Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 23, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-26-000069
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34.1(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18. as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Ioan Solomes
Subject: Passing of Application
Description: To appeal specific conditions imposed on a heritage demolition permit.
Reference Number: Heritage Permit Application HPA 2025 IV 024
Property Address: 1385 Bleams Road
Municipality/UT: Kitchener/ Waterloo
OLT Case No.: OLT-26-000069
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-26-000069
OLT Case Name: Solomes v. Kitchener (City)
Heard: April 13, 2026, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Ioan Solomes (the “Appellant”) | Self-represented* |
| City of Kitchener (the “City”) | A. Ciccone |
DECISION DELIVERED BY D. ARNOLD AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
Introduction
1These proceedings pertain to an appeal (“Appeal”) filed by the Appellant pursuant to section 34.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended (the “Act”), of the conditions imposed as part of the City’s Decision with respect to an application made by the Appellant pursuant to section 34 of the Act for consent to carry out certain demolition/removal at the property municipally known as 1385 Bleams Road in the City of Kitchener (the “Subject Property”). The Subject Property is subject to the City’s By-law No. 87-309 passed under the Act, designating the Subject Property as being of historical and architectural value (the “Designating By-law”).
2The Appeal was filed by Ioan Solomes, who was present at the proceedings, and who identified his spouse, Alina Solomes, who was also present at the proceedings, as being authorized to represent the Appellant in the proceedings.
3At the proceedings, the following documents were entered as Exhibits in Evidence:
Exhibit 1: Document Book – City of Kitchener
Exhibit 2: Witness Statement of Michelle Drake dated March 30, 2026
Exhibit 3: Four emails dated December 1, 8 and 11 (2 emails), 2025 between Alina Solomes and Deeksha Choudry (City employee)
Exhibit 4: Orchard Design Studio Inc. Existing and Proposed Heritage House Elevations, Plot Date April 25, 2025
Exhibit 5: Three emails dated September 5, October 16 and 19, 2025 between Alina Solomes and Deeksha Choudry (City employee)
Exhibit 6: Four emails dated October 17, December 17 and 31, 2025 and January 2, 2026, between Alina Solomes and Deeksha Choudry and Garrett Stevenson (City employees)
The Designating By-law and the Application
4The Designating By-law (Exhibit 1, Tab 13) identifies the following parts (or “heritage attributes”) of the Subject Property as being of historical and architectural value: “…the rubble stone facades of the original stone schoolhouse, the belfry, the fence and the wood shed”.
5Subsection 34(1) of the Act provides:
(1) No owner of property designated under section 29 shall do either of the following, unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality in which the property is situate and receives consent in writing to the demolition or removal:
Demolish or remove, or permit the demolition or removal of, any of the property’s heritage attributes, as set out in the description of the property’s heritage attributes in the by-law that was required to be registered under clause 29 (12) (b) or subsection 29 (19), as the case may be.
Demolish or remove a building or structure on the property or permit the demolition or removal of a building or structure on the property, whether or not the demolition or removal would affect the property’s heritage attributes, as set out in the description of the property’s heritage attributes in the by-law that was required to be registered under clause 29 (12) (b) or subsection 29 (19), as the case may be.
6An application dated May 14, 2025 (Exhibit 1, Tab 2A) was made by the Appellant to the City for consent to carry out the following demolition/removal: “Removal of the two additions to the original schoolhouse, removal of the belfry, [and] removal of the [wood] shed” (the “Application”).
