Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 17, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000241
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended
Appellants: George MacPherson and Roger Sigouin
Subject: Passing of By-Law 2025-17
Description: To designate as a property of cultural heritage, value or interest
Reference Number2: By-Law 2025-17
Property Address: 233 Prospect Street
Municipality: Town of Newmarket
OLT Case No.: 25-000241
OLT Lead Case No.: 25-000241
OLT Case Name: MacPherson et. al. v. Newmarket (Town)
Heard: January 28, 2026 by Writing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| George MacPherson and Roger Sigouin | Self-represented* |
| Town of Newmarket | Barbara Montgomery |
DECISION DELIVERED BY JENNIFER CAMPBELL AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision arises from a Settlement Hearing (“Hearing”) conducted in writing before the Tribunal regarding an appeal by George MacPherson and Roger Sigouin (“Appellants”) concerning the passing by the Town of Newmarket (“Town”) of By-law 2025-17 (“Designation By-Law”) designating the property located at 233 Prospect Street, Newmarket, Ontario (“Property”) as being of cultural heritage, value or interest pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended (“OHA”).
BACKGROUND
2On 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, on the basis that it meets at least two out of the nine criteria outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06.
3The Appellants have appealed the Designation By-Law to the Tribunal pursuant to subsection 29(11) of the OHA.
SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS
4Following a previous Case Management Conference held on August 12, 2025, the Parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a settlement in respect of the matters under appeal, as further detailed below.
JOINT SUBMISSIONS
5As a result of the settlement between the Parties, the Appellants and the Town have made a joint submission (“Joint Submission”) to the Tribunal at the Hearing that:
(i) The Appeal be allowed, in part; and
(ii) The Designation By-law be amended by the addition of the following text at the end of Schedule “A”:
The following are not heritage attributes of the property:
Detached garage
Garden shed
Stone archway on front walkway
Front porch
Paint colour on doors, wood trim around windows and on soffits and brackets
6In support of their Joint Submission, the Parties submitted an Affidavit of Kayla Jonas Galvin (“Affidavit”) who is engaged as the Director of Heritage Operations at Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (“ARA”), and is a Professional Member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professions, a Registered Professional Planner, and a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners. Ms. Galvin provided the Tribunal with her curriculum vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty. Ms. Galvin’s curriculum vitae indicates extensive knowledge and experience regarding heritage matters. The Tribunal is of the view that Ms. Galvin has sufficient expertise in heritage matters to provide opinion evidence in the matters under review in this Hearing.
7In her role with ARA, Ms. Galvin provided a senior review of the report authored by ARA staff to produce the final report entitled “Evaluation of 233 Prospect Street According to O. Reg. 9/06, Town of Newmarket” (ARA 2024) (“Heritage Report”), and subsequently finalized the assessment and conclusions presented within the Heritage Report.
8The Heritage Report concluded that the Property was worthy of designation under the OHA as it meets three of the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest as outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06, being the criteria set forth in subsections 1(2)(1), 1(2)(4) and 1(2)(7) thereof as follows:
Criteria, s. 27 (3) (b) of the Act
(2) Property that has not been designated under Part IV of the Act may be included in the register referred to in subsection 27 (1) of the Act on and after January 1, 2023 if the property meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest:
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.
9The final Heritage Report was presented to the Town on April 30, 2024, following which a Notice of Intention to Designate the Property was issued on November 1, 2024, and the Designation By-Law was passed on February 10, 2025.
10Following the appeal of the Designation By-law, the Town and the Appellants engaged in discussions regarding settlement. In response to concerns identified, the Parties agreed that it would be useful to clarify in the Designation By-Law certain elements of the Property that are not heritage attributes. Accordingly, Ms. Galvin provided a list of those elements of the Property that are not heritage attributes, as follows:
Detached garage;
Garden shed;
Stone archway on front walkway;
Front porch; and
Paint colour on doors, wood trim around windows and on soffits and brackets.
11Following the foregoing discussions, the Parties made the Joint Submission to the Tribunal set forth above.
12Ms. Galvin attested in the Affidavit that in her professional opinion, the Designation By-law, with the modification described above to clarify those elements of the Property that are not heritage attributes, should be approved by the Tribunal.
FINDINGS
13The Tribunal accepts the analysis and conclusions provided by Ms. Galvin.
14Pursuant to section 29(15) of the OHA, the Tribunal has the authority to allow an appeal of a designating by-law under the OHA, in whole or in part, and to amend the by-law in such manner as the Tribunal may determine.
15Accordingly, the Tribunal will allow the Appeal in part and direct that the By-law be amended to add the following text at the end of Schedule “A”:
“The following are not heritage attributes of the property:
Detached garage
Garden shed
Stone archway on front walkway
Front porch
Paint colour on doors, wood trim around windows and on soffits and brackets”
ORDER
16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeal is allowed in part.
17THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that the Town of Newmarket By-law 2025-17 is hereby amended by the addition of the following text at the end of Schedule “A”:
The following are not heritage attributes of the property:
Detached garage
Garden shed
Stone archway on front walkway
Front porch
Paint colour on doors, wood trim around windows and on soffits and brackets
18THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that the Town Clerk and the Town Solicitor of the Town of Newmarket are authorized to create a copy of the Town of Newmarket By-law 2025-17, as amended by this Order, to be registered against title to the property located at 233 Prospect Street, Newmarket, Ontario in the proper Land Registry Office.
19THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that the Town Clerk of the Town of Newmarket is authorized to create notice of the approval of the Town of Newmarket By-law 2025-17, as amended by this Order, to be served upon the Ontario Heritage Trust.
20THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that the Town Clerk of the Town of Newmarket is authorized to serve a registered copy of the Town of Newmarket By-law 2025-17, as amended by this Order, upon the Ontario Heritage Trust.
“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.