Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 31, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000130
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18. as amended
Appellant: Parklane Home Builders Limited
Subject: Passing of Application
Description: Passing of By-law 107-2024 to designate a heritage property
Reference Number: By-law 107-2024
Property Address: 168 High Street L2A 3R1
Municipality/UT: Fort Erie
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000130
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000130
OLT Case Name: Parklane Home Builders Limited v. Fort Erie (Town)
Heard: March 25, 2026, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Parklane Home Builders Limited | S. Premi, E. Alderman, Student-at-Law |
| Town of Fort Erie | K. Algayer, D. Baker, in absentia |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY ON MARCH 25, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
BACKGROUND
1This Decision and Order arises from a hearing to consider the settlement proposal of an appeal brought by Parklane Home Builders Limited (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended (“Heritage Act”) concerning an objection to By-law No. 107-2024 (“Designation By-law”) passed by the Town of Fort Erie (“Town”). The Designation By-law authorized the designation of the property located at 168 High Street (“subject property”) as being of cultural heritage value or interest (“Town’s Decision”).
2The Town retained Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (“ARA”) to evaluate the cultural heritage value or interest of the subject property according to Ontario Regulation 9/06 as amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22 (“O.Reg 9/06") to determine whether the subject property is worthy of designation under Part IV of the Heritage Act. ARA prepared a report dated April 5, 2024 (“ARA Report”) wherein it determined that the subject property met the following two criteria prescribed in O.Reg 9/06:
Criteria 1: 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.
Criteria 4: 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.
3On November 18, 2024, Town Council passed the Designation By-law designating the subject property as having cultural heritage value or interest for the following reasons:
Criteria 1: “168 High Street is a representative example of the Queen Anne style. The one-and-a-half-storey frame house built on a T-shaped plan has a cross-gable roof with gable dormers, varied rectangular window openings, and a tower, all of which are typical of Queen Anne style residences. Horizontal emphasis through its exterior cladding and the verandah wraparound porch with wood posts and plain spindle work and detailing are also typical of the Queen Anne style.”
Criteria 4: “168 High Street has contextual value because it has direct associations with the 19th and 20th century summer home development as a conduit for economic prosperity and subsequent growth of the community, a theme that is significant to the greater Fort Erie area. 168 High Street was built as the summer residence of a wealthy American family, thus influencing the pattern of settlement and development in the community along the north shores of Lake Erie.”
4On February 20, 2025, the Appellant appealed the heritage designation of the subject property which arose from the passing of the Designation By-law.
5The Tribunal held three Case Management Conferences (“CMC”) on June 20, 2025, October 6, 2025, and November 10, 2025. At the third CMC, the Tribunal scheduled a three-day Merit Hearing. Following the Expert Witness meeting on January 29, 2026, the Parties engaged in without prejudice discussions which led to Minutes of Settlement being executed on February 25, 2026. Subsequently, the Parties requested that the Tribunal convert the first day of the scheduled Merit Hearing to a one-day hearing to consider a settlement proposal.
EVIDENCE
6In considering the settlement proposal, the Tribunal had before it the Witness Statement of Dr. Marcus Letourneau dated March 13, 2026, with composite Appendices, which was marked as Exhibit 1.
7Dr. Letourneau is a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, the Ontario Professional Planning Institute, the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and a Certified Institutional Protection Manager (Level 2) (CIPS II) from the International Foundation for Cultural Property Protection. He has over 25 years of experience in cultural heritage projects and is a senior partner with NPG Planning Solutions. On consent of the Parties, Dr. Letourneau was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence in heritage planning.
8The subject property currently consists of a 1 ½ storey building that includes three residential units. It is located in an established residential area comprised of one and two-storey single detached dwellings and is in close proximity to the historic core of the Town.
9The key elements of the building on the subject property that led to the Town’s Decision are its location on the corner of Bertie and High Street, the overall height, scale and massing, the asymmetrical façade and side elevations, the T-shaped floorplan, cross-gable roof with gable dormers, veranda with woodwork and the corner tower, some of which are depicted in the below image.