7The City’s Council issued notice of its Decision on the Application by letter dated December 17, 2025 to the Appellant (Exhibit 1, Tab 6), as follows:
Please be advised that at The City of Kitchener’s regular Council meeting held on December 15, 2025, Council passed the following resolution:
“That pursuant to Section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-IV-024 be approved to permit the demolition of a shed, two additions, and belfry at the property municipally addressed as 1385 Bleams Road, in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with this application, and subject to the following conditions as outlined in Development Services Department Report, DSD-2025-462:
That the Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum be approved by the Director of Development and Housing Approvals prior to the issuance of this permit;
That the Owners enter into a heritage easement agreement with the City in accordance with Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act for the restoration/reconstruction of the belfry prior to the issuance of this permit;
That the building permit be reviewed, and heritage clearance be provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit to facilitate the restoration/reconstruction of the belfry; [and]
The heritage clearance be provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the demolition of the shed and c.1920s and 1987 addition.” (the “Permit Conditions”)
8In the Appeal, the Appellant requests that all four of the Permit Conditions be deleted from the consent to demolish the stated structures.
9Given that the Permit Conditions are now the subject of the Appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal requested submissions from the City regarding the conditions that entailed “City staff approval” (as set out in Permit Conditions 1, 3, and 4 above) and specifically with respect to the issue of whether the Tribunal’s jurisdiction on appeal would be improperly yielded to the City if such “City staff approval” conditions were to be imposed by the Tribunal as part of its disposition of the Appeal.
10The City advised the Tribunal that the City was no longer requesting that the Tribunal impose Permit Conditions 1, 3, and 4. Instead, the City requested that the Tribunal consider only the imposition of Permit Condition 2 (the heritage easement requirement in connection with the restoration/reconstruction of the belfry) in its adjudication of the Appeal.
Evidence of the City
11At the Hearing, the City called one witness, Michelle Drake, who was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert professional heritage planning opinion evidence. Ms. Drake’s Curriculum Vitae and signed Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty are found at Appendix “A” and “B” respectively to Ms. Drake’s Witness Statement (Exhibit 2).
12Ms. Drake provided expert professional heritage planning opinion evidence at the Hearing as set out below including adoption and agreement with the professional heritage planning opinion contained in the staff report concerning the Application (Exhibit 1, Tab 2, and Exhibit 2, Para. 25).
13The Subject Property is a 0.8-acre parcel of land located on the south side of Bleams Road between Abram Clemens Street and Fischer Hallman Road in the City of Kitchener. There is a one-storey 19th century former schoolhouse (the “Original Schoolhouse”) constructed in the rural vernacular schoolhouse architectural style and a detached wood shed in the rear yard located on the Subject Property.
14There are two additions to the Original Schoolhouse, with the first addition being built in the 1920s (the “1920s Addition”) and the second addition being built in 1987 (the “1987 Addition”). Neither the 1920s Addition nor the 1987 Addition are identified as heritage attributes in the Designating By-law; however, they are “buildings or structures” on the Subject Property within the meaning of subsection 34(1) paragraph 2 of the Act. The expert heritage planning opinion of the staff report, adopted by Ms. Drake, recommended that the City’s Council consent to demolition of both the 1920s Addition and the 1987 Addition as neither was a designated heritage attribute, the 1920s Addition would require significant and costly repairs, and the 1987 Addition was of “no cultural heritage significance or value” (Exhibit 1, Tab 2).
15Ms. Drake testified that the fence was demolished pursuant to an approval granted by the City in connection with a Regional Road widening in 2024.
16Ms. Drake provided evidence that City staff undertook research in an effort to determine the evidentiary basis for an association of the wood shed to the Williamsburg School but were unable to determine such basis (Exhibit 1, Tab 2).The structural assessment of the wood shed (Exhibit 1, Tab 2B) determined that its structural framing is in “fair” condition and its roof is in “poor” condition. The Heritage Impact Addendum (Exhibit 1, Tab 2D) stated that the wood shed would require “an almost complete rebuild” with an estimated cost that might exceed $50,000. The structural assessment concluded that “while a restoration of the wood shed may be contemplated, from a logistics, feasibility, and safety perspective, repairs may not be viable given its current state and the invasive structural recommendations for this structure” (e.g. new foundation, full reframing of the floor). Further, salvaging a significant portion of the existing cladding may not be possible” (Exhibit 1, Tab 2B, p. 59 PDF). Ms. Drake opined that in view of the foregoing circumstances, and balancing the costs associated with restoring both the wood shed and the belfry, it is appropriate that consent be given to demolish the wood shed (a designated heritage attribute) but that the belfry be restored/reconstructed on the Original Schoolhouse (as detailed in the summary of Ms. Drake’s evidence below).
