To read the CLOCK TOWER CHRONOLOGY click on the "Read more" link at the bottom of this blog.

On Wednesday 9 October 2019 a designated heritage building on Main Street South dating from the 1840s, in the heart of Newmarket’s only Heritage Conservation District, was demolished on the orders of the owner, Bob Forrest. By the following morning all traces of the building which once housed the apothecary of the first female pharmacist in Ontario, Anne Mary Simpson, had vanished.  

No demolition permit was issued by the Town. What happened was clearly unlawful.

This is what the Ontario Heritage Act says:

Erection, demolition, etc.

42 (1) No owner of property situated in a heritage conservation district that has been designated by a municipality under this Part shall do any of the following, unless the owner obtains a permit from the municipality to do so:

1. Alter, or permit the alteration of, any part of the property, other than the interior of any structure or building on the property.

2. Erect, demolish or remove any building or structure on the property or permit the erection, demolition or removal of such a building or structure.

In addition the Building Code Act says this:

Building permits

8 (1) No person shall construct or demolish a building or cause a building to be constructed or demolished unless a permit has been issued therefor by the chief building official. 

Mayor wants "full rebuild"

The Mayor, John Taylor, says he wants to see a full re-build of the demolished heritage building and insists there must be consequences. But what exactly does he have in mind?  

The Town has been investigating the circumstances of the demolition for two months now but remains tight-lipped. Peter Noehammer, the Town’s Commissioner for Development and Infrastructure, is leading the investigation but we don’t know anything about its modalities, who he has spoken to, what his report will say and when he will report.  

What is undeniable is that the demolition of a designated heritage property within a Heritage Conservation District without prior approval from the Municipality is a very big deal – and it is very, very rare. There are 134 Heritage Conservation Districts in Ontario and this is, I believe, the first unauthorised demolition of a designated heritage building within a Heritage Conservation District in Ontario.

I can find no cases reporting a prosecution under section 42(1)2 of the Ontario Heritage Act. That’s not to say they don’t exist but no-one – including the City of Toronto - can yet point me to one.

The Kingston demolition. 

Heritage experts often cite the historic Royal Block in Princess Street, Kingston, which was purchased by a Toronto real estate developer, Richard Christie, in February 1987. 

It lies just outside Kingston’s Market Square Heritage Conservation District so it is not an exact parallel. 

Christie wanted to knock the old buildings down and build a two-storey strip mall, a proposal resisted by Kingston’s heritage community. There was a devastating fire on 7 January 1988 but some parts of the edifice remained standing. The Council ordered their retention while it considered what to do next  - to see what, if anything, could be saved and restored - but the owner went ahead and demolished what was left anyway. 

The sentencing Judge, Mr Justice Paul Megginson, said Christie was the “guiding mind” of his Corporation and the “directing force” behind the decision to demolish what was left of the fire-ravaged heritage buildings on 2 June 1988. Christie was fined $48,000. ($91,000 in today’s dollars). 

Fast forward 31 years. We know from the record that Bob Forrest knew all about the heritage value of his properties on Main Street South. He had commissioned Heritage Impact Assessments. He knew his way around the Ontario Heritage Act. As a developer of long standing, he would know of the Building Code Act and that he could not lawfully knock down a building without a demolition permit. But he went ahead anyway, perhaps calculating that the worst that could happen would be a fine and he could write that off as the cost of doing business.  

However, Bob Forrest may not know that the Ontario Heritage Act provides for fines of up to $1,000,000 and imprisonment for the unlawful demolition of designated heritage structures in a Heritage Conservation District.

So, how did we get here?  

Forrest expressed an interest in acquiring the Clock Tower as far back as 2011. He was in touch with councillors and senior Town staff to see if he could develop the site in the heart of old Newmarket for a condo. He calculated, if approved, this could bring in a clear profit of $10M. There were three versions of his condo put before councillors and senior staff – the largest nine storeys.

