Thind v. Mono (Town), 2026 CanLII 9743

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 03, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000058

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

Appellant (jointly): Amrik, Swaranjit, Manjeet and Rajwinder Thind

Subject: Objection to designation By-law 2023-47

Property Location/Description: 934322 Airport Road (Anderson Farm)

Municipality/Upper Tier: Mono/Dufferin

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000058

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000058

OLT Case Name: Thind v. Mono (Town)

Heard: January 28, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Manjeet Thind, Rajwinder Thind, Swaranjit Thind, Amrik Thind (the “Appellant”)	M. Aulakh
Town of Mono (the “Town”)	D. Germain J. Goraya

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D. ARNOLD ON JANUARY 28, 2026 AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1These proceedings pertain to an appeal filed by the Appellant pursuant to subsection 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, (the “Heritage Act”) of the Town’s By-law 2023-47 (the “By-law”) passed under the Heritage Act designating the property municipally known as 934322 Airport Road in the Town of Mono (the “Subject Property”) as being of cultural heritage value or interest (the “Appeal”).

2The Parties advised the Tribunal that they reached a settlement of the Appeal and requested that a settlement hearing be scheduled in order to present certain proposed amendments to the By-law for the Tribunal’s consideration.

3At the conclusion of the settlement hearing, the Tribunal rendered an oral decision allowing the Appeal in part to approve certain amendments to the By-law as detailed in this written Memorandum of that Oral Decision and Order.

EVIDENCE

4At the hearing, the Appellant called one witness, Dan Currie, who was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion heritage planning evidence. The Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty of Mr. Currie are found in Exhibits A and B respectively of the Affidavit of Mr. Currie affirmed January 20, 2026. This Affidavit was entered into evidence in these proceedings as Exhibit 1 (the “Currie Affidavit”).

5Mr. Currie provided expert professional heritage planning opinion evidence in oral testimony at the hearing with reference to the written evidence of the Currie Affidavit all as set out below.

6The Subject Property is located at 934322 Airport Road in the Town of Mono and contains four structures: a single detached house (the Farmhouse), a single detached house (the Cottage) a small stone accessory building (the Milkhouse) and a timber frame barn (the Barn). The Subject Property is known as the “Anderson Farm” as it was purchased by James Anderson in 1850 when he emigrated from Ireland and it continued to be owned by members of the Anderson family until it was sold by them in 2009. The Appellant lives in the Farmhouse; the other structures are in poor condition and not in use.

7Pursuant to the Heritage Act and Regulation 9/06 as amended by Regulation 569/22 under the Heritage Act (the “Heritage Regulation”), a municipality may pass a by-law designating a property as being of cultural heritage value or interest if at least two of the criteria prescribed by subsection 1(2) of the Heritage Regulation are met and the municipality follows the process for enactment of a designation by-law set out in the Heritage Act.

8Mr. Currie provided evidence that he reviewed the process followed by the Town including notice to the property owner and consultation with the Town’s heritage committee, and opined that the Town satisfied the statutory process prior to passing a designation by-law set out in the Heritage Act.

9Mr. Currie further opined that the Cottage meets at least two of the criteria prescribed by subsection 1(2) of the Heritage Regulation including criteria set out in paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 9 and in this regard opined, as detailed in Schedule B to the proposed amending by-law set out in Exhibit D to the Currie Affidavit (the “Proposed Amending By-law”) that the Cottage:

(a) Has design and physical value because it is a rare and unique example of a style, material and construction method;

(b) Has historical value and associative value because it has a direct association with a person significant to the community, and it yields information that contributes the understanding of a community; and

(c) Has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining and supporting the character of an area, and it is physically, functionally, visually and historically linked to its surroundings. The property is a landmark.

10As detailed in Statement of Cultural Heritage Value in the Proposed Amending By-law, Mr. Currie opined that the following attributes contribute to the cultural heritage value of the Cottage:

1. The location - because of its prominent position high on a hill overlooking the Hockley Valley, it is a landmark along the welltravelled Airport Road in Mono. The situation of the Cottage on the property is aesthetically pleasing and historically functional.

