Alteration, demolition — and partial demolition?

As is often pointed out, retaining just a historic building’s façade keeps a small part of the structure while trashing the rest.

I won’t wade into the debate about façadism. But it’s interesting to look at how we treat façade retention in our approvals process.

Last time, we looked at an (alas, all-too-common) proposal for redevelopment of a row of designated heritage buildings on Hamilton’s Gore Park. Two of the buildings were to be completely demolished — and the owner submitted an application for demolition. The other two, by renowned architect William Thomas, were also to be torn down — except for one wall (the street façade) that would be retained and restored — and the owner submitted an alteration application.

Isn’t it kind of strange that a 100 per cent demolition and a 90+ per cent demolition would be treated differently?

Mostly this is owing to our bifurcated approvals process, an entrenched part, for good or ill, of Ontario’s heritage protection regime. Alteration to Part IV (individually) designated properties follows the procedures set out in section 33 of the OHA, while demolition/removal follows those in section 34. Before the 2005 amendments to the Act, as today, an application for alteration could be approved by municipal council, approved subject to terms and conditions, or refused.

An application for demolition/removal on the other hand could be approved or refused. But a refusal would start the clock ticking on a six-month “waiting period”, after which the applicant could merrily proceed with the demolition/removal. [Note 1]

As for appeals… since a municipality couldn’t ultimately stop a demolition, there was no need for an appeal from a refusal. Refusal to okay an alteration, however, could be “appealed” to the Conservation Review Board, which, as the name suggests, reviews the council’s decision and makes a recommendation back to the municipality as to whether the alteration should be approved, with the council making the final decision on the alteration.

Since 2005 municipalities have been able to effectively say no to demolition, but along with that power came the owner’s right to appeal (either a refusal to demolish or an approval of demolition subject to terms and conditions) to the Ontario Municipal Board.

* * *

Parenthetically, there was great debate within and outside the culture ministry about whether to give this role to the OMB, which at the time had a much worse reputation in heritage circles than today. But the alternatives were the Conservation Review Board or a new body. The CRB, with its historical “review” mandate and almost exclusive focus on the worthiness of designations, seemed a poor fit, and creating a third heritage tribunal was pretty much a non-starter. With the OMB’s pivotal role in our land-use planning system, the argument went, giving the board this new function would help better integrate heritage protection into mainstream planning. It was also felt the Board would “grow into” the role as its familiarity and competency with heritage issues improved.

* * *

The difference today between applications to alter and those to demolish is not so much what kind of decision really gets made in the first place but the kind of appeal you can make — on alterations, to the CRB for a recommendation and then back to council for a final decision or, on demolition, to the OMB for a binding decision.

Now, faced with a choice about which appeal route they’d prefer, most applicants would opt for the OMB. But there is no choice in practice — it’s either an alteration (CRB) or a demolition (OMB), right?

The OHA defines alter as “to change in any manner and includes to restore, renovate, repair or disturb and ‘alteration’ has a corresponding meaning.” Demolition, though, is not defined. This is presumably because it has a pretty straightforward meaning, such as, from one dictionary, “to destroy or ruin (a building or other structure), especially on purpose; tear down; raze.”

Hence the long-recognized principle that anything short of flattening the site is legally an alteration rather than a demolition. The Official Plan of Ontario’s largest city makes this explicit: While alteration is defined as in the OHA, demolition is defined as “the complete destruction of a heritage structure and property from its site, including the disassembly of structures… for the purpose of reassembly at a later date.” [Note 2]

So, back to façadism, if a few feet of a side of a building are all that is kept, this is an alteration not a demolition.  Or is it?

* * *

In Rams Head Development Inc. v. Toronto (City) a developer applied to demolish a designated three-storey building at King and Sherbourne streets in Toronto, proposing to reconstruct the two street façades later as part of its redevelopment of the site.  The city refused and the developer appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.  The developer also revised its proposal so as to retain in situ the two walls of the building and amended its demolition application accordingly. [Note 3]

At the outset of the hearing the OMB heard an argument that it had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on the grounds that the revised proposal “constitutes an alteration affecting the heritage attributes of a property designated under Part IV [of the Act].”  But the appeal was intertwined with the appeal of planning decisions and the city didn’t push the point.

