Mrs Gooder's Charge Plate

Mrs. Ross C Gooder's Charge Plate

I recently acquired this interesting bit of Mimico history.  An early charge plate (early credit card) for Simpson's owned by Mrs. Ross C. Gooder of 6 Lakeshore Road, Mimico.


The Gooder's lived in a one storey wooden house on the north (west) side of the Lakeshore Road (present day Lake Shore Blvd. West) just within the Mimico municipal boundary.

Home of Mrs. Ross C. Gooder

In the 1922 and 1932 Toronto city directories 6 Lakeshore Road, Mimico is listed as the home of Garnet J. Gooder, a tailor.  He must be the father of Ross C. Gooder.

In 1911 the Garnet J. Gooder family was living at 541 Gladstone Avenue, Toronto.  By 1918 they were living in Mimico but on the corner of Burlington Street and the Lakeshore Road.  They appear to have moved to the home at 6 Lakeshore Road in about 1921.


The lot where the home was located is currently vacant.  The home was demolished sometime in the past.

Louis J. West House - 17 Albert Avenue

Louis J. West House - 17 Albert Avenue

© Michael Harrison 2012 

This home was built for Louis J. West circa 1912.  

Louis J. West was born in London, England in 1872 and immigrated to Canada with his parents James and Harriett West shortly thereafter.  They settled in Toronto and James West worked as a butcher.  Louis was educated at Toronto and later founded the brokerage firm of Louis J. West and Company.  

On October 11, 1898 Louis married Ethel May Shafer, daughter of James and Mary Shafter.  He moved to Mimico in about 1904 where he took an active part in the incorporation of Mimico as a police village in 1905.  At first he lived on Southampton Avenue (present day Cavell) and then Station Road before moving into his new house in 1912.

courtesy of The Mimico Story 

In 1919 he was elected Mayor of the town and held the post for two years.  He was one of the founders, and one time president of the Toronto Stock Exchange.  He retired from his brokerage firm in 1931 and then purchased the Jermyn Estate on Mimico Beach.  He died there on October 3, 1936, leaving an estate valued at over $395,000. ( $6,496,148.65 in 2012 dollars)

The West family continued to live at the estate until they sold it to the Peckover family in 1945. 

Dr. John Serson House - 67 Superior Avenue

Dr. John Serson House - 67 Superior Avenue

© Michael Harrison 2012

This fine home was built for Dr. John Serson circa 1912.  It still has its original driving shed and stable in the backyard!

Dr. Serson's Driving Shed and Stable

© Michael Harrison 2012

Dr Serson's House - 1913 Goad's Fire Insurance Plan for Mimico

courtesy Library and Archives Canada

Dr. Serson was born in Ridgetown, Kent County, Ontario on May 20, 1878 to James Serson and Elizabeth Cooper.  He grew up on the family farm but later attended the University of Toronto where he graduated with his medical degree in 1905.  He moved to Mimico by 1907 living on Southampton Avenue (present day Cavell Avenue). 

On June 3, 1908 he was married to Lillian Rowntree at the Methodist Church in Weston.  They would later have two children - John (b. 1910) and Marion (b. 1912).  

The Serson family moved into their new house on Superior Avenue in 1912.

  Dr. John Serson

courtesy The Story of Mimico

He was a founding member of the Mimico Horticultural Society, and was a member of the Masonic Order Connaught Lodge.  He was a well known surgeon at both St. Joseph's and Grace Hospitals.  When telephone service came to the area in 1914 he was given telephone number 1.  

They lived at 67 Superior Avenue until he purchased the Beamish Estate on Mimico Beach in 1926.

In 1933 a public banquet was held to thank him for his many years of community service.  By 1935 failing health forced him to retire from public life.  

He died in his sleep at his home at the age of 61 years on May 29, 1939.  Dr. Serson was remembered for his 32 years of service to the Mimico both as a physician  and community leader.  He took an active interest in the development of educational facilities in Mimico, including the construction of Mimico High School.  He was also a member of the public school board for eight years.  On May 30, 1939 Mimico Town Council observed two minutes of silence in his memory.

His funeral on June 1 1939, began with a private service at his  Mimico Beach estate conducted by Rev Black of Wesley United Church with Rev. Fingland of Niagara Falls, former minister of the church.    

