A luxury homebuilder tore down a Toronto heritage home without a permit. What happens next could test Ontario’s heritage rules
There's a large pile of rubble - wood and cladding jutting out at all angles - where a handsome heritage home recently stood in the leafy, picturesque neighbourhood of Hoggs Hollow.
The owner started the demolition on the 1912 Tudor Revival-style home in the northern enclave of the city over the May long weekend without a permit, he admitted to the Star in an interview this week, and just months after the city council listed the building as a heritage home.
He disputes the property being listed as heritage by the city, citing independent assessment by an architecture firm he hired.
The sudden demolition has dismayed the local community after city staff and council recognized the home at 19 Plymbridge Cres. as a rare and unique" conversion of a stable from the time of horse and carriages on Toronto streets.
The case will be a significant test for building and heritage rules in the city, with questions over whether the maximum penalties under provincial legislation are enough of a disincentive for rule-breakers.
I've never seen this level of outrage because the act was very brazen," local Councillor Jaye Robinson said in an interview. In the last five years in Toronto there hasn't been a listed heritage home or a designated heritage home taken down."
The owners of the Plymbridge Crescent home are listed on public property records as Mohammad Kassirian, a luxury custom homebuilder, and Marzieh Beigum Taheri. According to those records, they purchased the massive 24,014-square-foot lot in 2019 for $4.3 million.
In November 2020, the owners, through an agent, applied to the city for permission to redevelop the property, which currently also houses a large yard and pool with the house set back at an angle from the main, curving road with dense overhanging branches near Yonge Street and York Mills Road.
The plans submitted, and publicly posted, requested variances to allow a significantly larger two-storey single family home at nearly 8,600 square feet not including a planned basement - the existing home did not have one.
A city staff report dated in February 2021 recommended the committee that decides these matters for the area - the North York committee of adjustment - deny the application, noting the zoning bylaw for the area permits buildings up to 16.8 metres in length, but the requested plans were more than twice that at 36.6 metres. Staff said nothing that big had previously been requested and said it was not minor and not in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood."
In her own letter, Robinson said she agreed with that staff assessment as well as letters of objection from local resident submitted on the application.
That application has yet to be heard after heritage staff requested more time to assess the property, but a hearing has been scheduled, a city spokesperson said.
According to a staff report authored in February, the home at 19 Plymbridge Cres. originally belonged to the Boultbee family estate and was known as The Hollow." The land was purchased by lawyer William (Thumby) Mulock Boultbee in 1909 for the purpose of constructing a home for his young family." The patriarch died suddenly at the age of 39 before moving into the house but his wife and children occupied the estate, which included a house at nearby 59 Plymbridge Rd., the report says.
Staff determined the property was worthy of heritage status based on both the cultural history and as an example of an early 20th-century stables building with a cross gable roof.
Council voted to include the property in its heritage register in March ahead of the variance hearing.
Ahead of the decision, Frank Gardner of Gardner law firm wrote to Robinson on behalf of owners to object to the listing of the home and saying they were disappointed the variance hearing was moved to, the letter said, allow heritage staff time to assess the value of the property.
Our client's application to the Committee of Adjustment was submitted in November, 2020 and we believe that it is unfair in process because this listing is coming very late and without fair dealing with, and notification to, the owner," the letter said.
More than two months later, much of the home would be rubble as neighbours watched in horror on May 24 as a demolition crew worked with a backhoe to bring the century-old home down.
When the Star visited this week, part of the home was still standing, including the garage. A temporary fence more than six feet tall blocked the driveway, with a notice from the city affixed to it noting an inspection May 25 found a demolition had occurred without a permit.
It instructed the owner to seek the necessary permits and cease all further demolition work until they have been issued.
Kassirian, reached by phone, told the Star he had several architectural opinions about prior redevelopment of the home, contesting its heritage value.
Pages from what appear to be a larger report written and signed by ERA Architects principal Andrew Pruss were also affixed to the fence outside the property. Fulsome copies were provided to the Star by the owner. It says that no original finishes, interior or exterior" as well as other features remained and that the building lacks integrity from the perspective of legibility of architectural detail and features as it retains virtually no aspects of the original stable construction."
Pruss, in an interview, said their advice was to co-operate with heritage staff to discuss options for the site and that they produced a more fulsome report for the owners assessing potential heritage value. The report never recommends demolishing and Pruss said they would never recommend an action not approved by the city. He said he believed there were still solutions to redevelop by continuing to dialogue with city staff.
The Star asked Kassirian why he moved to demolish the house without a permit, regardless of its heritage value.
I applied for a permit, they didn't give (a) permit to me," he told the Star. Then I had no other choice."
In a followup email statement, Kassirian said he was not properly notified of the city's intentions regarding the heritage listing: To this date I have not received any formal communication about the listing from the city."
City staff made their intentions known in the report submitted on the variance application and the owner also submitted a legal letter contesting the recommendation by the city's preservation board to list the property. The city's site says the legislation does not require them to consult property owners on listing properties but it is recommended.
The Star was not able to reach the company who was seen carrying out the demolition.
A city investigation is ongoing three weeks later, a city spokesperson confirmed to the Star Thursday. Earlier, they confirmed a permit to demolish had not been issued for the property and said no further comment could be provided with the investigation continuing.
More generally, even where the City has reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence occurred such that the City issues charges, final determinations regarding the legality of acts are made by the courts and fines are levied by the courts, not the City," city staff said in an email.
The provincial Building Code Act requires a permit to demolish a building from the city's chief building official. The penalty for an offence under the act is up to $50,000 for a first offence and up to $100,000 for a subsequent offence.
The Ontario Heritage Act also does not allow removal of a designated property without city approval. Fines under that act depend on whether the property is listed or designated. According to the city, the difference is that listed properties don't have the same protection under the Act. Owners must give council at least 60 days notice they intend to demolish a listed property to allow them to decide if they want to have the property designated. Council can refuse to permit demolition of a designated property.
For listed properties, maximum penalties total up to $50,000 and/or a prison sentence of up to a year. Designated properties - of which the 19 Plymbridge was not - total up to $1 million.
Additional fines can be laid under the Planning Act, a city spokesperson said.
Earlier this month, Robinson moved a motion asking staff to look for ways to strengthen heritage protections of culturally significant properties.
She said those watching this egregious" case hope to see an appropriate penalty and are asking what the outcome will be, adding developers may treat the fines as the cost of doing business - a line item in their overall budget.
We need to make an example of this. Period. Because we don't want any repeats of this," she said. People want to see the book thrown at this builder but they also want to make sure it doesn't happen again."
Jennifer Pagliaro is a Toronto-based reporter covering city hall and municipal politics for the Star. Follow her on Twitter: @jpags