The Board nonetheless chose to address the issue and decided it had full authority to decide the appeal including (per the demolition appeal provisions of the OHA) the possible imposition of terms and conditions concerning the retention in situ of the two walls — which is what it ended up ordering.

Some have interpreted this decision as saying that the OMB has jurisdiction over cases involving the “partial demolition” of designated structures.  And, based on this, that the lesson here is that applicants who are proposing to take down some part of a heritage structure — small or large — should frame their applications as ones for demolition, giving them the right to appeal to the OMB, rather than for alteration.  In other words, that there’s a choice. [Note 4]

Partial demolition?  Mmmn.  On such a reading the decision flies in the face of the longstanding either-or, pregnant-or-not view of alteration and demolition.  It would also throw a wrench into the City of Toronto’s codification of the distinction.

To be clear the Board in Rams Head did not use the term partial demolition nor make any claim for jurisdiction over such situations generally.  The case had come before it as a bona fide full-demolition appeal and then, as the parties attempted to reach a compromise, morphed into one about how many façades should be retained.  Neither party challenged the Board’s continued jurisdiction and indeed the Board did not even need to rule on the question. When it did, all it said was that in the circumstances of the case the Board had the authority to impose the final two-façade solution.

Bottom line?  In my view this case cannot be relied on as a) widening the accepted definition of demolition at the expense of alteration, and therefore b) extending the OMB’s purview to disputes involving less than (full) demolition.  Sorry, there’s no real flexibility to pitch your alteration application as a “partial demolition.”

* * *

In a heritage conservation district of course, with just one process for both alteration and demolition, it’s much simpler…

Note 1:  Technically this was the case only up until 2002. Between 2002 and 2005 the owner still had to wait out the 180 days but also needed a building permit for a replacement building before the heritage building could be demolished.

Note 2:  See page 3-20 of Toronto’s OP: 

http://www1.toronto.ca/planning/chapters1-5.pdf#page=57

Note 3:  OMB Case No. PL090501 (November 4, 2010): 

http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e%2Ddecisions/pl090501%2Dnov%2D04%2D2010.pdf

Note 4:  The law firm Aird and Berlis takes this view: see http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a39edc30-8d2b-44e5-be4a-af9e9d6522ec.

For Hamilton's Gore it's crunch time!

***FINAL UPDATE: In late November 2017 the developers announced that they would not need to raze the two buildings at 24 & 28 King Street East after all — and would instead preserve ALL of the facades of the four buildings. See "Two more facades to be preserved on historic Gore Park buildings: developer".

Kudos to the developers for the major course correction. And kudos to the Friends of the Gore for their passionate advocacy for the Gore Park structures, which was recognized with an Architectural Conservancy Ontario award in October.

The (wonderful) end of the story? Here's hoping!

**UPDATE 1: Hamilton Planning Committee met on January 17, 2017 and approved the two heritage permits needed for the redevelopment project to proceed: to retain the facade of 18-22 King Street East and to demolish the neighbouring buildings at 24 & 28. City council gave final approval on January 25.

The Friends of the Gore have launched a last-ditch campaign to petition the province to intervene to save this fine heritage row. You can can lend your support here: 

https://www.change.org/p/eleanor-mcmahon-intervene-to-halt-demolition-of-heritage-buildings-on-gore-park-hamilton.

Finally, a federal tax incentive for heritage?

In a surprise move legislation has been introduced in Parliament that would provide income tax incentives for restoring heritage buildings in Canada.

Peter Van Loan, MP for the Ontario riding of York-Simcoe and Conservative Critic for Canadian Heritage and National Historic Sites, introduced a private member’s bill in the House of Commons on December 1st.

Bill C-323 would amend the Income Tax Act to create a 20% tax credit for the costs of rehabilitation of recognized historic places.  It would also provide an accelerated capital cost allowance for capital expenditures incurred in rehabilitation projects. [Note 1]

Passage of Bill C-323 would be a real game-changer for built heritage in this country. To quote the National Trust for Canada: “These two tax measures would transform the economic fundamentals for renewing historic places.” [Note 2]

MP Van Loan, interestingly, has degrees in both law and planning and, before entering politics, was both a planning and development lawyer and a professor of planning.  On introduction of his bill Mr. Van Loan said: “It is designed to help those who invest in our cultural heritage.”  He went on to say:

It is a meaningful measure to strengthen heritage infrastructure. By maintaining historic buildings and undertaking costly heritage renovations, citizens undertake a considerable private burden from which we all benefit through the preservation of our past and the places that have made our country. This bill seeks, in a small way, to provide some support for them for the considerable investment they make on behalf of all of us.