This was followed by a public service in Wesley United Church on Mimico Avenue that was attended by hundreds of people.  Mimico High School was closed for the afternoon so that students could attend.  The casket was banked with floral tributes from public bodies in Mimico, New Toronto, Long Branch and Toronto with which he had been associated.  These included the municipal councils of Mimico and New Toronto, students of Mimico High School, Lakeshore Lodge, Connaught Lodge, Mimico High School Board, Mimico Public School Board, Wardens and members of York County Council, Nobles of Ramses Temple, Toronto, St. Joseph's Hospital Auxiliary, graduates and staff of St. Joseph's Hospital, St. Joseph's Clinical Society, student nurses at St. Joseph's Hospital, Ontario Liberal Association, West York Liberal Association, Mimico Liberal Association, High Park Bowling Club, West Park Independent Order of Odd Fellows, New Toronto Liberal Association, Mimico Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire, Rotary Club and many other organizations.  Provincial and Mimico police cars headed the cortege of 200 cars to Park Lawn Cemetery where a Masonic service was held at the grave.

Wesley Mimico United Church - 2 Station Road

Wesley Mimico United Church - 2 Station Road

In 2012 Wesley Mimico United Church will be celebrating its 150th anniversary.  

Unfortunately, the church appears to be celebrating its anniversary by proposing the demolition of the historic building except for the tower, and building a seniors residence on the property.  While seniors housing is a laudable goal it should not be at the expense of this historic building.  They have not yet made a formal planning application to the city but this is currently what they are contemplating, as far as I understand.

Wesley Methodist Church (as it was originally known) has a long history in Mimico.  The first church was built shortly after the property on Church Street (Royal York Road today) was acquired in 1862.  This building accommodated the congregation until 1922 when it became too small.  The congregation then began construction of a new church on Station Road at Mimico Avenue.  The old church building was then sold to the Town of Mimico and became the municipal offices and council chamber.

Wesley Mimico United Church is a significant architectural and historical building in the former Town of Mimico.  Contextually, as a church placed on a corner lot at a major intersection in the neighbourhood, Wesley Mimico United Church is a landmark in the Mimico community.  It is an integral part of the institutional corridor of Mimico Avenue with its public schools and churches.  Wesley Mimico United Church is historically, visually and physically linked to its surroundings.

The original church on this property was built in 1922.  The architect was the renowned John Charles Batstone Horwood, assisted by his son Eric Horwood.  As members of the congregation when the family was in residence at their summer estate on Mimico Beach, the Horwoods (father and son) would have ensured that the church was of excellent design and materials.  The 1953 addition to the church which extended it closer to Mimico Avenue was designed by Eric Horwood, JCB's son alone.

When I discovered what the church was contemplating I contacted them and informed them that the building is listed under the Ontario Heritage Act and suggested that they should be looking at all possible arrangements within the existing structure, including seeking tenants or co-owners for various parts of the building.  I suggested that they should be publicizing the fact that they have a church building for which they are looking for partners in order to reach any potential collaborators in the protection and preservation of this important structure.

The building is currently listed under the Ontario Heritage Act but really needs to be designated under the act in order to preserve this important building for the future.

Hopefully, the church will be open to any potential ideas that allow the current historic building to be retained while at the same time allowing for new uses.  This would allow the church to seek the new uses that they are looking for, while still retaining this historical and architecturally significant landmark building in Mimico.

As a "listed" building the heritage planning professionals at the city are undoubtedly researching the building to determine if it should be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.  However I have ensured this review by submitting a formal application for the building to be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.  The heritage planning professionals will now review the attributes of the building against the criteria in the act to determine if designation under the Ontario Heritage Act is merited or not.

What you can do

You can send letters/emails of support to the Etobicoke-York Community Preservation Panel.  These can be sent to: 

Chair Mary Louise Ashbourne

Etobicoke-York Community Preservation Panel
Swansea Town Hall,
95 Lavinia Avenue,
Toronto, ON M6S 3H6

email:  mashbour [at] idirect [dot] com

Please also copy local Councillor Mark Grimes.  He can be reached at councillor_grimes@toronto.ca.  If you could also copy me at mimicohistory [at] hotmail [dot] com that would be greatly appreciated.

A growing number of Mimico residents are coming together to protect Wesley Mimico United Church and persuade its congregation to stop explorations and development plans that involve the demolition of one of our community’s most architecturally and historically significant buildings.  You can visit their website by clicking here.