17The belfry was constructed on the Original Schoolhouse (built in 1864) originally and associated with the former use of the Subject Property as a school known as the “Williamsburg School” as depicted in a photograph of the Original Schoolhouse from the late 1800s (Exhibit 1, Tab 2, Figure 16, p. 21 PDF). The “School Bell” was mounted in the belfry in 1910, although the School Bell is no longer in place and its removal date is unknown (Exhibit 1, Tab 2D). The belfry was relocated subsequently to the roof of the 1920s Addition. In view of the foregoing, Ms. Drake opined that the belfry has a clear and direct association with the Original Schoolhouse from its original construction in 1864.
18The structural assessment of the belfry (Exhibit 1, Tab 2B) identified that the belfry roof was in “poor” condition, and the belfry posts were in “poor/failed condition”. The authors of the structural assessment recommended that the belfry be removed “as soon as possible” due to “the extent of the deterioration to the existing posts, and its location perched on top of the roof of the house” constituting a “safety concern” (Exhibit 1, Tab 2B, at p. 46 PDF). Ms. Drake testified that an Order was issued by the City’s building staff in connection with this safety concern. Ms. Drake testified that the belfry “collapsed” in late 2025 and is no longer in place on the 1920s Addition.
19Ms. Drake opined that the condition of a heritage attribute such as the belfry does not negate that it is a heritage attribute nor the requirement to obtain approval under the Act for its removal. In circumstances in which a heritage attribute can not be repaired, Ms. Drake opined that she concurred with the approach detailed in Standard 13 of the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Exhibit 1, Tab 12, p. 207 PDF) which states, in part:
(b) Where character-defining elements are too severely deteriorated to repair and where sufficient physical evidence exists, replace them with new elements that match the forms, materials and detailing of sound versions of the same element.
20Ms. Drake opined that she concurred with the recommendation of the addendum to heritage impact assessment (Exhibit 1, Tab 2D) that a replicated belfry using “durable, long-lasting materials” located on the roof of the Original Schoolhouse mitigates the adverse impact of the loss of a heritage attribute while allowing the Appellant’s application to demolish the 1920s Addition on which the belfry was located prior to its collapse in late 2025.
21Ms. Drake opined that a heritage easement is “used to avoid the adverse impact of the loss of a heritage attribute by managing the reconstruction of the belfry to ensure this heritage attribute is conserved and not lost. The Agreement outlines shared objectives and clear obligations regarding when, where, and how the belfry will be reconstructed. Once all obligations have been met, the Agreement is no longer required and can be removed from title” (Exhibit 2, Para. 30).
22Ms. Drake agreed with the professional heritage planning opinion in the staff report (Exhibit 1, Tab 2) that a “balanced approach” was taken with respect to the consent to permit the demolition of the wood shed, the 1920s Addition, and the 1987 Addition, but subject to conditions that focus on the belfry including a heritage easement agreement to require construction of a replica belfry. This approach takes into account the relative costs that are estimated to be associated with repair/reconstruction of the wood shed, the 1920s Addition and the 1987 Addition and the Appellant’s opposition to undertake such work, while conserving the belfry for its contribution as a heritage attribute to the historical and architectural value to the Subject Property.
23In cross-examination, Ms. Drake testified that the City’s Council approved the utilization of the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines (Exhibit 1, Tab 12) in consideration of applications for removal/demolition of heritage attributes. Ms. Drake opined that she concurred with the statement in the Guidelines that “conservation is a case-by-case pursuit, based on an understanding of the specific values of an historic place” (Exhibit 1, Tab 12, p. 192 PDF).
