Talk:Canada Life Place

Ontario Heritage Act

Your edit regarding the JLC that "Not unique -- it is very common for it take years for a demolished property to officially cease to be designated -- the Talbot Inn by no means the first" is 100 per cent incorrect.

The standard procedure for demolishing a designated heritage property is to repeal the designating by-law and to issue a demolition permit. At the JLC, the City of London did neither. What the City did obtain was a "heritage alteration permit" to demolish the Talbot Inn -- totally contrary to the Ontario Heritage Act and a total abuse of process.

The Talbot Inn remained a designated heritage property in London for approximately 17 months after it was demolished and the building materials trucked to Try Recycling on Highbury Avenue.

According to officials that I spoke with at the Ontario Heritage Foundation (I did a story on the matter in SCENE magazine, plus I sat on the London advisory Committee on Heritage for three years), it is a first for Ontario and likely Canada. It is also a first for London, Ontario.

I will be editing the article accordingly. Barry Wells 23:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I am pleased to know that you take such an interest in heritage matters, and am very happy to discuss such matters with you at length, I am afraid that you are incorrect. I am a lawyer that handles heritage matters on a regular basis. Under the Ontario Heritage Act (an article I wrote, by the way), as it existed prior to the 2005 amendments, a landowner could demolish a designated building 180 days after a municipality refused permission to demolish. Where the municipality was opposed to the demolition, it was incredibly rare for it to repeal the designation by-law prior to the demolition. In fact, it wouldn't make any sense for the municipality to do so, given that the intent of the 180 day period was for the municipality to try and negotiate some level of heritage preservation (if it was able).

And although the statute required the municipality to repeal the by-law after the demolition, it was very common for a municipality to take quite awhile to pass the housekeeping by-law to repeal the earlier designation by-law. It was not rare whatsoever in Ontario, therefore, for a building to technically remain designated for quite some time after the demolition. The only time that it was standard practice for a municipality to repeal the designation by-law prior to demolition was where the municipality approved the demolition.

Under the Act currently, a landowner must apply to the Ontario Municipal Board to demolish a building where the municipality refuses a permit to demolish. Presumably, where the Board grants permission to demolish, in the face of municipal opposition, the designating by-law will still end up usually being repealed post-demolition, depending on how quickly a landowner acts on the Board order. I can only speculate, as the first appeals under these new provisions are still working their way through the system.

The City of London may have demolished the Inn contrary to the provisions of the Act. That does not change the fact that the fact that it was not unusual for the City to take 17 months to repeal the designation by-law. There may have been many matters unique to the demolition of the Inn, but this was not one of them.

And although the Foundation is established pursuant to a section of the Ontario Heritage Act, it does not administer the municipal designation provisions in section 29 or the alteration/demolition provisions in sections 33 and 34 of the statute.

So unless I have completely misunderstood what you are attempting to convey by the phrase "a first in Ontario's history and perhaps Canada's, according to officials with the Ontario Heritage Foundation", I'd have to say on its plain reading that it is wrong at law. I have amended the article accordingly. Skeezix1000 03:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

First things first. The current version is incorrect as no one from the Ontario Heritage Foundation made comment on the precise number of months between the unlawful demolition on Sunday, June 3, 2001 and the actual repeal date of the designating by-law -- that is a matter of public record on file in the clerk's office in London, Ontario.

To wit, Planning Committee supported the London Advisory Committee on Heritage's (LACH) recommendation to de-designate the property in September of 2002 (http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:yvBzVR8PNQ0J:council.london.ca/oldarchive/Planning%2520Archives/Archived%2520Planning%2520Committee%2520Reports%2520-%25202002/Report%2520September%252030,%25202002.pdf+Talbot+Inn+demolition&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=4) so 17 months is the approximate time elapsed after the Planning Committee's recommendation went to City Council a week later, then public notice requirements were carried out.

Translation: the wording in the current version "according to the Ontario Heritage Foundation" should be deleted.

Regarding the other business, User:Skeezix1000 maintains that it is not unusual for a demolished heritage property to remain designated by-law under the Ontario Heritage Act and that he is a lawyer who regularly deals with heritage matters, even though his scenario runs contrary to the provisions of the Act, which he admits with the line, "And although the statute required the municipality to repeal the by-law after the demolition ..." (actually prior to the demolition)

I believe that it is incumbent on him to provide specific examples (other than the Talbot Inn example -- a first in London, Ontario's history) where a designated heritage property has been demolished without the prior or prompt repeal of the designating by-law.

