The Ontario Land Tribunal 50 page Decision following the 14 Hearing days Sept 15 2026 - October 3, 2026 and 1 day of closing submissions October 8, 2025, concerning the former residence of Robert McLaughlin, 195 Simcoe St. N.
The owner's appeal to demolish the heritage structure was dismissed.
The NANTUCKET INVESTMENTS INC. vs. THE CITY OF OSHAWA full Decision is available for the public to read here: https://www.canlii.org/.../2026canlii.../2026canlii30961.pdf
Adjudicator N. EISAZADEH delivered the final ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL "THAT the Appeal is dismissed and the City of Oshawa’s
refusal of the application to demolish the structure at 195 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa remains in force and effect."
Below are picture exhibits provided by the City and identified in the decision: "[14] To frame the discussion that follows with appropriate context, visuals of the Robert McLaughlin House are helpful. (Copied below) are the four images that depict the exterior of the Robert McLaughlin House during the following four time periods:
(i) the earliest photo in evidence of the original structure;
(ii) the structure pre-fire;
(iii) the structure immediately post-fire; and
(iv) the structure approximately five (5)years post-fire
BUT what still remains is the BIG QUESTION many Oshawans have been asking since 2019 - how soon WILL THE ROOF BE REPAIRED TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE TO THE INTERIOR?
Below are some of what, in my opinion, are pertinent sections of the Decision:
Framework the Ontario Land Tribunal adjudicator set out in the Decision , first -
"WHAT THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT
[8] As is evident from the overview on the scope of evidence tendered, a substantial amount of evidence was called, and time spent, on a wide range of matters going well beyond the bounds of a typical heritage demolition permit application. A key reason for this is the Parties’ opposing views on a legal threshold issue regarding the applicable legislative and analytical framework on the present Appeal. The Tribunal, having allowed the Hearing to have been carried out to its fullest, and having since had the opportunity to consider the full extent of all of the evidence and legal submissions that the Parties deemed relevant and necessary, is now in a position to scope this Decision to the
appropriate elements. Briefly, it shall first set out what this case is not about.
[9] This case is not about an alleged narrative suggesting the City has been “targeting” the Applicant; nor is it about the credibility of the Principals of the Applicant corporation nor the interim measures it did, did not, or ought to have taken to better secure or preserve the property. To this end, evidence related to the history of the uses of the property, past Planning Act applications, prior unsafe building orders or orders to comply under the Building Code Act, past investigation of the property by the City in relation to alleged property standards by-law violations or the outcome of those investigations including related charges or proceedings, are not relevant to the ultimate issues which this Tribunal must decide. Equally, evidence regarding whether there was a property issues claim issue post-fire, the financial state of the Applicant, alleged delays in permitting site visits or other procedural steps, and the costs associated with the retention, preservation and restoration of the property, are also not relevant. This case is also not about whether the City ought to have exercised its rights under the OHA to expropriate the property, nor its power under s. 15.4 of the Building Code Act to take demolition or restoration actions respecting the state of the property and to pursue compensation in the form of a lien against the property after the fact.
[10] Additionally, it bears mentioning that issues previously struck from the issues list at a February 3, 2025 Case Management Conference (“CMC Decision”) is not a predetermination of the ultimate issues that the Tribunal must decide on the present de novo Hearing. For clarity, the CMC Decision states specifically that issues were removed to streamline the draft issues list in order to remove duplicative items and those not relevant to a hearing de novo. The CMC Decision does not make any ruling as to the legal and analytical framework that is applicable on this Appeal.
As the Adjudicator continued to write in the Decision:
"WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT
[11] This case must be grounded in the core dispute and the legislative framework under which it is brought before this Tribunal. Simply put, this Appeal is about the Robert McLaughlin House, a protected heritage structure under the OHA, and the Applicant’s desire for a full demolition permit so that it may redevelop its property in the most economically viable manner that optimizes its permitted uses and best suits its present-day surroundings. As the balance of this Decision lays out, the position of the Parties brings to the forefront the following issues which govern the organization of this Decision:
I. The applicable legislative and policy framework and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in relation to the consideration of the present condition of the property and the costs associated with its retention and restoration. To this end, three sub-issues emerge:
A. Are the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) and the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) applicable to the required analysis?
B. Are the federal government’s Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (“S&G”) and Ontario’s Heritage Toolkit, including its eight guiding principles for heritage conservation (“EGP”), applicable to the required analysis?
C. Are the condition of a heritage property and the costs associated with its restoration appropriate factors of consideration on a section 34.1 application under the OHA?
II. Do the established exceptions allowing consideration of the condition of the Robert McLaughlin House apply in this case?
III. To what extent will the heritage attributes of the Robert McLaughlin House be impacted by the proposed demolition? This issue raises the following three sub-issues:
A. Does the Robert McLaughlin House retain its cultural heritage value and interest (“CHVI”) and does the designation continue to remain supportable?
B. If so, is a full demolition of the Robert McLaughlin House consistent with the policies of the PPS?
C. If so, does a full demolition of the Robert McLaughlin House conform to the policies of the City’s OP?
[12] Prior to engaging in the discussion of these core issues, the Tribunal will first provide a brief overview of the Robert McLaughlin House, the heritage attributes set out in the Designation By-law (as defined below), and the Applicant’s proposed redevelopment."