24In cross-examination, Ms. Drake testified that use of a heritage easement agreement is “not standard” and “not common” in a condition of approval to demolish/remove a heritage attribute granted by the City. Ms. Drake opined that a heritage easement would “facilitate” the reconstruction of the belfry. Ms. Drake further opined that the word “conservation” in s. 37 of the Act, the enabling provision for heritage easements, is broad enough to include construction of a new belfry that replicates the collapsed belfry.
25Ms. Drake testified that no draft heritage easement agreement has been provided by the City to the Appellant to date.
26In closing submissions, the City submitted that the heritage easement agreement would enable the City to ensure that the replica belfry is constructed in accordance with its terms and conditions that specify “when, where, and how the belfry will be reconstructed” as opined by Ms. Drake. Once the obligations of the heritage easement agreement are fulfilled, this agreement would no longer be required, and the City would agree to a condition in the heritage easement agreement which would require its removal from title to the Subject Property at that time.
27In closing submissions, counsel for the City submitted the case Rams Head Development Inc. v. Toronto (City)1 and drew the Tribunal’s attention to paragraph 127 in that Decision in which the then Ontario Municipal Board directed the City “to consent to the demolition of a building on a property to which a designating by-law applied, subject to the conditions that certain walls of the building were retained and a common law easement agreement is entered into between the proponent and the City and registered on title prior [to] the demolition or repeal of the designating by-law” (emphasis added). Counsel for the City acknowledged that it was unclear from the Decision whether this latter condition was imposed on consent of the Parties and also advised the Tribunal that a caselaw search did not reveal any other caselaw in which a heritage easement agreement was imposed as a condition of consent for demolition/removal of heritage attributes.
Evidence of the Appellant
28Alina Solomes testified on behalf of the Appellant. No other witnesses were called by the Appellant.
29Ms. Solomes testified that the addendum to heritage impact assessment, cost estimate, structural assessment, and structural report (Exhibit 1, Tabs 2B, 2C, 2D, and 2E) that have been obtained by the Appellant with respect to the belfry contemplated restoration/reconstruction of the belfry on the 1920s Addition. Ms. Solomes testified that there have been no structural or other assessments carried out with respect to the feasibility of construction of a replica belfry on the Original Schoolhouse. Ms. Solomes further testified that there have been no cost estimates obtained or provided with respect to construction of a replica belfry on the Original Schoolhouse. Ms. Solomes testified that the Appellant is concerned that even if the construction of a replica belfry on the Original Schoolhouse is feasible, the cost may be very significant.
30Ms. Solomes testified, with reference to the emails between City staff and herself (Exhibits 3, 5, and 6), that she has not seen any draft form of heritage easement agreement despite numerous requests for it to be provided to her and emails from City staff indicating that a draft agreement would be provided to her.
31Ms. Solomes testified that the Appellant has significant concerns about the potential terms and conditions of a heritage easement agreement. For example, Ms. Solomes is concerned that there may be a provision that if the Appellant does not carry out the belfry reconstruction “properly”, then the City may enter onto the Subject Property and do the work at the Appellant’s cost and this cost may be significant. Ms. Solomes also testified that the Appellant is concerned about the impact that registration of a heritage easement on title to the Subject Property may have on various matters, including its valuation and obtaining financing secured by the Subject Property.
32In cross examination, Ms. Solomes testified that she was aware of the Designating By-law when they purchased the Subject Property approximately 5 years ago, and that they have undertaken no work on the belfry since becoming the owner. Ms. Solomes testified that the belfry was “already severely damaged” when they purchased the Subject Property. In cross-examination, Ms. Solomes was questioned about the cost estimate obtained by her (Exhibit 1, Tab 2C) as it pertained to the reconstruction of the belfry and Ms. Solomes agreed that as the existing belfry has “collapsed”, there would no longer be the expense of its removal. Ms. Solomes also agreed that the cost estimate, including the removal of the existing belfry (no longer required) totalled $20,455.83 (Exhibit 1, Tab 2C, p. 73 PDF). Ms. Solomes testified that the cost estimate was based on construction of the replica belfry on the 1920s Addition and no cost estimate has been undertaken for construction of a replica belfry on the Original Schoolhouse. Ms. Solomes testified that she was willing to pay $15,000 towards the construction of the replica belfry. Ms. Solomes testified that she is aware of the City’s heritage grant programme which provides grants of up to fifty per cent of the cost of replacement of a heritage attribute.