For clarity, what occurred in London is that the council had approved a "heritage alteration permit" for the Talbot Inn (owned by the municipality) several months before the building was demolished with heavy equipment on the morning of Sunday, June 3, 2001.

This is also contrary to the Ontario Heritage Act as an alteration permit approved by a municipal council cannot be used to demolish a designated heritage property. Since the municipality is the body that often initiates charges under the Act, no charges were laid as no citizen stepped forward to initiate them, nor did the province. Barry Wells 23:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Post added from my talk page Flibirigit 00:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I should add that what an official at the Ontario Heritage Foundation said to me when I did a story on this for SCENE magazine in 2001 is that they'd never heard of a designated heritage property being demolished without first repealing the designating by-law and that "it was likely a first in Ontario and possibly Canada." Barry Wells 00:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be advised that I have also e-mailed the Ontario Heritage Foundation (now called the Ontario Heritage Trust, as a result of amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act in 2005). The e-mail is copied below. I will share the response I receive (if any), on this discussion page.

The e-mail was sent to catherine.axford@heritagefdn.on.ca and general-inquiries@heritagefdn.on.ca

Perhaps someone familiar with the Ontario Heritage Act in force in June of 2001 can assist me.

On June 3, 2001, the City of London demolished the Talbot Inn, a designated heritage property (under Part IV of the Act) that it owned, without obtaining a demolition permit or repealing the designating by-law via its city council.

The repealing by-law was not passed by council until approximately 17 months later in the autumn of 2002.

What the council had previously approved, however, was a "heritage alteration permit."

Two questions:

1. Has anyone involved with the Ontario Heritage Foundation/ Trust ever heard of a designated hertiage property (under Part IV of the Act) being demolished without first repealing the designating by-law?

2. Has anyone involved with the Ontario Heritage Foundation/ Trust ever heard of a designated heritage property (under Part IV of the Act) being demolished without a demolition permit, just a heritage alteration permit?

The above questions pertain to a research project, not for any legal proceeding.

Yours very truly, Barry Wells Barry Wells 02:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Barry, please do post the response you receive. Thanks! Flibirigit 12:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• The Act does not require that a designation by-law be repealed prior to demolition. Subsection 34.3(1) requires that the municipality enact the repeal by-law if the owner has applied to demolish and the Council consents to the application or the Board (on appeal) orders the municipality to consent. There is no timing requirement that necessitates passage of the repeal by-law pre-demolition; the statute simply requires that certain pre-conditions be met. In fact, municipalities will often enact the housekeeping measure after the demolition. The example that comes to mind right now is a building down the road from where I live, where the City of Toronto enacted the repeal by-law after the building had been demolished to make way for condos (see the repeal by-law at [1], and note the fifth recital which acknowledges that the building had already been demolished).

  In 2001, when the Inn in London was demolished, the Act (as it read then) similarly contained no requirement that the repeal by-law be enacted prior to demolition. In fact, (then) subsection 34(5) required passage of the repeal by-law where Council had consented to the demolition application OR the 180 day period had expired (as had the extension periods, if any) and "the demolition or removal of the building or structure on the property has been completed". The text of (then) s. 34(5) had been in the statute for years, and acknowledged on its face that the repeal by-law would, in many circumstances, be enacted post-demolition. The example (from around the same time as the Talbot Inn demolition, based on the same version of the statute) that comes to mind at this moment is the controversial demolition of the Union Carbide building on Eglinton. I'll dig up that repeal by-law when I have the chance.

  I have no comments on any of the other issues. Skeezix1000 12:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• The Union Carbide repeal by-law, as mentioned above, is at [2]. That wasn't too hard to find. Skeezix1000 12:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Copied last two posts by Skeezix1000 from his talk page to here. Flibirigit 12:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary e-amil response from Catherine Axford at the Ontario Heritage Foundation, received on Monday, April 3, 2006:

Mr Wells:

By copy of this e-mail, I am asking Sean Fraser, Team Leader, Conservation Services, to reply to your e-mail.

Thank you for your interest in protecting Ontario's heritage.