     

With the 150th anniversary of Confederation nearing, this bill is an opportunity for all members of the House to show their support for preserving Canada's built heritage. These changes will help save our most important historical structures for our children and grandchildren to enjoy for generations to come.

It remains to be seen if the legislation has legs.

Very few private members’ bills become law.  And the vast majority that do are for minor things like changing the name of the riding represented by the member.  A bill affecting taxes, and therefore government revenues, is another matter.

The rules governing our Parliament say that a private member cannot introduce bills which impose taxes (this power rests solely with the government).  But private members’ bills which reduce taxes or provide or increase a tax exemption are acceptable… if not usually welcome.

A hopeful sign — the government is so far not openly opposing Bill C-323.

In terms of the timeline, after the Christmas break the House resumes sitting at the end of January 2017.  Sources suggest the bill may be called for Second Reading in February or March — which opens up the possibility that the debate and vote on the main principles of the bill that occurs on Second Reading might even take place during Heritage Week!

If (and it’s a big if) the bill clears that hurdle it would then be sent to committee, probably the House Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, for more detailed consideration and possible amendment.  At this stage there is also the potential for public hearings on the bill.  [Note 3]

* * * * *

Interior of the Alton Mill Arts Centre, Alton

Bill C-323 cannot proceed without government support.  The government will be waiting to see what attention the bill garners and the public’s reaction.  If they’re taking it at all seriously, you may be sure the legislation is already undergoing scrutiny every which way.  It’s even possible that the government could seize the initiative and introduce their own bill.

This is not so far-fetched.  The previous Liberal government was piloting something very similar.  In 2003, as part of that government’s pivotal Historic Places Initiative, then Minister of Canadian Heritage Sheila Copps announced a $30 million fund for the restoration and rehabilitation of commercial heritage properties.  Known as the Commercial Heritage Properties Incentive Fund (CHPIF), the program reimbursed 20 per cent of eligible costs to a maximum of $1 million.  CHIPIF ran for three years and assisted some 49 projects across Canada including the Distillery District in Toronto and the Alton Mill in Alton.

Toronto's Distillery District

At the time it was widely understood that the Chretien government was using a short-term grant program to test the water before committing to a more permanent U.S.-style income tax incentive … just like that in Bill C-323!

All to suggest there is some reason for optimism about the fate of this initiative.  But — and nota bene — public support early in the New Year will be critical.

-----0-----

Hard to believe … but this is OHA+M post number 50!! Who knew there was so much to say about heritage policy?!

And so much interest — thank you! This blog (and blogger) could not have made it this far without your encouragement and support.

Happy holidays!

Dan

Note 1: The bill is here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/421/Private/C-323/C-323_1/C-323_1.PDF. Note that the measures in the bill are largely aimed at commercial (income-producing) property, although the 20% tax credit would also apply to owner-occupied residential property. While in Ontario Part IV-designated property clearly would be eligible, it is less clear whether properties designated under Part V would qualify.

Note 2: See NTC’s call-to-arms and backgrounder here: 

http://www.nationaltrustcanada.ca/get-involved/hcf-news/voice-your-support-federal-incentives-rehabilitation-canadas-historic-places

Note 3: See: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Committees/en/ENVI. The committee is composed of 10 members: six Liberals, three Conservatives and one New Democrat. One of the ways to kill a bill is to send it to committee but never have it brought back to the House for Third Reading and passage.

The OMB under review (again)

Ontario is in the final stages of the latest public review of the 110 year-old Ontario Municipal Board.

Municipal Affairs Minister Bill Mauro — together with Attorney General Nasir Yaqvi, who is involved because the court-like OMB reports through the AG’s office — released a consultation document on OMB reform in October. [Note 1]

The consultation document sets out a number of changes the government is considering based on what it's heard during previous consultations on the future of the OMB and since the current review was launched back in June. These views include:

• people feel they don't have a meaningful voice in the process
• more weight should be given to municipal decisions
• OMB decisions are unpredictable 
• hearings cost too much and take too long
• there are too many hearings; more mediation should be used 

The document asks 24 questions about the proposed changes and calls for feedback by December 19, 2016.