33Ms. Solomes provided submissions to the Tribunal that she does not think that the Act, and specifically with respect to the heritage easement provisions and the consent for demolition/removal of a heritage attribute, provides a legal basis for the imposition of a condition to construct a replica belfry on the Original Schoolhouse nor indeed does the Act provide a legal basis for the imposition of a heritage easement agreement at all as a condition of a consent by the City for demolition/removal of a heritage attribute.
Analysis and Findings
34Under subsection 34.1(5) of the Act, the powers of the Tribunal with respect to the Appeal are as follows:
(5) After holding a hearing, the Tribunal may order,
(a) that the appeal be dismissed; or
(b) that the municipality consent to the demolition or removal referred to in paragraph 1 or 2 of subsection 34(1), as the case may be, without terms and conditions or with such terms and conditions as the Tribunal may specify in the order.
35The belfry is identified as a heritage attribute in By-law No. 87-309. Section 34 of the Act provides that no owner of a property subject to a designating by-law may demolish or remove, or permit the demolition or removal of, any of the property’s heritage attributes, as set out in the description of the property’s heritage attributes in the designating by-law or any building or structure on the property, whether or not the demolition or removal would affect the property’s heritage attributes, unless the owner receives the consent of the Council of the municipality in which the property is located.
36The Tribunal considered evidence in these proceedings and finds that the belfry was located originally on the Original Schoolhouse (built in 1864) and is associated with the former use of the Subject Property as a school known as the “Williamsburg School”. The belfry was relocated subsequently to the roof of the 1920s Addition when both the Original Schoolhouse and the 1920s Addition continued to be utilized as the Williamsburg School. The Tribunal finds that the belfry has a clear and direct association with the Williamsburg School from its original construction in 1864. The Tribunal finds that there would be an adverse impact to the heritage attribute if a belfry no longer exists on the Williamsburg School property.
37The Tribunal finds that even if a heritage attribute is severely deteriorated, or indeed “collapsed” as was described in evidence in these proceedings to be the case with respect to the belfry, the belfry remains a heritage attribute within the meaning of the Act, such that consideration of an “authentic restoration/reconstruction” is a means of conserving this heritage attribute, as described by Ms. Drake in her expert opinion evidence and described in the Parks Canada Guidelines, and is appropriate as a condition of a permit for demolition/removal of heritage attributes under the Act. The Tribunal concurs with the expert opinion of Ms. Drake that mitigation of the adverse impact of the loss of the belfry heritage attribute by way of construction of a replica on the Original Schoolhouse is appropriate.
38The Tribunal concurs with the professional heritage planning opinion evidence of Ms. Drake, including the opinion set out in the staff report (Exhibit 1, Tab 2), that a “balanced approach” to conserving the designated Subject Property is appropriate as it takes into account the relative costs of conservation of the wood shed, the 1920s Addition, the 1987 Addition, and the belfry (including repair, restoration and reconstruction considerations as outlined in the Parks Canada Guidelines), with the overall conservation of the Williamsburg Schoolhouse and the objectives of the Act with respect to a designating by-law. The Tribunal finds that the preponderance of the evidence established that a belfry existed on the Original Schoolhouse dating back to the 1800s prior to its relocation on the 1920s Addition. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that construction of the replica belfry on the Original Schoolhouse is appropriate to mitigate the adverse impact of the loss of the belfry heritage attribute from the 1920s Addition.