2. The architecture - the facades of the Cottage exhibit the balance, proportion and design of the Gothic farmhouse style, which is representative of one of the architectural styles of the 1800’s.

3. The original materials - the exterior fieldstone of the Cottage is original, dating back over 150 years. These materials contribute to the building's historical value.

4. The use – the Anderson Farm, whereon the Cottage is situated, operated successfully and contributed to the character and community of Mono for over 150 years.

11With regard to the other structures on the Subject Property, Mr. Currie opined that the Farmhouse has been altered and updated to the extent that it is not of cultural heritage value or “in jeopardy” as it is maintained and occupied. Mr. Currie opined that the Barn is in very poor condition and beyond the ability to conserve. Mr. Currie opined that the Milkhouse is a small accessory building that is not necessary to include in a designating by-law.

12Mr. Currie opined that the Proposed Amending By-law is consistent with the applicable Provincial Planning Statement (the “PPS”) including section 4.6 which states that “protected heritage property, which may include built heritage resources [in this case the Cottage] or cultural heritage landscapes, shall be conserved.” Mr. Currie provided evidence that the Proposed Amending By-law “ensures the long-term conservation of the Cottage [and] results in the requirement for a heritage permit and oversight by the municipality to ensure the relocation and rehabilitation of the Cottage is completed consistent with the regulations, guidelines and best practices for such endeavours.” (see Para. 28 of the Currie Affidavit).

12Moreover, Mr. Currie opined that the Proposed Amending By-law conforms to the County of Dufferin Official Plan and the Town’s Official Plan which both contain policies relating to the conservation of cultural heritage resources. In this regard, Mr. Currie referred to subsection 3.10.1 of the County of Dufferin Official Plan which states that “significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes will be conserved.” Mr. Currie also referred to subsection 24(15) of the Town’s Official Plan which states that “significant cultural heritage resources are valued for the contribution they make to the community and…shall be conserved in accordance with the policies of the [official plan] and other relevant legislation.” (see Para. 31 of the Currie Affidavit).

13In conclusion, Mr. Currie opined that the Subject Property in reference to the Cottage, as described in the Reasons for Designation of the Proposed Amending By-law, meets at least two of the criteria set out in the Heritage Regulation, the process for enacting a designating by-law under the Heritage Act has been satisfied, and the Proposed Amending By-law is consistent with the PPS and conforms with the respective official plans of the County of Dufferin and the Town of Mono.

FINDINGS

14Upon consideration of the evidence set forth in the Currie Affidavit and the oral evidence of Mr. Currie at the hearing, all of which was uncontroverted, the Tribunal finds that at least two of the prescribed criteria of Subsection 1(2) the Heritage Regulation have been satisfied such that the Subject Property in relation to the Cottage is of cultural heritage value or interest within the meaning of the Heritage Act.

15Finally, the Tribunal notes that there was evidence provided at the hearing regarding Minutes of Settlement between the Appellant and the Town pertaining to the Appeal including future plans for an application pursuant to the Heritage Act for removal of the Cottage from the Subject Property and relocation to a nearby property, together with a corresponding future proposed amendment to the designating by-law to reflect the new location of the Cottage. The Tribunal advised the parties at the hearing and reiterates that the Minutes of Settlement between the Appellant and the Town, including any rights or responsibilities in relation to the above-described future plans set out in the Minutes of Settlement, are a private contractual matter between those two parties and not the subject of the Tribunal’s consideration of the merits of the Appeal including the Proposed Amending By-law and the Order of the Tribunal set out in this Decision.

ORDER

16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal against By-law 2023-47 of the Town of Mono is allowed, in part, and the said By-law is amended as set out in Appendix “A” to this Order. In all other respects, the Tribunal orders that the Appeal is dismissed.

“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.

