Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 10, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000240

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

Appellant: Jiao Sun

Subject: Passing of By-Law 2025-29

Description: To designate as a property of cultural heritage, value or interest

Reference Number: By-Law 2025-29

Property Address: 429 Botsford Street

Municipality: Town of Newmarket

OLT Case No.: 25-000240 OLT Lead Case No.: 25-000240

OLT Case Name: Sun v. Newmarket (Town)

Heard: January 14 and 15, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
Jiao Sun	Patrick Mai* (paralegal)
Town of Newmarket	Barbara Montgomery

DECISION DELIVERED BY JENNIFER CAMPBELL AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision arises from a merit hearing (“Hearing”) before the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”) regarding an appeal by Jiao Sun (“Appellant”) concerning the passing by the Town of Newmarket (the “Town”) of By-law 2025-29 (“Designation By-Law”) designating the property located at 429 Botsford Street, Newmarket, Ontario (the “Property”) as being of cultural heritage, value or interest pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended (the “OHA”).

BACKGROUND

2The Property contains (i) a one-storey former place of worship built in 1896 that fronts towards Botsford Street; and (ii) a two-and-a-half storey building, built in 1907, which was used as a manse. It currently operates as a daycare facility.

3The Property was originally home to a Congregationalist Church, which was housed in a frame building from 1843, until the declining congregation left in approximately the 1890s. The Property was then purchased in 1895 by a congregation of Quakers for use as a meeting house after a split within the local Society of Friends. The frame building was destroyed by fire at the end of 1895. The Quakers retained local craftsmen Nelson May, W.R. Traviss, and E. Groom to rebuild the meeting house in 1896, and also constructed the two-and-a-half storey brick and concrete block residence at the rear of the property in 1907 for use as the church manse.

4The Quakers used the facility for 88 years. The building was sold for non-religious purposes in 1983, ending 140 years of religious occupation on the site.

5On February 10, 2025, the Town passed the Designation By-Law which designated the Property to be of cultural heritage value and/or interest pursuant to subsection 29(1) of the OHA (the “Decision”). The Appellant appealed the Decision on the basis that the Property does not meet the required threshold for designation pursuant to the OHA.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

6In order for a property to be designated under s. 29 of the OHA, it is required to meet a minimum of two of nine of the following criteria set forth in section 1(2) of Ontario Regulation 09/06 (“Regulation”):

1. The property has design value or physical value because it

(i) is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method,

(ii) displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or

(iii) demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.

2. The property has historical value or associative value because it

(i) has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community,

(ii) yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or

(iii) demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community.

3. The property has contextual value because it

(i) is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area

(ii) is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or

(iii) is a landmark.

7The Parties are in agreement that (i) the Property meets the criteria set forth in subsection 1(2)(2)(i) of the Regulation; and (ii) the Property does not meet the criteria set forth in subsections 1(2)(1)(ii), 1(2)(1)(iii), 1(2)(2)(ii), 1(2)(2)(iii), 1(2)(3)(ii) or 1(2)(3)(iii) of the Regulation.

8In rendering its Decision, the Town relied upon a report (“Report”) entitled, Evaluation of 429 Botsford Street According to Ontario Regulation 9/06 Town of Newmarket, prepared by Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (“ARA”) and dated March 29, 2023. The Report found that the Property meets the criteria set forth in subsections 1(2)(1)(i) and 1(2)(3)(i) of the Regulation, thereby qualifying it for designation under the OHA on the basis that the Property meets a minimum of two of the criteria set forth in the Regulation. The Appellant disputes that the Property meets the criteria set forth in subsections 1(2)(1)(i) and 1(2)(3)(i) of the Regulation. Each of these criteria will be addressed in turn below.

9Also relevant for the purposes of this Hearing is the Ontario Heritage Toolkit – a Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Identifying, Researching and Evaluating Heritage Properties in Ontario Communities (2025)” (“Toolkit”), authored by the Province of Ontario, Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. While the Toolkit is not a binding authority, it contains useful commentary and guidance from the Province in relation to evaluating properties for designation in Ontario.