39In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal finds that consent to demolish the wood shed, the 1920s Addition, and the 1987 Addition is appropriate, subject to the condition that a replica belfry be constructed on the Original Schoolhouse to conserve the belfry as a heritage attribute.
40The City submitted that a heritage easement agreement would be the appropriate tool by which the condition to construct the replica belfry would be facilitated. The City’s evidence was that a heritage easement agreement would “facilitate” the construction of the replica belfry by providing “clear obligations between the owner and the City”. Ms. Drake also opined that “a heritage easement agreement is a tool that is used to manage change”. Ms. Drake testified that a heritage easement agreement will provide “certainty” that the replica belfry will be constructed and, in that manner stipulated in the agreement, while allowing the Appellant to undertake the requested demolition of the wood shed (a designated heritage attribute), the 1920s Addition, and the 1987 Addition.
41The Tribunal was not provided with a draft form of the proposed heritage easement agreement or evidence regarding its proposed terms and conditions other than evidence provided by the City that the easement registration would be removed from title to the Subject Property at such time as the replica belfry was constructed in accordance with the requirements of the agreement.
42The Tribunal finds that its statutory power on appeal pursuant to subsection 34.1(5) of the Act includes jurisdiction to impose a condition that requires a heritage easement agreement. This statutory power refers simply to “terms and conditions” and accordingly provides practical flexibility for the imposition of appropriate terms and conditions that best address mitigation of adverse impacts to heritage attributes in the specific circumstances of each application for demolition/removal. The Tribunal concurs with the opinion evidence of Ms. Drake that while this condition is not “standard” or “common”, it is appropriate with respect to the Application and disposition of the Appeal in order to effectively conserve the belfry as a designated heritage attribute and the architectural and historical value of the Williamsburg School. The Tribunal finds that imposition of this condition provides the benefits of certainty and clarity in describing the respective obligations of the Appellant and the City. A heritage easement agreement provides the City with certainty, including that the replica belfry will be an “authentic reconstruction”, as described in Ms. Drake’s evidence, as it will be constructed in accordance with the design and material specifications of the heritage easement agreement. The agreement will provide the Appellant with this certainty of construction details as well and, moreover, may provide potential timing flexibility to efficiently co-ordinate the permitted demolition work and the requirement to construct the replica belfry. In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal finds that this condition is appropriate for the particular and specific circumstances of the Application and disposition of the Appeal.
43A significant concern raised by the Appellant in these proceedings was that the heritage easement agreement would be registered on title to the Subject Property and have deleterious impacts to its valuation and financing. The City provided evidence and submissions that the registration would be “temporary” until such time as construction of the replica belfry was completed. The Tribunal finds that the substantive purpose of the heritage easement agreement is to set out the obligations of the Appellant with respect to the construction of the replica belfry and, as such, the agreement may be released from title to the Subject Property upon completion of such construction. It is noted that the Designating By-law will remain on title to the Subject Property. In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal finds that it is appropriate that the condition of the consent requiring a heritage easement agreement shall stipulate that the easement agreement include provision for the release of such agreement from title to the Subject Property expeditiously upon completion of the construction of the replica belfry.
ORDER
44THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeal is allowed, in part, and the City of Kitchener is to consent to the demolition/removal of the wood shed, the 1920s Addition (including any remnants of the “collapsed” belfry) and the 1987 Addition at 1385 Bleams Road in the City of Kitchener (“Subject Property”) with terms and conditions as follows: Prior to the commencement of any of the above-described demolition/removal on the Subject Property, Ioan Solomes (the “Appellant”) and the City of Kitchener shall enter into a heritage easement agreement in accordance with section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act for the construction of a replica belfry on the Original Schoolhouse by the Appellant which includes provision for release of the easement from title to the Subject Property expeditiously upon completion of the construction of the replica belfry.
“D. Arnold”
D. ARNOLD
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.