City did not consent to demolition of 1 St. James

The City of Hamilton did not approve a second heritage demolition application for 1 St. James Place, the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled.

In a decision released last week, Ontario’s top court ruled the city gave ample notice to the owner of a Durand heritage home, letting him know his application to demolish the building had been rejected. Therefore, the city didn’t consent to its demolition.

The decision, which upholds a previous judgment by Justice David Broad from May, says the city took a “positive step” to notify the owner.

A vote at council in May 2014 gave the St. James property heritage designation at the 11th hour.

The neighbourhood became outraged that year when plans were released to demolish the roughly 80year-old home’s porch and attached garage to create a “parking area” on the upscale residential property across from St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton.

The heritage designation voided the owner’s existing demolition permit. The owners of the historic home have said it is unsafe and full of mould.

But in October 2015, they submitted a heritage permit application to the city to demolish all of the buildings. The following month, there was a request to withdraw that application.

In December 2015, the owners put forward a second application to demolish all of the buildings.

According to the latest decision, the city’s notice of rejection was sent to the Waterdown home of Wei Fan — the corporation’s sole director and officer — in March 2016 instead of the registered address of Victor Veri.

Veri, one of two original directors of the company, argued the city should have served notice to its last known address, which was his own.

He took the position that, because council “failed to effectively give notice” of its decision to refuse the application by sending it to the Waterdown address, the city consented to demolition.

In May, Broad found council didn’t fail to notify the owner and did not consent to the second heritage demolition application.

The appeal was dismissed, with the owner having to pay the city’s costs up to $9,000.