Schedule”) attached as Schedule “B” to the By-law be repealed and placed with a revised version of such Schedule.
9In support of their Joint Submission, the Parties submitted an affidavit of Greg MacPherson (“Affidavit”), who authored the Original Report. Mr. MacPherson provided the Tribunal with his Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty. The Appellant confirmed that it did not object to Mr. MacPherson being qualified as a cultural heritage expert in these proceedings.
10The Affidavit set out the history of the By-law and appeal before this Tribunal, as well as the settlement discussions between the Parties. Pursuant to such settlement discussions, the Parties had agreed upon a revised version of the Schedule (“Revised Schedule”), which provided as follows:
(i) several modest clarifying changes to the language of the original Schedule; and
(ii) the incorporation of the following exclusions, which are not identified as heritage attributes for the purposes of the designation:
a. certain exterior features as follows:
windows, except for those identified in the Description of Heritage Attributes;
exterior stairs, ramps, and railings;
parking lot; and
existing (as of 2025) asphalt roof cladding; and
b. the interior of the church located on the Property.
11In conclusion, the Parties agreed that the Property continues to meet the minimum required two of nine criteria under the Regulation in order to qualify for designation under s. 29 of the Heritage Act, and that the By-law be amended to reflect the Revised Schedule.
FINDINGS
12The Tribunal accepts the Joint Submission and the analysis and conclusions provided by Mr. MacPherson.
13Pursuant to s. 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 or repeal said by-law in such manner as the Tribunal may determine.
14Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the appeal be allowed in part and that the Schedule be repealed and replaced with the Revised Schedule.
ORDER
15THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:
The appeal is allowed in part and the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and Description of Heritage Attributes attached as Schedule “B” to By-law No. 2025-174 of the City of Ottawa is repealed and the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and Description of Heritage Attributes attached as Schedule 1 to this Order is substituted, pursuant to s.29(15)(b)(ii) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended; and
Each Party shall bear its own costs of the appeal.
“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.
SCHEDULE 1