CRITERIA 1(i) of [O. REG. 9/06](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-9-06/latest/o-reg-9-06.html)

10The Appellant called Natalie Rathwell to provide expert testimony to the effect that the Property does not meet the criteria set forth in subsections 1(2)(1)(i) and 1(2)(3)(i) of the Regulation.

11Ms. Rathwell is employed as a Senior Architectural Historian and Heritage Consultant for Matrix Heritage, an archaeological and heritage consulting firm. She is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals, with six years of experience in heritage evaluation and cultural property assessments and 15 years of experience in architectural history. The Appellant’s request that Ms. Rathwell be qualified as an expert witness with respect to cultural heritage matters was unopposed by the Town. The Tribunal was satisfied that Ms. Rathwell held the necessary qualifications to provide opinion evidence on the cultural and heritage matters under review in this Hearing, and duly qualified Ms. Rathwell to provide opinion evidence in this area.

12In order to meet criteria 1(2)(1)(i) of the Regulation, the Property must 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.”

13At the Hearing, Ms. Rathwell disputed the conclusions of the Report which found that the Property meets criteria of 1(2)(1)(i) of the Regulation on the basis that it is a representative example of a former place of worship constructed in the Gothic Revival architectural style. Firstly, Ms. Rathwell noted that the reference to a “place of worship” was too vague to qualify as a “type” of building for the purpose of this criteria. Secondly, she took issue with the reference to a “former place of worship” being constructed in the Gothic Revival style as the Property is no longer used as a place of worship nor does it continue to exhibit representative elements associated with that particular style. In support of her position, Ms. Rathwell noted that while some exterior features such as brickwork, the single pointed arch above the main door, and massing and roof pitch remain intact, other key elements have been altered, such as the front door and windows, as well as the removal of a pair of original chimneys and the building’s original lead glass. In addition, the shape of the window openings is obstructed on both the exterior and interior such that the condition of the brickwork and shape of the former original lancet arched window openings is unclear. As a result, Ms. Rathwell concluded that while the Property is still an instance of Gothic Revival architecture, it can no longer be considered “representative” of the style due to the absence of certain features and loss of integrity as a result of these alterations.

14In response to the submissions of the Appellant, the Town called Amy Barnes to provide expert testimony to support the conclusions of the Report.

15Ms. Barnes is a Heritage Project Manager at ARA who authored and provided a senior review of sections of the Report. She has held various heritage-related professional positions since 2009 and is a member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals. The Town’s request that Ms. Barnes be qualified as an expert witness with respect to cultural heritage matters was unopposed by the Appellant. The Tribunal was satisfied that Ms. Barnes held the necessary qualifications to provide opinion evidence on the cultural and heritage matters under review in this Hearing, and duly qualified Ms. Barnes to provide opinion evidence.

16Ms. Barnes summarized the findings of the Report which found that the Property met the criteria set forth in subsection 1(2)(1)(i) of the Regulation. She argued that the Property is representative of the type of Gothic Revival architecture used by Quakers notwithstanding its relatively simple design. In this regard, she noted that such meeting houses were physical manifestations of faith, and accordingly, more simplistic designs were utilized as an expression of the Quaker faith, which emphasized simplicity, piety and equality, with a focus on the spiritual over the material. Ms. Barnes provided an extensive and highly detailed analysis of numerous historical resources that explained various elements that impacted the design of the Property, and which intentionally omitted more ornate elements of Gothic Revival architecture that were not consistent with the Quaker values of modesty and muted styles.

17Ms. Barnes also disputed the conclusion of Ms. Rathwell that a former place of worship cannot constitute a “type” of building for the purpose of the Regulation. In this regard, Ms. Barnes made reference to the Toolkit, which describes a “type” as a particular kind or group usually with a common function, activity or use, with the type in this case being a former place of worship. In her view, the height, gable roofline, brick detailing, massing, projecting vestibule with lancet arched door, and the rhythmic placement of the windows on the side elevation of the Property can be easily viewed from the street, and thus, the Property is discernable of this type (i.e. a former place of worship).

18Ms. Barnes also opined that the Property has physical value because it is also a unique representation of a former place of worship, specifically a Quaker meeting house, which intentionally omitted ornate features and applied muted Gothic architectural construction as an expression of the simplistic design approach that is in keeping with Quaker spiritual principles.

