Blog

2015 ended with an important OMB decision on the question of adjacency — the impact of proposed development on adjacent heritage property.

But first, some background. Ten years previous, a new cultural heritage policy was introduced in the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement. Policy 2.6.3, known as the “adjacent lands policy”, now reads:

I feel like this should come with an advisory: 

***The following post is intended for mature, if geeky and/or masochistic, audiences. May contain passages that are pedantic, exasperating, or numbingly dull. Reader discretion is advised.***

Don’t say you weren’t warned!

Today we delve into definitions, their fortes and foibles, with the spotlight on “cultural heritage.”

Happy 2016!

Another year, another heritage policy anniversary. It was 10 years ago (already!) that Ontario got two new regulations on cultural heritage significance: Ontario Regulation 9/06 and Ontario Regulation 10/06, usually known as O. Reg. 9/06 and O. Reg. 10/06.

Today’s case, another from the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), is from 2010. In ADMS Kelvingrove Investment Corporation v. City of Toronto we see an important evolution in the Board’s understanding and enunciation of its role when confronted on appeal with the all too common face-off between heritage and development/intensification.

From Port Dalhousie last time we go across Lake Ontario to the old village of Bronte in Oakville and another Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) case about a mammoth lakeshore development with impacts on heritage: Birchgrove Estates Inc. v. Town of Oakville.

This one is a particular favourite… and you’ll see why. But first, a little build-up.

This time it’s not the courts but that powerful court-like tribunal, the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).

Reviled in some circles and respected (often grudgingly) in others, the OMB generally has not endeared itself to heritage folks. We’ll look at one of the reasons why: its decision on a tower development in Port Dalhousie, the old canal village on Lake Ontario in St. Catharines.

We’re looking at heritage-related jurisprudence — decisions by the courts, Ontario Municipal Board and Conservation Review Board about the Ontario Heritage Act.

Our topic for today — please don’t be scared away —

Is what the courts have had to say…

about the O-H-A.

AKA jurisprudence: how the courts and, from a wider perspective, our regulatory tribunals — the Ontario Municipal Board and the Conservation Review Board — have interpreted the Act and its regulations.

Okay, deep breath…

There’s something else about churches…