Catherine Axford

Barry Wells 19:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Talbot Inn demolition

Pending the response from Mr. Fraser at the Ontario Heritage Foundation/ Trust, I propose the disputed paragraph to read as follows:

"No charges were ever laid against the City of London under the Ontario Heritage Act for the demolition. The Talbot Inn remained a designated heritage property for approximately 17 months after it was demolished."

The response from the OHF that I received in 2001 ("first in Ontario's history and possibly Canada's") may well have been referring to the improper use of a "heritage alteration permit" to outright demolish a designated heritage property. Barry Wells 20:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Wording

I'd still like to retain a portion of it being a first in Ontario/Canada history. How about this for the section? (changed areas in bold) Flibirigit 21:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Originally planning to re-use the original bricks from the Talbot Inn on the northeast facade of the JLC, the City of London suddenly demolished the heritage structure on the morning of June 3, 2001 -- without a demolition permit or delisting the Talbot Inn as a by-law registered heritage property. Instead the City of London obtained a "heritage alteration permit." According to the Ontario Heritage Foundation, it is the first time in Ontario's history and possibly Canada's that improper use of a "heritage alteration permit" was used to outright demolish a designated heritage property.

The rationale cited was that the Talbot Inn bricks were not salvageable due to their moisture content after a contractor had power-washed the paint off the bricks. Some of the original bricks were used for the interior walls of the Talbot Restaurant on the second level.

No charges were ever laid against the City of London under the Ontario Heritage Act for the demolition. The Talbot Inn remained a designated heritage property for approximately 17 months after it was demolished.

Sounds fine to me. I will still post e-mail reply from OHF when I receive it. Barry Wells 00:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be great! Does Skeezix1000 have any other contributions? Flibirigit 03:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The new language looks great! Skeezix1000 13:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• The changes were posted to the article. Flibirigit 14:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

General Article Discussion

If I can add a little bit to the other discussions, please remember that this article is about the John Labatt Centre - not the Ontario Heritage Act, not the Talbot Inn, and not anything else that comprises the history of the area or the city, or any laws or regulations that may have been broken.

It's great that the Talbot Inn incident was incuded in the article, and it's even better that it's being discussed by people who are passionate about what did or did not happen. I just think the discussion and the many edits might possibly warrant the creation of a new article, specific to the Talbot Inn. Beebolini 16:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Venue uses & stature

Would it be appropriate to make mention of some of the noteworthy events that have take place at the JLC? Examples might include the opening concert with Cher, the staging of Cirque du Soleil's first arena show (Saltimbanco), the videorecording of Meat Loaf's "Seize the Night" DVD... for instance. Also, the JLC has received an industry award for "best managed venue" from someone, but I would have to look that up. Just wondering if that type of content belongs in this type of article? Lyn (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Article written with excessive bias

I am concerned with the article's biased tone and that it has been hijacked by a member of the media for and editorial purpose. Flibirigit (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is the text from the removed section. Flibirigit (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The construction of this sports-entertainment centre was decided upon as a part of the city government's overall effort to revitalize the city's downtown. As part of that effort, London city council committed to building the centre, and agreed to fund much of the cost, which has amounted to significant debt payments causing property taxes to drastically increase in early years of the arena to pay off the debt. Another controversial part of the management deal is that while revenue at the sports-entertainment centre has been much higher than forecast, the city's share has been minimal, with much of the balance going to the London Civic Centre Corporation, the public-private partnership that owns the arena. The London Civic Centre Corporation is composed of three groups: the builder EllisDon who control 34%, the designers Stadium Consultants International Inc. with 14% and ComCast, who own Global Spectrum who in turn manages the sports-entertainment centre at 52%. Though many businesses close to the centre report they have benefited as a result of the increased number of people coming downtown, the exact overall city economic benefit - if any - is hard to quantify. While millions have likely been brought into the downtown core since the sports-entertainment centre was built, rather than new money being spent a shift in spending occurs. For example, money that was once spent in the west or east ends of the city are now being used in downtown while those other areas see a decline in revenue as expenses are simple moved to a different location instead of the same levels of spending continuing.

While the sports-entertainment centre has been claimed to be a success to London's economy on supporting and reinvigorating downtown London, there's little denying the financial drain on both the City of London and taxpayers with both increases in property taxes and paying for the sports-entertainment centre. For example, in 2004 City of London property taxes increased 10.4% from the previous year of 3.2% largely due to the arena's debt payment of $4.5 million. That same year, the City of London earned about $75,000 net revenue from the sports-entertainment centre revenue meaning a loss of about $4.425 million was incurred for the City of London. Between 2001 and 2014, the City of London invested about $48,298,046 into paying off debt and interest to the arena while receiving about $5,547,105 in net revenue for a total loss of about $42,499,183 for the City of London. In a sense, Londoners are paying for the sports-entertainment centre twice: First with property taxes being used to pay down debt and interest then a second time through ticket prices.