Update:  June 29, 2012

On June 25, 2012 the Church released a new design proposal that includes a redesign of the interior of the church within the existing walls, along with additions to accommodate future church, community and seniors housing.  You can view a slide presentation of the proposal by clicking here.  This new proposal is certainly more respectful of the building's heritage.  It will be important to ensure that any additions and alterations to the church buildings are complementary and not detrimental to this important community landmark.  Of course this is all preliminary and in the early stages of review.  However the movement from the original proposal to demolish the church except for the bell tower is encouraging.  

Update:  May 15, 2013

The Mimico Residents Association held a meeting on the proposed redevelopment of the Church site.  There was a question and answers session during which the proponent responded to written questions.  The Minutes of the meeting, including the questions and answers can be found here.

Update:  June 11, 2013

The development proposal for the Church is proceeding to the Etobicoke-York Community Council Meeting of June 18, 2013.  The Toronto Planning staff report provides preliminary information on the application and seeks Community Council's directions on further processing of the application and on the community consultation process.  A community consultation meeting is targeted for Fall, 2013. The statutory Public Meeting is expected to be held in the first quarter of 2014, provided the applicant provides all required information and addresses staff comments in a timely manner.

Heritage Preservation Services will be examining the proposal from a heritage point of view.  This includes the request to designate the building and appropriate interiors under the Ontario Heritage Act.  Having reviewed the application I have the following questions which I have passed along to Heritage Preservation Services:  

Alteration to Roof:

In the Heritage Impact Assessment they state that:  

“the proposed re-purposing of the building essentially conserves its heritage value to the community and does not remove or substantially alter its character-defining elements, with the exception of the lower portion of the Mimico Ave. frontage”.  

However they are radically altering the existing roof of the structure.  

The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada published by Parks Canada which, as they note, is the document guiding the planning, stewardship and conservation approach for all listed (of which the Church building is one) and designated heritage resources in the City of Toronto; and which they used to assess the impact of the repurposing on the heritage elements of the building states on page 139:

“The roof is also an important architectural feature that contributes to a building’s form and aesthetics.”

With regard to any proposed alteration of existing roofs the Parks Canada Standard states the following on page 143:

Recommended:  Modifying or replacing a roof or roof element, to accommodate an expanded program, a new use, or applicable codes and regulations, in a manner that respects the building’s heritage value.

Not Recommended:  Constructing an addition that requires removing a character-defining roof.  Changing the configuration of a roof by adding new elements, such as dormer windows, vents or skylights, in a manner that negatively affects its heritage value.

The radical changes to the roofline that they are proposing “remove a character-defining roof”.  Therefore how is this consistent with and compatible with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada?

Alteration of Main Entrance/Proposed Addition:

They are proposing to remove the existing front entrance to construct a new addition obscuring it and relocating it to the east side of the building.

The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada published by Parks Canada states the following on page 132 with regard to additions or alterations to the exterior form:

Parks Canada recommends:  Selecting the location for a new addition that ensures that the heritage value of the place is maintained.

Parks Canada does not recommend:  Constructing a new addition that obscures, damages or destroys character-defining features of the historic building, such as relocating the main entrance.

While the report acknowledges that the addition in this location has an impact, it minimizes it.  How can they say that the proposal “will not detract from, but build on the character and significance of this heritage property” when the proposed addition on the south side of the building and the alteration to create a new entrance (even if original) are clearly not recommended by Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada? 

Proposed Addition to South Side of Building:

The Heritage Impact Assessment states that:  

“The new facade facing Mimico Avenue is designed to reflect this character-defining element, whereby the classical approach of three doorway arches will be recreated, repeating the symmetrical arrangement in an arcaded entrance.” 

Parks Canada recommends:  Designing a new addition in a manner that draws a clear distinction between what is historic and what is new

They do not recommend:  Duplicating the exact form, material, style and detailing of the original building in a way that makes the distinction between old and new unclear.

How can they say that the proposal “will not detract from, but build on the character and significance of this heritage property” when their design approach to the new south addition is clearly not recommended by Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada? 