10Dr. Letourneau prepared a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report for the subject property dated September 22, 2025 (“CHER”) which was included as Appendix 4 to his Witness Statement. In the CHER, Dr. Letourneau provided a detailed analysis and images demonstrating the evolution of the subject property throughout the years. The images, particularly those of the foundation taken in the basement of the building, showed that the shape of the original building had been significantly altered. Dr. Letourneau explained that the significant alterations made to the subject property over the years may not be evident simply from viewing the exterior of the property. This is noteworthy because prior to producing the ARA Report, ARA did not have an opportunity to conduct an interior inspection of the subject property.
11Dr. Letourneau’s Witness Statement reviewed Criteria 1 and 4 of O.Reg 9/06 which formed the basis for the Town’s Decision. In contrast to the Town’s reasons set out in paragraph [3] above, Dr. Letourneau concluded that the subject property does not meet any of the criteria set out in O.Reg 9/06 for the following reasons:
Criteria 1: “The building on the Subject Lands has been altered several times over its existence. Its earliest form is defined by the rectangular stone foundation that exists. This rectangular building ran north-south, and the presence of stone columns under the western portion of the building suggests that a porch may have existed along the western elevation. The existing tower is not located on the stone foundation, which also suggests this was a later addition. The western section of the building currently has a foundation of concrete masonry units. This suggests the western section was also constructed later, creating the T-shape that exists today. The veranda along the south elevation also postdates the original building, as it contains a concrete foundation and uses modern pressure treated lumber.”
Criteria 4: “Further, based upon the analysis undertaken, there is no evidence the Subject Property influenced the pattern of settlement and development along the north shores of Lake Erie. Lastly, the property ownership reveals that the Subject Property was used in the early 19th century for agricultural purposes. Ownership by certain individuals, such as Benjamin Hardison and James Stanton, is not significant. By the late 19th century, the Runcie family had owned the Subject Property, using it as a summer residence. In the context of determining CHVI, the ownership and usage for this purpose is insignificant; the 19th and 20th centuries saw numerous tourists and seasonal residents visit the Town.”
12In his Witness Statement and his oral testimony, Dr. Letourneau provided a detailed history of the subject property’s ownership, noting that it was originally part of a much larger owned parcel. His research led him to conclude that there was no evidence that the subject property influenced the pattern of settlement and development in the area, nor that its ownership or usage was of any significance.
13In Dr. Letourneau’s opinion, the subject property does not meet any of the criteria set out in O/Reg 9.06 and therefore does not meet the provincial test for heritage significance. His recommendation to the Tribunal was to allow the appeal and repeal the Designating By-law.
ANALYSIS AND DISPOSITION
14As explained by Dr. Letourneau, a property may be designated as having cultural heritage value or interest by the Council of a Municipality pursuant to the Heritage Act if it meets at least two of nine prescribed criteria set out in Section 1(2) of O.Reg 9/06. Based on the evidence presented, the Tribunal finds that the subject property does not meet any of the nine prescribed criteria.
15The Tribunal accepts the uncontested opinion evidence and conclusions provided by Dr. Letourneau. Dr. Letourneau’s research and conclusions make it clear that the subject property has undergone numerous alterations throughout its existence making the resulting building, as it exists today, neither rare nor unique. Based on the evidence of Dr. Letourneau, the Tribunal finds that the subject property is not representative of the Queen Anne Revival Style as the height, tower and current T-shape of the building were all later additions. Further, there is no evidence that the subject property influenced a pattern of settlement and/or development in Fort Erie, nor does it assist in understanding a community or culture in the area.
16Pursuant to s. 29(15) of the Heritage Act, following a hearing event, the Tribunal has the authority to allow an appeal in whole or in part and amend or repeal the by-law in such manner as the Tribunal may determine.
17Based on the evidence presented, the Tribunal is satisfied that the subject property does not meet any of the criteria set out in O/Reg 9.06. The Tribunal will allow the appeal in whole and order the repeal of the Designating By-law.
ORDER
18THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal against By-law 107-2024 of the Town of Fort Erie is allowed and By-law 107-2024 is hereby repealed.
“C. Hardy”
C. HARDY VICE CHAIR
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.