The owner's appeal to demolish the heritage structure was dismissed.
The NANTUCKET INVESTMENTS INC. vs. THE CITY OF OSHAWA full Decision is available for the public to read here: https://www.canlii.org/.../2026canlii.../2026canlii30961.pdf
Adjudicator N. EISAZADEH delivered the final ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL "THAT the Appeal is dismissed and the City of Oshawa’s
refusal of the application to demolish the structure at 195 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa remains in force and effect."
Below are picture exhibits provided by the City and identified in the decision: "[14] To frame the discussion that follows with appropriate context, visuals of the Robert McLaughlin House are helpful. (Copied below) are the four images that depict the exterior of the Robert McLaughlin House during the following four time periods:
(i) the earliest photo in evidence of the original structure;
(ii) the structure pre-fire;
(iii) the structure immediately post-fire; and
(iv) the structure approximately five (5)years post-fire
BUT what still remains is the BIG QUESTION many Oshawans have been asking since 2019 - how soon WILL THE ROOF BE REPAIRED TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE TO THE INTERIOR?
Below are some of what, in my opinion, are pertinent sections of the Decision:
Framework the Ontario Land Tribunal adjudicator set out in the Decision , first -
"WHAT THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT
[8] As is evident from the overview on the scope of evidence tendered, a substantial amount of evidence was called, and time spent, on a wide range of matters going well beyond the bounds of a typical heritage demolition permit application. A key reason for this is the Parties’ opposing views on a legal threshold issue regarding the applicable legislative and analytical framework on the present Appeal. The Tribunal, having allowed the Hearing to have been carried out to its fullest, and having since had the opportunity to consider the full extent of all of the evidence and legal submissions that the Parties deemed relevant and necessary, is now in a position to scope this Decision to the
appropriate elements. Briefly, it shall first set out what this case is not about.
[9] This case is not about an alleged narrative suggesting the City has been “targeting” the Applicant; nor is it about the credibility of the Principals of the Applicant corporation nor the interim measures it did, did not, or ought to have taken to better secure or preserve the property. To this end, evidence related to the history of the uses of the property, past Planning Act applications, prior unsafe building orders or orders to comply under the Building Code Act, past investigation of the property by the City in relation to alleged property standards by-law violations or the outcome of those investigations including related charges or proceedings, are not relevant to the ultimate issues which this Tribunal must decide. Equally, evidence regarding whether there was a property issues claim issue post-fire, the financial state of the Applicant, alleged delays in permitting site visits or other procedural steps, and the costs associated with the retention, preservation and restoration of the property, are also not relevant. This case is also not about whether the City ought to have exercised its rights under the OHA to expropriate the property, nor its power under s. 15.4 of the Building Code Act to take demolition or restoration actions respecting the state of the property and to pursue compensation in the form of a lien against the property after the fact.
[10] Additionally, it bears mentioning that issues previously struck from the issues list at a February 3, 2025 Case Management Conference (“CMC Decision”) is not a predetermination of the ultimate issues that the Tribunal must decide on the present de novo Hearing. For clarity, the CMC Decision states specifically that issues were removed to streamline the draft issues list in order to remove duplicative items and those not relevant to a hearing de novo. The CMC Decision does not make any ruling as to the legal and analytical framework that is applicable on this Appeal.
As the Adjudicator continued to write in the Decision:
"WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT
[11] This case must be grounded in the core dispute and the legislative framework under which it is brought before this Tribunal. Simply put, this Appeal is about the Robert McLaughlin House, a protected heritage structure under the OHA, and the Applicant’s desire for a full demolition permit so that it may redevelop its property in the most economically viable manner that optimizes its permitted uses and best suits its present-day surroundings. As the balance of this Decision lays out, the position of the Parties brings to the forefront the following issues which govern the organization of this Decision:
I. The applicable legislative and policy framework and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in relation to the consideration of the present condition of the property and the costs associated with its retention and restoration. To this end, three sub-issues emerge:
A. Are the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) and the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) applicable to the required analysis?
B. Are the federal government’s Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (“S&G”) and Ontario’s Heritage Toolkit, including its eight guiding principles for heritage conservation (“EGP”), applicable to the required analysis?
C. Are the condition of a heritage property and the costs associated with its restoration appropriate factors of consideration on a section 34.1 application under the OHA?
II. Do the established exceptions allowing consideration of the condition of the Robert McLaughlin House apply in this case?
III. To what extent will the heritage attributes of the Robert McLaughlin House be impacted by the proposed demolition? This issue raises the following three sub-issues:
A. Does the Robert McLaughlin House retain its cultural heritage value and interest (“CHVI”) and does the designation continue to remain supportable?
B. If so, is a full demolition of the Robert McLaughlin House consistent with the policies of the PPS?
C. If so, does a full demolition of the Robert McLaughlin House conform to the policies of the City’s OP?
[12] Prior to engaging in the discussion of these core issues, the Tribunal will first provide a brief overview of the Robert McLaughlin House, the heritage attributes set out in the Designation By-law (as defined below), and the Applicant’s proposed redevelopment."