Proposed Addition to North Side of Building:

There is minimal data available in the Heritage Impact Assessment on the proposed addition in the existing parking lot to the north.   With regard to new additions Parks Canada recommends in Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada:

Designing a new addition in a manner that draws a clear distinction between what is historic and what is new

They do not recommend:  Duplicating the exact form, material, style and detailing of the original building in a way that makes the distinction between old and new unclear.

Further Parks Canada recommends:  Designing an addition that is compatible in terms of materials and massing with the exterior form of the historic building and its setting.

They do not recommend:  Designing a new addition that has a negative impact on the heritage value of the historic building.

How has the north addition been designed to be consistent with these principles?

Alterations to the Interior:

The Heritage Impact Assessment states that the redevelopment approach includes:

“renovate the interior space completely, while conserving as many heritage attributes as possible”

What are the “many heritage attributes” and how will they be conserved as part of the complete “renovation” of the interior space which is essentially the obliteration of the existing interior and its replacement with parking in the basement and up to three stories of residential above?

Update June 12, 2013

The Mimico Residents Association has just posted the comments provided by Heritage Preservation Services (HPS) on the Church development proposal.  You can download them here.  HPS staff have identified the same concerns that I have expressed as well as additional ones.  

The conclusion of the memo states:

The current proposal demonstrates a level of intervention that cannot be supported by staff.  However, there may be opportunities to rehabilitate the building with modifications to the current proposal that would limit the impact on the heritage attributes. Staff is hopeful that these issues can be resolved through further discussion with the applicant in conjunction with a revised proposal that is consistent with generally-accepted heritage conservation standards and principles.  An objective and complete Heritage Impact Assessment should accompany any revisions to the proposal.  Staff will be recommending designation of the property at 2 Station Road under the provisions of Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Update September 24, 2013

The city of Toronto Planning Department is proceeding with a report to the October 3, 2013 meeting of the Toronto Preservation Board recommending that Wesley Mimico United Church be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.  

A copy of the staff report with the detailed evaluation and rationale for the intent to designate can be found here.  Letters of support can be addressed to "Chair Saunders and Members of Toronto Preservation Board" and can be emailed to Janette Gerrard, the committee secretary at jgerrar [at] toronto [dot] ca.

Update October 4, 2013

At its meeting on October 3, 2013, the Toronto Preservation Board adopted the recommendation that Wesley Mimico United Church be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act with a small amendment that removed the interior from the list of historical attributes.  The recommendation will now proceed to the next meeting of the Etobicoke-York Community Council on October 17, 2013 for consideration.

Update October 18, 2013

At its meeting of October 17, 2013, the Etobicoke-York Community Council unanimously adopted the amended recommendation from the Toronto Preservation Board that the city declare its intent to designate the Wesley Mimico United Church under the Ontario Heritage Act.  The recommendation will now proceed to the Toronto City Council meeting of November 13, 2013 for consideration.

Update November 13, 2013

At its meeting of November 13, 2013, Toronto City Council adopted the amended recommendation from the Etobicoke-York Community Council that the city declare its intent to designate the Wesley Mimico United Church under the Ontario Heritage Act.  

The next step is for the city to notify the owner, and issue a notice of the intent to designate the property under the Act.  If there are no appeals against the intent to designate the property during the appeal period (30 days) the City will bring forward the bylaw designating the property under the Ontario Heritage Act at a later date (usually a few months).  If there is an appeal then there will be a hearing before the Conservation Review Board.  The Board will hear evidence and issue a decision.  The decision is final.

Update May 30, 2014

On Thursday June 5th the Toronto Preservation Board will consider a report from Heritage Preservation Services on the Church's proposal to alter the building.

The Church has been working on a plan for the past few years in order to re-imagine itself, and redevelop the building to provide senior's housing, worship and community space

The report can be found here:

I will be writing in support of the proposed conditions to approval, as they relate to the treatment of the heritage elements of the building, including the oversight that Heritage Preservation Services staff will have as the development moves through the Site Plan Approval Stage and construction, which includes, among other things, the placing of a Heritage Easement on the building to protect it.  

Of course this is all conditional on Etobicoke York Community Council and Toronto City Council giving its approval to the proposed development later in June.  I am not taking a position on the planning aspects of the proposed development.

