Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 12, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-26-000142, OLT-26-000145
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18. as amended
Applicant/Appellant (jointly): Vincent Lai Shuen Yam and Shirley Yam
Subject: Objection to designation By-law 1497-2025
Property Address: 336 Jarvis Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-26-000142
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-26-000142
OLT Case Name: Yam v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18. as amended
Applicant/Appellant (jointly): Vincent Lai Shuen Yam and Shirley Yam
Subject: Objection to designation By-law 1498-2025
Property Address: 340 Jarvis Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-26-000145
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-26-000145
OLT Case Name: Yam v. Toronto (City)
Heard: April 29, 2026, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Vincent Lai, Shuen Yam, and Shirley Yam
Jason Yam*
City of Toronto
Daniel Elmadany Rachel Godley
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE ON APRIL 29, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This event was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) before the Tribunal with respect to an appeal known as Tribunal file No. OLT-26-000142 (“Appeal 1”), under section 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act (“OHA”) by Vincent Lai, Shuen Yam, and Shirley Yam (“Appellants”) resulting from the City of Toronto’s (“City”) passing of By-law No. 1497-2025 on December 17, 2025, designating the property known as 336 Jarvis Street in the City (“Subject Property 1”) under section 29, part IV of the OHA for cultural heritage value or interest.
2This event was also the first CMC before the Tribunal with respect to an appeal, known as Tribunal file No. OLT-26-000145 (“Appeal 2”), under section 29(11) of the OHA by the Appellants resulting from the City’s passing of By-law No. 1498-2025 on December 17, 2025, designating the property known as 340 Jarvis Street in the City (“Subject Property 2”) under section 29, part IV of the OHA for cultural heritage value or interest.
3At the CMC, the Tribunal canvassed Counsel, who confirmed that there were no issues with the service of the Notices of CMC. The Tribunal is in receipt of the following Affidavits of Service, which were marked as Exhibits, and confirm that Notice was adequately served:
a. Appeal 1: Affidavit of Service sworn by Darren Armoogam on March 17, 2026, Marked as Exhibit 1; and
b. Appeal 2: Affidavit of Service sworn by Darren Armoogam on March 17, 2026, Marked as Exhibit 2.
4As such, no further Notice is required in either matter.
STATUS REQUESTS
5The Tribunal did not receive any requests for Party or Participant status.
APPEALS BEING HEARD TOGETHER
6At the CMC, the City requested that Appeal 1 and Appeal 2 be heard together in accordance with Rules 16.1 and 16.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). Hearing together would be appropriate as: both Appeals have the same Appellants; the Subject Properties are located very close to each other; and the Appeals relate to similar (though not the same) issues. If the matters are heard together, evidence can be streamlined, and duplication can be avoided. The City added that consolidation would not be appropriate as the basis for the heritage designation of each Subject Property is different, and the issues to be addressed relate to specific criteria to be met in each Appeal. However, enough similarity exists that both Appeals can proceed at the same time. The Appellants agreed with this approach.
7The Tribunal considered both Appeals and the submission of the Parties and found that it would be appropriate for these two matters to be heard together, agreeing with the points raised by the City. In the interest of addressing these Appeals in a fair and expeditious proceeding, the Tribunal ordered Appeal 1 and Appeal 2 to be heard together in keeping with Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules, specifically Rule 16.3.
PROCEDURAL ORDER
8The Parties provided a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and two Issues Lists (ILs), one pertaining to each Appeal, in advance of the CMC. The PO with ILs were reviewed and ratified at the CMC, are attached to this Decision as “Schedule A,” and will govern this proceeding.
MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT
9The Parties were directed to advise the Tribunal in writing should they reach a Settlement with respect to some or all of the issues prior to the Hearing, and should they wish to pursue Tribunal-assisted mediation, they may make a written request to the Tribunal through the Case Coordinator for those services.
HEARING
10Given the number of Parties, potential issues, and potential witnesses (one from the City, none from the Appellants), the Tribunal agreed that a one-day Merit Hearing would be sufficient. A Hearing has been scheduled to take place, by Video Hearing, on Thursday, September 24, 2026, at 10 a.m.
11The Parties are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:
GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/442599157
Access Code: 442-599-157
12The Parties are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.
13Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9391 or (Toll-Free) 1-888-455-1389. The access code is: 442-599-157.
14Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the event to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to the event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.
15As of March 30, 2026, all hearing events are governed by the Tribunal’s Artificial Intelligence Practice Direction. This Practice Direction requires a party, participant, or witness to include a declaration within each submitted document if generative AI was used to create or generate content.
ORDER
16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS as follows:
a. Tribunal file numbers OLT-26-000142 and OLT-26-000145 are to be heard together, in accordance with Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure;
b. A Hearing is scheduled as described above in this Decision; and
c. The Procedural Order and Issues Lists, attached as Schedule A, shall govern this proceeding.
17There will be no further Notice.
18This Member is not seized but may be contacted through the Case Coordinator should procedural issues arise.
“Bita M. Rajaee”
BITA M. RAJAEE
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 A