The Town had long wrestled with the problem of inadequate parking in the old downtown and senior staff perhaps thought the condo plan might kill two birds with one stone. It would bring more people into the old downtown – a policy objective – and it would possibly increase the supply of public parking. 

Forrest’s modus operandi was to sound out politicians and staff, getting his ducks in a row, before formally submitting a planning application. He says he gets results:  

"by leveraging our strong reputation and existing relationships with municipal staff and politicians".

But Forrest needed Town owned land to make it all happen and this was the fly in the ointment. He claimed at the OMB he received tacit agreement for a “land swap” on Market Square which would allow his condo to be built. The Town denies there was an agreement. The report and minutes of the meeting where this was allegedly discussed remain sealed. Multiple Freedom of Information requests for sight of these reports and minutes have been rejected by the Town.

After endless discussions, negotiations and meetings stretching over many years, Forrest finally submitted a formal planning application which was turned down by the Town in December 2016. 

Mayor Van Bynen, on his own, out on a limb 

The then Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, now the MP for Newmarket-Aurora, was Forrest’s sole supporter on the Council but his arguments cut no ice with his colleagues. He declared that Forrest’s condo, entailing the demolition of the heritage commercial buildings on Main (but with the retention of their facades), was: 

“a great example of the intensification we need”.  

After his condo plan was rejected Forrest appealed to the OMB and then had second thoughts. Instead, he cut a deal with the Town in 2018 agreeing to restore and bring back into use the heritage buildings he owned. The settlement allowed Forrest to knock down specifically delineated later additions at the rear of the Main Street buildings to make space for parking. But other than that, no demolitions were permitted. 

The Simpson building was demolished on 9 October 2019 – without a demolition permit. 

Looking at the totality of the record, it is clear Forrest saw no value in the historic commercial buildings he owned on Main Street South. They stood in his way, preventing him from developing the site in a way that would maximise profits.

Take it down!

Shortly after the demolition, the contractor on-site, Jacques Carrier, told me (and others) he was concerned about the structural integrity of the Simpson building and that it would take $100,000 to make it safe so the owner said (in Carrier’s words)

 “take it down”.  

There is a compelling case for prosecuting Forrest.  

The Mayor John Taylor has said there must be consequences but, on the other hand, he doesn’t want to see empty buildings on Main Street South for another three years while the matter is litigated. In the Kingston case the developer responsible for the unlawful demolition pleaded guilty and the matter was disposed of by the Courts in next to no time.

The Town may have reasons for not prosecuting. I don’t know. Perhaps there are skeletons – real or imagined – in the municipal cupboard.

The roofs leak and the floors sag

Undoubtedly, the Town’s inspection regime was way too lax. The properties had been empty for years after Forrest evicted his business tenants and were becoming increasingly dilapidated. In his own words Forrest acknowledged 

“the roofs leak and the floors sag” 

but he did nothing to fix things. Just temporary patching up, here and there.

The Town may feel embarrassed about a lackadaisical approach to inspection. After all, another important heritage building dating from 1811, Bogart House, had been allowed to fall into a ruinous state. 

And then there is the “tacit agreement” allegedly contained in the June 2013 closed session records of the Committee of the Whole. I was told the minutes are to be kept under lock and key until their release "would no longer have any impact".

Personally, I don’t see what the fuss is all about. We know senior staff and some councillors were looking for a downtown parking solution and “more intensification”. If there was a tacit agreement to make Town land available but this was conditional on the Town approving the project as a whole then what’s the big deal? 

The Town has insisted there was no tacit agreement. Does it fear a prosecution would mean everything coming out in the wash?

If it does, so what?

What is worse? The Town pressing ahead with a prosecution and risking some fleeting embarrassment that it once, perhaps, countenanced the possibility of an out-of-place condo in the heart of the old downtown.

Or deciding not to prosecute Bob Forrest - the developer responsible for ordering the demolition of the storied Simpson building which was steeped in the history of our town.

That would be the greatest injustice of all.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Read more: The case for prosecuting the developer Bob Forrest