Should you wish to provide comments to the Toronto Preservation Board they can be addressed to "Robert Saunders, Chair and Members of the Toronto Preservation Board" and emailed to jgerrar@toronto.ca

Update June 6, 2014

The recommendations were adopted by the Toronto Preservation Board at their meeting of June 5, 2014.  They will now track with the planning staff report on the development application to the Etobicoke York Community Council meeting of June 17, 2014.  The planning staff report for the proposed development can be found here.  Planning staff are recommending approval of the proposed redevelopment of the building.

Update June 17, 2014

Today the Etobicoke-York Community Council adopted the planning staff report related to the development application, as well as the recommendations from the Toronto Preservation Board.  Both reports will proceed to Toronto City Council on July 8, 2014 for consideration.

Update July 8, 2014

Toronto City Council has adopted the recommendation from Etobicoke-York Community Council.

Update January 20, 2016

Today it was announced by Wesley Mimico United Church that they were cancelling the project.  They posted the following on their website:

On January 14th, the Board unanimously passed the following motion:

In spite of persistent efforts and many successes in overcoming obstacles along the way toward full implementation of the Project Vision, and, in light of the current status of the renewal project, The Board of Wesley Mimico Place regretfully resolves to wind down the renewal project and instructs management to take the necessary steps toward appropriate conclusion of this work.

A hard, disappointing decision! But a responsible decision given a funding gap, insufficient sales of units, and unachievable construction loan requirements.

Update - June 7, 2016

On June 14, 2016 Etobicoke-York Community Council will consider an item to revoke the planning approval for the project since they have been notified by the Board of Wesley Mimico Place that the project will not be proceeding.

Update - January 1, 2017

The building has been sold and a Montessori School is setting up in the church.  I understand that the new owner is working with Heritage Preservation Planning staff at the city on the renovations.  However, despite the fact that the stain glass windows were part of the designation under the Ontario Heritage Act prior to the sale the church illegally removed them from the building.  City staff have decided not to pursue this violation.

Nathaniel Annable House - 12 Eastbourne Crescent

Nathaniel Annable House - 12 Eastbourne Crescent

© Michael Harrison 2012

Located in Crescent Point this beautiful house was built for Nathaniel Annable in 1928 at a cost of $5,000.  However its design and style made it look much older, leading to it being mistakenly identified as built in the 1850s which led to it being listed as an Etobicoke century home in the publication Sidelights of History published in 1975.

Nathaniel Annable was the son of Charles Annable and born in Salem, Massachusetts in 1891.  The family immigrated to Canada about 1917 and owned and operated the Donnell and Mudge Tannery in New Toronto.

In New Toronto In Story and Picture from 1937 the tannery is described as follows:

Back in 1918, the Donnell and Mudge tannery had its beginning in the town and through the years has grown to a leading position in the industry turning out annually millions of feet of leather of all kinds.  Reputedly one of the largest sheepskin tanners in the Dominion, the company by means of specialized processing, embossing and spray painting can turn out any number or (sic) beautifully-patterned leathers conforming with amazing exactness to the skins of all manner of animals from the shell-like rino to the fine-grained pin seal leather.  

From all corners of the world comes the hide and skins used by the company.  In the modern three storey building equipped with the best machinery available, the evil-smelling hides are transformed into the most ornate and beautiful designs with many of the leather products eventually finding their way to milday's dressing table.  Charles H Annable is the head of this well-known firm.

On June 22, 1931 Nathaniel Annable was married to Emily Mary Thornborough at St. Leo's Church.  After the ceremony and reception they went on a motor honeymoon to New England, most likely so that Nathaniel could show his new wife his old stomping grounds in Salem, Massachusetts.  They returned to live at 12 Eastbourne Crescent.

In early 1942 the Annables sold the home to EJ Bairnstow for $7,500.

Crescent Point Subdivision - 1910

Crescent Point Subdivision - Toronto World - July 31, 1910

White and Company Real Estate launched their Mimico Crescent Point subdivision in 1910.  The land has a long history.  

Purchased from the Mississauga nation as part of the Toronto Purchase in 1797, the property became part of Lot B, Range D Concession on Lake Ontario.  This lot, along with the much smaller Lot A was granted by the Crown to Robert Gray on April 24, 1811.  In 1824 these lands were seized by Samuel Ridout, Sheriff as part of a judgement against Robert Gray and sold to John Brown.  In turn, John Brown passed the land on to Mary (Brown) Arthurs, his daughter, upon his death in 1835 and she sold them to a member of her family.  The lands remained in the family for the next 39 years until they were purchased by Francis Hendry in 1874.