Appendix “A” to OLT-24-000058

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF MONO

BY-LAW NUMBER 2023 - 47

A BY-LAW TO DESIGNATE “THE ANDERSON FARM” IN THE TOWN OF MONO UNDER THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18

WHEREAS, Section 29 of Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18 (the “Act”), states that the council of a municipality may, by by-law, designate a property within the municipality to be of cultural heritage value or interest, and that the Ontario Land Tribunal, on appeal of a designating by-law, may amend the said by-law;

AND WHEREAS, it has been determined that the Cottage located on the Anderson Farm has cultural heritage value or interest in accordance with the Act and, on appeal to the Tribunal and a hearing on the merits of such appeal, the Tribunal has ordered certain amendments to the said by-law;

NOW THEREFORE, BY-LAW 2023-47 IS AMENDED BY THE ONTARIO LAND TRIBUNAL (FILE OLT-24-000058) AS FOLLOWS:

1. By-law 2023-47 is amended to remove the designation of cultural heritage value or interest from all buildings and structures on the property described as EAST PT LOT 17 RP 7R5670 PART 2, CON 6 EHS, in the Town of Mono, County of Dufferin, municipally known as 934322 Airport Road, and also known as “The Anderson Farm” nearest to the intersection of Airport Road and Sideroad 15, save and except for the Cottage, pursuant the Tribunal’s power under Section 29(15)(b)(ii) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

2. A site plan drawing identifying the area of the property where the Cottage having cultural heritage value or interest is situated is attached hereto as SCHEDULE “A”;

3. A statement explaining the cultural heritage value or interest of the Cottage in relation to the property is attached hereto as SCHEDULE “B”.

4. The following description of the heritage attributes that contribute to the cultural heritage value of the Cottage:

   1. The location - because of its prominent position high on a hill overlooking the Hockley Valley, it is a landmark along the welltravelled Airport Road in Mono. The situation of the Cottage on the property is aesthetically pleasing and historically functional.

   2. The architecture - the facades of the Cottage exhibit the balance, proportion and design of the Gothic farmhouse style, which is representative of one of the architectural styles of the 1800’s.

   3. The original materials - the exterior fieldstone of the Cottage is original, dating back over 150 years. These materials contribute to the building's historical value.

   4. The use – the Anderson Farm, whereon the Cottage is situated, operated successfully and contributed to the character and community of Mono for over 150 years.

5. The Town’s solicitor is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be registered upon the title to the property described above in the Land Registry Office.

BY-LAW, AS AMENDED BY THE TRIBUNAL (File OLT-24-000058), COMES INTO FORCE THIS 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026, THE DAY IT IS SO AMENDED.

SCHEDULE “A”

To By-law 2023-47 (as amended by the Ontario Land Tribunal)

Anderson Farm Designation Amendment

Site Plan/Scale Drawing

SCHEDULE “B”

To By-law 2023-47 (as amended by the Ontario Land Tribunal)

Anderson Farm Designation Amendment

Statement of Cultural Heritage Value

The Cottage on the “Anderson Farm” meets the following criteria as set out by subsection 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act and in subsection 1(2) of Ontario Regulation 9/06 made under the Act:

1. The property has design and physical value because it is a rare and unique example of a style, material and construction method.

2. The property has historical value and associative value because it has a direct association with a person significant to the community, and it yields information that contributes the understanding of a community.

3. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining and supporting the character of an area, and it is physically, functionally, visually and historically linked to its surroundings. The property is a landmark.

The pioneer homestead of the Anderson family, being comprised of the main house, the milkhouse, the cottage and the bank barn complex (3 buildings) are good surviving examples of fieldstone construction. Together they make up a rare historical complex of farm buildings, typical of the industrious Irish pioneers who came to Mono in the mid 1800’s. The Cottage was built c1859 and is in a state of decline. Its balanced symmetry, proportion and design are representative of the Gothic farmhouse style, one of the seminal architectural styles of the 1800’s. It is one of the few remaining stone buildings in the Town of Mono of this type and style. It is a landmark perched high above the 6th Line EHS (Airport Rd), which has contributed to the character of the road for well over a century. This property is well known in the community as the original homestead of the Anderson family, having been in their possession from 1850 to 2009. It is the lifetime home of Sheldon Anderson, a well-known resident who contributed significantly to the community, most notably through his environmental work in the reforestation of Mono, and his bluebird box initiatives, as well as his political involvement on Mono’s first Planning Board. The Cottage is a historically significant building that continues to contribute to the understanding of rural pioneer life in Mono.