One change that is not being considered is abolishing the Board altogether. “The Ontario government sees a continuing need for the OMB in Ontario’s land use planning system”, says the discussion paper. [Note 2]  Rather, the focus is on changes to the Board’s scope (what it deals with) and effectiveness (how it operates) within that system.

The most interesting discussion has to do with scope.  Scope in terms of which matters end up coming before the Board, and which don’t, as well as the nature of the Board’s review of those matters — whether the Board continues to deal with these matters de novo (by considering the same issue that was before the initial decider fresh); or whether its authority is restricted in some way, giving the municipality’s or province’s decision more weight.

What could this mean for the conservation of cultural heritage in the province?

Hard to say, but probably not much.

* * * * *

As context, let’s review the ways the Ontario Municipal Board gets involved with cultural heritage resources.

While it also has a role in a number of non-planning matters, the Board’s primary function is that of an appeal body on land use planning issues, and most disputes that come before the Board are appeals under the Planning Act.  The Planning Act provides for appeals to the OMB from decisions on the use of a wide range of planning tools, any of which may have a heritage component or impact.  These include (with approximate figures for the five with the greatest number of OMB files in 2014/15):

• Official Plans/amendments — 180 files
• zoning changes — 350 files
• minor variances — 575 files, by far the largest!
• consents (for severances) — 235 files
• subdivision plans — 80 files
• refusal to approve demolition in demolition control areas (designated for the purpose of protecting residential property)
• refusal to remove holding by-laws
• interim control by-laws
• site plan control
• Minister’s zoning orders  [Note 3]

In hearing an appeal of a municipal or provincial decision on these types of planning matters, the Board’s job first and foremost is to ensure that the decision is “consistent with” the provincial planning policies in the Provincial Policy Statement.  These policies include the five Cultural Heritage Policies in section 2.6 of the PPS, among them the oft-cited policy 2.6.1: “Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved.”  The Board also looks for compliance with the Official Plan (approved by the province or an upper-tier municipality) and any other applicable plans, such as the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe or the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The OMB also hears appeals from decisions on the exercise of some (although not all) heritage mechanisms under the Ontario Heritage Act:

• refusal to approve the demolition of a building or structure designated under Part IV of the Act
• refusal to approve the alteration of property, the demolition of a building or structure, or new construction in a heritage conservation district designated under Part V
• designation of a heritage conservation district
• designation of a heritage conservation district study area (for the purpose of prohibiting or restricting alteration and development for up to a year)

* * * * *

A major thrust of the provincial discussion paper is reminding the reader what the province has already done to address the concerns with the OMB cited above. It’s almost as if the province is saying, we’ve made many, many changes previously but for those who think there’s still a problem we’re prepared to consider some further things… what do you think of these ideas?

To my mind, the ideas for the most part amount to little more than tinkering.

A prime example has to with the “scope” issues.  The changes the province is floating include:

• limiting appeals to the OMB on more provincial land use planning decisions: Minister’s zoning orders could not be amended by the OMB; provincial decisions on OPs could not be appealed to the OMB (appeal of entire OPs or their approval by the province is already verboten; this change would simply allow the province to say which parts of its decision, i.e. on which parts of the plan, could not be appealed) 
• no appeal of a municipality’s refusal to amend a new secondary plan for two years 
• no appeal of a municipal interim control by-law

No bold moves here — like, say, removing appeals to the OMB on minor variances or consents, major items contributing to the OMB’s heavy workload (not that this would be a good idea necessarily, but it’s not even considered). [Note 4]

Now consider the discussion of the question of de novo hearings and giving more weight to municipal decisions.

As the paper points out, since 2007 the OMB has been required to "have regard to” the earlier decision that is being appealed. (This has always struck me as somewhat disingenuous: how could an appeal body not pay attention to the decision it was asked to overrule?)