With the founding of the adjacent community of New Toronto in 1890 by the Mimico Real Estate Security Company, area land was in demand for residential development.  William Pinkerton purchased the Hendry lands for $38,000 (approximately $750,000 today), paying a portion of the transaction in cash, with Hendry holding the remainder as a mortgage.  He registered Plan 1056 for the area in 1890, then registered it again as Plan M 161 in 1891.  However, with the severe depression that hit the economy in the mid 1890s Pinkerton was unable to keep up with the mortgage payments and the lands were taken back by the Hendry family.

In 1910 Hendry sold the lands to Joseph McNabb for $45,000 (approximately $900,000 today).  McNabb registered his Crescent Point plan about a week later and launched the new subdivision at the end of the month.  His marketing plan was one of exclusivity and prestige, with statements like "It is the first high-class district west of High Park", and photos of a few of the "high-class homes in the District".  Photos appearing in the large advertisement in the Toronto World included:  Lynne Lodge (Fetherstonhaugh Estate), as well as the Hunter and Ormsby Estates.

In order to control the type of development that took place on the large waterfront lots, which were the showcase of the development concept, McNabb registered a covenant on title.  The covenant, which was to last for a period of 20 years from the registration of the plan, stipulated that "no trade, business or manufacture" was to be permitted in the area.  In addition, all homes had to be at least 50 feet from the street, no closer than 3 feet from the side lot line and cost a minimum of $ 4,500.  Lands in the rest of the subdivision also contained restrictions for homes ranging from $1,500 to $4,000 each.

Today homes in Crescent Point remain highly desirable.  The area is well known for its narrow streets, grassed boulevards and tall trees.  It would make a perfect Heritage Conservation District.

Mimico Building Scandal - Judicial Inquiry 1961

Report of His Honour Judge J. Ambrose Shea

Cover Page

In 1961 a Judicial Inquiry was called to examine the issuance of building permits and the enforcement of municipal by-laws after many examples of non-compliance were pointed out by various citizens.  The findings of the Judicial Inquiry go a long way to explaining why Mimico looks the way it does today, especially the wall of apartments along the waterfront.

The Beginning:
It began with a series of articles in the Toronto Star by Pierre Berton in May 1961.  The first article was entitled “What’s Wrong in Mimico:  The Strange Case of Mrs. Jackson”, which laid bare the obstacles that had been placed in the way of Mrs. Jackson obtaining a building permit so that she could sell her lakefront land which was now surrounded by apartment blocks on all sides. 

The article went on to outline what appeared to be troubling issues with the granting of building permits, and the conformity of finished buildings to the requirements in the permits within the Town of Mimico.  In discussing the apartment built at 1 Superior Avenue, and the violations of the building permit issued for its construction, the article concluded that:  “In short, the largest possible building has been squeezed on to the smallest piece of land.  This may sound like a horrible example, but there are worse ones.  If you’re one of a group of favored builders apparently you can almost get away with murder in Mimico.  But if you are an elderly lady named Martha Jackson then you’ve got to toe the line.”

As the pressure continued to build, the Toronto Star continued its coverage of the topic with two other articles by Pierre Berton, in addition to editorials.  As a result, Mimico Council passed a resolution on May 29, 1961 to ask Judge J.A. Shea of the County Court of the County of York to investigate further.

The Judicial Inquiry:
The Judicial Inquiry began at John English School in Mimico on July 17, 1961 and testimony wrapped up on August 8, 1961.  There was a total of 15 days of hearings which heard from 46 witnesses.  The inquiry was called to examine a number of issues but the two main ones were:

• “the erection of buildings in the Town of Mimico, and the administration and enforcement of the restricted area and building By-laws in relation thereto, during the period from the 14^th day of May 1953.” 

• “the sale, during the period from the 14^th day of May, 1953, of any land owned by the Town of Mimico.”

Following final arguments made by the lawyers at Toronto City Hall on September 22 and October 18, 1961, Judge Shea then began his consideration of the evidence and began drafting his report.  

Judge Shea's Report:

The report was issued on February 5, 1962 and made for very interesting reading.

It illuminated what can only be described as a dysfunctional municipal government that was lackadaisical and unprofessional in its management of the municipality, and the animosity of the various factions within the town.