Year	Debt servicing cost (debt and interest)	Interest	City share of net revenue	Total city loss	City property taxes	Paid attendance	Events
2001	$1,426,073	$605,755	N/A	$1,426,073	2.9%	N/A	N/A
2002	$3,126,140	$1,691,772	N/A	$3,126,140	N/A **	N/A	N/A
2003	$3,851,818	$2,059,642	$75,447	$3,776,371	3.2%	458,860	85
2004	$4,190,327	$2,173,986	$150,033	$4,040,294	10.4%	612,546	121
2005	$4,190,327	$2,054,998	$151,099	$4,039,228	1.11%	772,294	139
2006	$4,190,327	$1,928,943	$436,487	$3,753,840	2.95%	769,575	171
2007	$4,190,327	$1,795,400	$446,261	$3,744,066	2.51%	704,445	151
2008	$4,190,327	$1,653,921	$732,094	$3,458,233	2.9%	644,791	148
2009	$4,190,327	$1,504,032	$432,554	$3,757,773	1.86%	574,531	129
2010	$2,764,254	$1,345,230	$594,047	$2,170,207	1.86%	672,985	155
2011	$2,823,132	$1,289,887	$513,330	$2,309,802	0%	604,857	135
2012	$2,977,746	$1,109,328	$465,459	$2,512,287	0%	654,207	141
2013	$3,013,258	$996,974	$577,347	$2,435,911	1.2%	675,631	147
2014	$2,921,905	$895,235	$972,947	$1,948,958	2.8%	669,497	155
2015	$2,830,551	$792,927	N/A	N/A	2.5%	N/A	N/A
2016	$2,739,198	$690,018	N/A	N/A	2.5%	N/A	N/A
2017	$2,647,845	$586,474	N/A	N/A	2.8%	N/A	N/A
2018	$2,556,492	$482,261	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
2019	$2,465,139	$377,343	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
2020	$2,373,786	$271,680	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
2021	$2,282,433	$165,232	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
2022	$923,752	$57,955	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
2023	$336,030	$13,171	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Totals	$67,201,514	$24,542,164	$5,547,105	$42,499,183	N/A	7,814,219	1,677

• There are no records for 2002 property tax numbers at the London Public Library, Western University archives or the City of London Financial Planning and Policy department.

The City of London and the City of London Arena Trust have a 50-year lease with the city as the landlord and the trust the tenant. In turn, the London Civic Centre Corporation is in a 50-year participatory occupancy lease with the City of London Arena Trust. The London Civic Centre Corporation maintains the sports-entertainment centre and is on the hook for improvements, but they also have a facility fee on tickets to accumulate money for those improvements and they have a confidential agreement with Global Spectrum to manage the facility. While the City of London may take slight annual profits, which are dashed by the annual debt payments, those don't include further costs such as maintaining parking and Jubilee Square in front of the sports-entertainment centre. From years one to five, the city's share of net profit was 20% and increased to 45% in years six to 10 then 70% for years 11 to 50. The private aspect anticipated profit returns of about 12% with City of London staff estimating the city's return on investment would be between 1 and 2%. Though it sounds financially beneficial to the City of London long-term, especially given the increase in profits after the 11th year, events filling the sports-entertainment centre nearly every other day during the year and City of London revenue averaging about $650,000 annually between 2011 and 2014, the risk far outweighs the rewards. Though sports-entertainment centres have a serviceable life of 40 to 60 years, in recent years that has shrunk to 20 to 30 years before teams or municipalities begin demanding new arenas. The City of London also has the option of exercising an early and zero termination fee during the first six months of the 21st fiscal period (year). The existence of that clause and the possibility of others among several of the mostly secret agreements in accordance with the sports-entertainment centre would leave the City of London in complete control of all financial and operational costs. It is unlikely the City of London would enact the clause due to the nature of maintaining an aging sports-entertainment centre that would need capital repairs. It is unknown if the London Civic Centre Corporation has a similar termination clause.

References