Now the government is looking at a further “possible change” to move the Board away from de novo hearings.  “If this were to occur, it would mean the OMB would focus on the validity of the decision under appeal instead of seeking the ‘best’ decision.”  How might this be achieved?  The documents suggests two ways:

• requiring the OMB to review municipal/approval authority decisions on a standard of reasonableness. That means OMB hearings would examine whether the original decision was within a range of defensible outcomes within the authority of the municipality/approval authority.  If the decision is found to have been made within that range of outcomes, the OMB would not be able to overturn it

• authorizing the OMB to overturn a decision made by a municipality/approval authority only if that decision does not follow local or provincial policies. This would mean that the Board would have to be convinced that the planning decision under appeal is contrary to local or provincial policies. Examples might include approvals of proposals for development in a flood prone area or a provincially significant wetland, or an official plan that does not meet the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe intensification targets [Note 5]

Oh dear.  These strike me as ways of just doubling down on the current “have regard to” requirement.  With the first… well, more time will be spent on arguments over whether the decision under appeal is “reasonable” — and therefore not within the Board’s power to overturn — than on the planning issue itself.

The second is no better.  In a policy-led planning system, which is supposedly what we have, what kind of restriction is it to tell the OMB it can overturn a decision “only” if the decision doesn’t follow provincial or local policies.  Seriously, who goes before the Board and argues, “I know this decision complies with the OP and the PPS, but it’s bad so please overturn it”?

I suspect the government knows this and is just trying to appear to be open to change.  Unlike in other areas, it is careful not to say that it is proposing these reforms, just that here are some ideas “if” there is to be a shift away from de novo hearings.

I for one hope there isn’t.

Thoughts?

Note 1: See: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page15027.aspx

Note 2: Page 3. The main reason seems to be that the existence of the OMB minimizes impacts on the courts. Also note that municipalities have had the power since 2007 to establish their own appeal bodies to deal with consent and/or minor variance appeals. Doubtless because of the expense involved, none have so far done so, although Toronto apparently has the process underway.

Note 3: Source for numbers: “Planning Act Files Received by the OMB by Application Type” on page 11 of the discussion document. The total number of OMB Planning Act files for 2014/15 was 1,535.

Note 4: See Note 2 re the scope of municipal appeal bodies.

Note 5: Page 19.

Heritage easements 401 — Easements for (almost) all

We’ve been looking at easements for heritage conservation purposes and how these evolved in Ontario.

Easements and their close cousin covenants — agreements conferring rights over another’s land or property for specific purposes — can be used by anyone for almost any (legal) end.  But the only kind that beat the old common law limits and stick over the long haul are statutory easements — that is, agreements where the parties involved and the public policy objectives to be served are set out in statute.

Because of the public interests at stake, our laws are fussy about who gets the power to enter into such arrangements. With respect to easements for heritage conservation, the Ontario Heritage Act, as we’ve seen, gives these powers to only the Ontario Heritage Trust and local municipalities.

Does that mean only the Trust and municipalities can hold heritage easements?

Well, no.

For one thing, the OHA permits the Trust and municipal councils to sign easements —and then hand them over to others.  Subsection 22 (3) says:

Any easement or covenant entered into by the Trust … may be assigned to any person and such easement or covenant shall continue to run with the real property, and the assignee may enforce the easement or covenant as if it were the Trust .…  [Note 1]

In its 40-year history of holding easements, the Trust has done this just twice.  In one case an easement was assigned to the National Trust for Canada in Ottawa, and in the other case the assignee was the Frontenac Heritage Foundation in Kingston.

I know of only one instance where a municipal easement was assigned. The property involved was none other than Union Station … and the assignee the Government of Canada!  [Note 2]

* * * * *

One might ask why respected non-governmental heritage organizations — the National Trust for Canada, the Frontenac Heritage Foundation and others like Architectural Conservancy Ontario — should not have the ability to take easements for heritage conservation purposes.

The short answer is that cultural heritage groups, perhaps too preoccupied with regulatory approaches and government action, have not shown much enthusiasm for gaining these powers for themselves … and so missed the boat when the door was thrown open to greater access to the easement tool.

By comparison, organizations concerned with the use of easements for protecting natural and ecological resources seized an opportunity.