In commenting on the witnesses that testified, under oath, before him Judge Shea commented:  “This investigation was handicapped to a very material extent by the fact that much of the evidence given could not be believed.  One is prepared to hear evidence that is coloured, distorted or exaggerated, but the evidence of this hearing was filled with half truths, concealment of facts, and untruths.”  He went on further:  “Feeling was high between the different factions, if not bitter, and witnesses seemed to be actuated by self-interest, or antagonism to others, or a desire at all costs to further the interests of the side they were supporting.”

On the main issue of the erection of buildings in the town from 1953 to the present (1961) Judge Shea wrote:  “My conclusion is that very deplorable conditions existed in Mimico from 1950 to 1960.  These conditions began more or less innocently, if one could use such a word in connection with the breaking of any law, even By-laws.  At least they began without any intention on the part of members of Council or officials of any wrong doing.  The situation at the beginning could be described in a few words:  

1.  The financial condition of the Town of Mimico was very bad;  

2.  There was plenty of available vacant land; 

3.  There was no possibility of industrial development; 

4.  The only hope of increased assessment, with the consequent betterment of the financial situation, was in building of apartments and multiple family dwellings; 

5.  The attitude of Council, Building Inspectors, and others having to do with such matters, appears to have been that construction must be encouraged and that what appeared to be unnecessary obstructions and restrictions should not be put in the way of builders.  For example, if a building was built, or was in the course of construction, and it should have been obvious that it was constructed in violation of a By-law, and if the violation was not, in the opinion of those concerned, a serious one, nothing was done about it.” 

Judge Shea went on further:  “Some of the violations were apparently insignificant and unimportant at the beginning, but from these small beginnings of violations of the By-laws, the builders, real estate men, and the speculators took over.  They took complete charge, and if they were not encouraged, they were certainly not interfered with or impeded, to any appreciable extent, by members of Council or officials.”

“When, as I have said, the builders took over, the violations of the By-laws became more flagrant and obvious.  In my opinion the builders made no attempt whatever to conform with the Building By-laws and there was practically no supervision or interference by anyone.” 

“My conclusion is that a great many buildings were constructed contrary to the provisions of the existing By-laws; that these violations were known, or should have been known, to members of Council and the Building Inspector, in such a small municipality as Mimico.  As one witness said: ‘everybody knew what was going on in Mimico.’

On the issue of land sales Judge Shea stated:  “My conclusion is that the lands taken by the Town of Mimico for unpaid taxes were sold in a very unbusinesslike and improvident manner.  They were not sold in the way a private owner would have sold them.  There was no sale sign on the property, no advertisements, no independent appraisals or valuations, and tenders were not called for.  There is no evidence that any land was sold at a lower price that it should have been sold for, or in other words, that a higher price could have been obtained.  There was nothing to indicate any malfeasance or unfair dealings by any member of the Council, or any employees, and nothing to indicate any favouritism, but that system of dealing with municipal property is open to very severe criticism.  The transactions indicated a lack of knowledge or appreciation, or of indifference and apathy, on the part of members of Council and officials as to their duties and responsibilities.” 

He made particular mention of several of the witnesses in his report.

In regard to Mr. Lionel James Ferrie, who had been associated with the Town of Mimico since 1923, and was at the time a member of Council and Chairman of the Property Committee, Judge Shea stated that:  “I find no evidence whatever of any malfeasance, misconduct or breach of trust on the part of Mr. Ferrie.  There was no direct evidence of any misconduct on his part, but there were suggestions, hints and innuendoes.  I find these wholly without any basis in fact.  However, one cannot but come to the conclusion that some of his actions were arbitrary, dictatorial, ill-advised, and unbecoming of an official of a municipality.”