19Finally, Ms. Barnes addressed the integrity of the remaining features of the Property with reference to the Toolkit which stipulates at Section 5.3 as follows:

A heritage property does not need to be in original condition. Few survive without alterations on the long journey between their date of origin and today. Integrity is a question of whether the existing heritage attributes continue to represent or support the cultural heritage value or interest of the property.

Thus, Ms. Barnes argued that integrity should be assessed based on the Property’s current attributes and how its surviving elements continue to represent a former place of worship constructed in the Gothic Architectural style. In her expert opinion, the Property continues to meet these criteria notwithstanding the alterations noted by Ms. Rathwell.

20The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Ms. Barnes that the Property meets the criteria in subsection 1(2)(1)(i) of the Regulation for several reasons. The descriptors of “rare, unique, representative or early example” set forth in subsection 1(2)(1)(i) are disjunctive, meaning that only one of such descriptors must be met in order for a property to meet such criteria. In this case, the Tribunal finds that the Property is “representative” of both a “type” (being a former place of worship) and of a “style” (being a muted version of the Gothic Revival architectural style in keeping with the Quaker faith), for the various reasons articulated by Ms. Barnes.

CRITERIA 2(i) of [O.REG. 9/06](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-9-06/latest/o-reg-9-06.html)

21At the Hearing, both Ms. Rathwell and Ms. Barnes agreed that the Property meets the criteria set forth in subsection 1(2)(2)(i) of the Regulation as it has “direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community”. This is consistent with the guidance in the Toolkit which indicates that the association must be both direct and significant. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Parties in this respect and finds that the Property meets the criteria set forth in subsection 1(2)(2)(i) of the Regulation as it is directly associated with the historic Town as an early place of worship, which is a function the Property fulfilled for 140 years.

CRITERIA 3(i) of [O.REG. 9/06](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-9-06/latest/o-reg-9-06.html)

22As the Tribunal has found that the Property meets the criteria contained in subsections 1(2)(1)(i) and 1(2)(2)(i) of the Regulation, it is not necessary for the Property to also meet the criteria in subsection 1(2)(3)(i) of the Regulation in order to qualify for designation under the OHA. However, the Tribunal will review the submissions of the Parties with respect to this third criterion in order to provide a comprehensive analysis.

23In order to meet the criteria set forth in subsection 1(2)(3)(i) of the Regulation, the Property must have “contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area.”

24The Property is located within the Historic Core Character Area of the Town. The Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest/Statement of Significance included in the Designation By-Law states that the Property is “important in supporting the 19th-century character of the historic Village of Newmarket” due to its location on one of several residential side streets within the village core, and its use as a former place of worship that exhibits setback, massing, style and decorative details consistent with a place of worship of that time period which supports the historic character of the area.

25At the Hearing, Ms. Rathwell argued that the Town had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Property is important in supporting the character of the area as, while the Designation By-Law includes a description of context, no clear analysis of the Property’s relationship to this context, or its significance within it, was provided. Ms. Rathwell testified that the mere location of the Property within the Historic Core Character Area is not sufficient to meet this criterion.

26To the contrary, Ms. Barnes argued that the Property does indeed meet the criteria set forth in subsection 1(2)(3)(i) of the Regulation as it is a distinguishable building on a visible corner lot which is constructed of a type of brick that is characteristic of a 19th century village. She summarized 14 discernable features of this historic district and concluded that the Property represents 13 of these features. Accordingly, she concludes that its location within the Historic Core Character Area and its features support the heritage character of the neighbourhood.

27While the Tribunal agrees with the submissions of Ms. Rathwell that a property’s location within a designated heritage area is not in itself sufficient to meet the criteria set forth in subsection 1(2)(3)(i), in this case the Tribunal finds that (i) the Historic Core Character Area does indeed have a definable character; and (ii) various characteristics of the Property such as its height, buff brick construction, treed mature lot, setback, lot size and architectural style support that character.

CONCLUSION

28The Tribunal finds that the Property meets each of the criteria contained in subsections 1(2)(1)(i), 1(2)(2)(i) and 1(2)(3)(i) of the Regulation, and accordingly, the Property qualifies for designation under s. 29 of the OHA.

ORDER

29The Tribunal orders that the appeal is dismissed.

“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.