Remember from last time how in the early 1980s the Ontario Heritage Foundation (now OHT) moved into the natural heritage field, largely owing to its broad easement-holding ability?  The Foundation began working with NGO partners like the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, Ducks Unlimited and the Bruce Trail Association to protect places of natural significance through easments and outright acquisition.  Soon natural heritage organizations, including the nascent land trust movement, began agitating for the power to hold easements themselves.

For a time in the early 1990s it looked like the long-proposed reform of the Ontario Heritage Act would be the vehicle for extending statutory easement powers to suitable NGOs for all types of cultural and natural heritage, as well as for agricultural preservation and other purposes.  But with the agonizingly slow pace of the OHA revisions the natural heritage forces shrewdly found another outlet.

In 1994 the then Ministry of Natural Resources moved forward with amendments to an obscure piece of legislation.  The Conservation Land Act (CLA) was essentially transformed into an all-purpose easements statute … and the OHF’s virtual monopoly on natural heritage easements was broken.

The CLA gives easement powers to a “conservation body”, defined to encompass a very wide array of government and non-government organizations. The bias was clear — the word “cultural” does not appear and, tellingly, the French version translates “conservation body” as “organisme de la protection de la nature.” [Note 3]

Certainly the ability of non-government conservation bodies to acquire easements has been a huge boon and contributor to the burgeoning land trust movement in the province. [Note 4]

* * * * * 

The last word goes to the latest Ontario easements legislation — the Ontario Trails Act, 2016. The Act includes an extensive section on easements, part of which reads:

An owner of land may grant an easement, with covenants, to one or more eligible bodies,
(a) for the preservation, enhancement or management of the use of, or access to, all or a portion of the land for purposes relating to trails or to activities relating to trails;
(b) for the creation, maintenance or management of trails for public use; or
(c) for the purposes as may be prescribed by the regulations made under this Act.
[Note 5]

Note 1: Subsection 37 (4) gives local councils the same ability.

Note 2: The City of Toronto entered into an easement agreement with Toronto Terminals Railway, the former owner of Union Station. When the city acquired the property in 2000 this municipal easement was assigned to the federal government and heritage staff from Public Works and Government Services Canada and Parks Canada administer the agreement's heritage approvals. The OHT provided advice to the feds on the easement mechanism and how to manage the transfer of the property.

Note 3: The Conservation Land Act defines “conservation body” as:

(a) the Crown in right of Canada or in right of Ontario,

(b) an agency, board or commission of the Crown in right of Canada or in right of Ontario that has the power to hold an interest in land,

(c) a band as defined in the Indian Act (Canada),

(d) the council of a municipality,

(e) a conservation authority,

(f) a corporation incorporated under Part III of the Corporations Act or Part II of the Canada Corporations Act that is a charity registered under the Income Tax Act (Canada),

(g) a trustee of a charitable foundation that is a charity registered under the Income Tax Act (Canada), or

(h) any person or body prescribed by the regulations.

The Act goes on to say that easements may be entered into:

(a) for the conservation, maintenance, restoration or enhancement of all or a portion of the land or the wildlife on the land;

(b) for the protection of water quality and quantity, including protection of drinking water sources;

(c) for watershed protection and management;

(d) for the conservation, preservation or protection of the land for agricultural purposes;

(e) for the purposes prescribed by the regulations made under this Act; or

(f) for access to the land for the purposes referred to in clause (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e).

Note clause (e): to date no other “purposes”, like cultural heritage conservation, have been prescribed, but this remains theoretically possible.

Note 4: There are now over 30 land trusts in Ontario, members of the Ontario Land Trust Alliance (OLTA). The OLTA website defines a land trust as follows:

The term Land Trust refers to non-profit, charitable organizations which have as one of their core activities the acquisition of land or interests in land (like conservation easements) for the purpose of conservation.

The hallmark of a land trust is the direct action they take to protect the local land base, and that they hold those lands or conservation easements in trust for future generations. Land Trusts and conservancies are generally local in scope and operation, but may be provincial, regional or even national. Most land trusts focus on conserving the biological values of land, but across the continent land trusts have been established to protect scenic, historical, agricultural, and recreational lands as well.

See http://olta.ca/land-trust/.

Note 5: See section 12 of the Act. As with the Conservation Land Act, there is the potential for a regulation that prescribes additional “purposes.”  https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/16o08#s12s1