On Mr. Jack Book, who was employed by the Town as Building Inspector, Health Inspector, Plumbing and Drain Inspector, and Weed Inspector, Judge Shea stated:  “I find that on at least two occasions he deliberately gave false evidence and on many occasions gave evidence that was intended to mislead.  My conclusion is that I could not rely on Mr. Book’s evidence.”  On Mr. Book’s role as a town official, particularly in his role as the building inspector during the time of the many violations of the building by-laws Judge Shea stated:  “Over all this was the despotic, unrestricted and unsupervised powers of Mr. Jack Book, the Building Inspector….Mr. Book was given far too much authority and he was without proper assistance, guidance, or supervision by members of Council. He appeared to take sides with that part of the municipality who thought the more apartment buildings and multiple family dwellings were erected, the better.  In addition to that Mr. Book began to take sides with the applicants.  He began to play favourites.  He made it simple for some applicants to obtain permits and difficult, if not impossible, for other applicants to obtain permits.  There is no doubt in my mind he used his power to issue permits to his own advantage, in a small way.  The issue of a building permit was a very decisive factor in the value of land.  Once a permit for construction was issued the value of the land increased very materially, depending on the number of units to be constructed.  Applications, and even permits, were altered in Mr. Book’s office.  Numbers were struck out and changed apparently at the whim of Mr. Book, to satisfy the applicants.  The situation reached such a stage that Mr. Book had unlimited and arbitrary power over the issuing of permits.  Mr. Book reaped some material advantage from this power, but in my opinion it was insignificant." 

In regards to Mr. Walton, who was the leaseholder on the Rex Theatre that was shut down by Mr. Book, for reasons of public health, and who accused Mr. Book of seeking a bribe to keep the theatre open, Judge Shea stated that “The evidence of Mr. Walton was equally unreliable.  He seemed to be very bitter toward Mr. Book, and antagonistic to the authorities of the Town of Mimico.  My conclusion is that on many occasions he deliberately gave false evidence in an attempt to injure Mr. Book and to cause embarrassment and trouble to other officials and to members of Council.  It should be said in his favour that he seemed to have an honest belief that things were not right in Mimico.  He seemed obsessed with the desire to bring about improvements, and in so doing to bring credit to himself.  He spent months without expectation of any remuneration or material advantages in making investigations and obtaining material for this hearing.  It was unfortunate that because of his bitterness and his desire for vengeance, he considered it necessary to give evidence that could not be accepted and was not reliable.”

The Fallout:
In the following municipal elections of December 1962 three of the sitting Mimico councillors were defeated.  These included Councillors Lionel Ferrie, Alex Halliwell and D.M. Smith who had all been urged to resign by other members of council following the release of Judge Shea’s report in February 1962.   The only person to be criminally charged and convicted was Mr. Jack Book.  However it was not for his activities as a town official but for lying to Judge Shea during the inquiry in relation to gifts from local builders and real estate men.  In March 1962 Book was sentenced to two months in prison for perjury.

The Lasting Impact:
Today Mimico continues to live with the repercussions of the  overbuilding that took place between 1950 and 1960.  The primary example of this is many of the apartment buildings built on the former Mimico Beach estates along the waterfront, and the multiple dwelling units (triplexes, sixplexes, eightplexes and apartments) on many lots within the single family residential areas of the former town. 

It is ironic that we are now being told by the consultants and planners of the City of Toronto that the solution to this overbuilding along the waterfront is higher intensification (i.e. more and taller buildings) as part of the development of the Mimico 2020 Revitalization Action Plan currently in process.  Even though the planning process is still ongoing the owners of the Amedeo Garden Court apartment complex have already submitted a redevelopment application to the city.

The preliminary Toronto Planning Department Report on the application proceeded to Etobicoke-York Community Council on September 12, 2011 and was adopted.  It provides a preliminary look at the application and projected next steps.

The Planning Staff report provides a summary of the development application as follows:

• full replacement of all existing 396 rental housing units within 2 new 8 to 10 storey buildings;
• 1,579 new condominium units over 3 to 5 storey base buildings and 6 new 20 to 44 storey buildings with a proposed Gross Floor Area of 165,412 square metres (i.e. amount of floor space they can build on the site);
• extensive underground parking facilities for 1845 spaces;
• a new public roadway system;
• extension of public parkland and waterfront access; and,
• devising an appropriate approach to the site’s identified heritage features (though none of the features appear on the site plan they submitted with their application).

Is history about to repeat itself?  Will the rejuvenation of Mimico be led by the city for the benefit of the local citizens or will the  developers take control of the process?

The city can make it clear that they will be in charge of this process by passing an interim control by-law over the Mimico 2020 area.  This would freeze development for a one year period so that they can continue to work on the plan, in collaboration with the community, without the distraction of having to respond to (or be led by/or perceived to be led by) a major redevelopment application.  

If you would like a copy of Judge Shea’s report please email me at mimicohistory at hotmail.com.