GEPR Energy Canada Inc., the owner of the historic General Electric factory complex at 107 Park Street North in downtown Peterborough, has objected to the City of Peterborough’s November 2025 notice of intention to designate eight of the complex’s buildings under the Ontario Heritage Act — despite a report commissioned by the company itself that recognized the heritage value of the eight buildings.

kawarthaNOW has obtained a copy of a letter dated November 25 from Toronto law firm Aird & Berlis LLP to the city clerk’s office on behalf of the company, which is a subsidiary of GE Vernova, an energy equipment manufacturing and services company formed from the merger and subsequent spin-off of General Electric’s energy businesses in 2024.

The letter from Aird & Berlis LLP describes four objections to the city’s notice of intention which, on November 6, was served to GE Vernova as the property owner and also published as a public notice in the Peterborough Examiner. Three of the objections relate to the “improper” wording and content of the notice, with another objection calling a proposed designation “unnecessary.”

The notice of intention to designate followed a decision by Peterborough city council on November 4 to allow GE Vernova to demolish a large number of vacant buildings at the factory complex, with the exception of eight buildings that would receive heritage designation.

The heritage value of buildings 2, 2A, 8A, 21, 24A, 26, 28, and 30 was described in a 154-page heritage impact assessment (HIA) report prepared by ERA Architects Inc. for GEPR Energy Canada Inc. Those buildings include two currently in use by GE Vernova, four currently in use by BWXT (an independent company that was originally part of GE Vernova’s nuclear energy division), and two unoccupied buildings with heritage value that will be retained and mothballed pending potential future uses.

On October 6, city council meeting as general committee voted down a staff recommendation that recommended hiring a consultant to conduct a peer review of the HIA report, with some councillors arguing that a peer review of the report was unnecessary and others arguing that a peer review would ensure the city had considered the matter in a fair and objective way.

Council confirmed that general committee decision at its October 14 meeting, despite hearing concerns from nine public delegations about the potential environmental and public safety impacts from allowing demolition of all other buildings in the complex’s centre block that haven’t been used since 2018. The 26 buildings to be demolished represent around 84,500 square metres (910,000 square feet) of the 104,000 square metre (1.1 million square feet) site.

The proposed demolition is controversial because of known contamination of the industrial site with toxic hazardous substances over the past 125 years and the impact of a demolition on the safety of the surrounding residential neighbourhoods.

On November 3, city council meeting as general committee rejected a recommendation from the city’s Peterborough Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (PACAC) that facades along Albert Street be retained for buildings 8, 34, 16A, 16, and 22 in their current location and be included in the designation, along with building 13 (the power house). Council voted to maintain its original October 14 decision to only designate the eight buildings described in the HIA report.

The following day, city council confirmed the November 3 decision and city staff were directed to issue a notice of intention to designate to GE Vernova by November 7 — the 60-day deadline under the Ontario Heritage Act given that GE Vernova sent its notice of intention for demolition to the city on September 8.

The city’s notice of intention, which was served to GE Vernova as the property owner and published as a public notice in the Peterborough Examiner on November 6, indicates the city plans to pass a by-law on January 19 that designates buildings 2, 2A, 8A, 21, 24A, 26, 28, and 30 as described and depicted in the HIA report, and provides the “reasons for designation” as stated below.

The letter of objection from Aird & Berlis LLP takes exception to the wording of the city’s notice because the “reasons for designation” describes the property as a “landmark” and, despite the notice specifying the actual buildings to be designated, claims the city is designating the entire property.

“The proposed designation will apply to the entirety of the Park Street site as a ‘landmark’, contrary to the clear intention and direction of Peterborough city council which stated that it had ‘no interest’ in pursuing designation of the lands save for a few specific buildings,” writes Aird & Berlis LLP partner Eileen P. K. Costello.

She adds that the notice “includes generalized statements about the history of the property and architecture, failing to include clarity and direction as to the specific heritage attributes that are of cultural heritage value” and that “the proposed designation relies, in part, on incomplete or inaccurate information with respect to certain architects that are attributed with having contributed to the Park Street site.”

Aside from the wording of the notice, Costello writes that the proposed designation “is unnecessary in the context of the site plan application filed concurrently with the notice of intention to demolish and which affords the City of Peterborough ample jurisdiction to appropriately manage the interim use of the Park Street site.”

“The site plan application which accompanied the notice of intent to demolish will facilitate the interim and long-term strategy for the property. In (the company’s) view, this can and should occur without the necessity for a heritage designation on the property.”

Again, despite the notice specifying the specific buildings to be designated, Costello writes that notice’s wording does not reflect the decision of city council and instead designates the entire property as a “landmark.”

“The practical consequence of the designation of the entirety of the Park Street Site as a ‘landmark’ is that any application which follows — whether it includes a proposed alteration of existing buildings or construction of new buildings — will be required to go through an additional process at the city for the consideration of any impacts on the cultural heritage value of the entire property.”

“We further note that the term ‘landmark’ is not defined in the Ontario Heritage Act making it impossible to asses(s) whether changes would affect the ‘landmark’, particularly in the context of the proposed demolition of buildings on the property.”

“At the very least, we respectfully submit that it is incumbent on city staff to work with (the company) to determine whether any designation could proceed in a manner consistent with the clear direction of city council so as to ensure the majority of the Park Street site and the current economic activities located there are not unduly encumbered.”

PDF: August 20, 2025 Landscape Plan – GEPR Energy Canada Inc.

Peterborough city council has voted unanimously on a motion to require all councillors and city staff to receive anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion training, as well as to amend council’s code of conduct and the city’s strategic plan.

The motion, brought forward by councillor Alex Bierk and amended by councillor Kevin Duguay when city council met as general committee on Monday night (January 12), was in response to the tabling of a report by the city’s integrity commissioner Guy Giorno on Mayor Jeff Leal’s use of an anti-Black racial slur during a guest lecture at Trent University last March.

In his report dated December 22, 2025, Giorno addressed nine complaints — including from the Trent Central Student Association and the Afrocentric Awareness Network of Peterborough — that the mayor had breached the code of conduct by using the N-word when referring to the language of former U.S. president Lyndon Johnson.

“Lyndon Johnson was an FDR New Dealer,” Leal said during his lecture at Trent University. “He came out of the hills of Texas. He used this language that you would never use today, and he talked about the poor [N-word plural] and Mexicans that he taught Sunday school to.”

While Giorno described the slur as “odious” and said the mayor’s use of the term was “not acceptable,” he found that the code of conduct does not currently apply to speech made in an academic setting where the mayor was not acting in his official capacity.

In his report, Giorno suggested council may wish to amend council’s code to address conduct to prohibit the use of the N-word, and also may wish to ask city staff to report back on the recommendation of the Trent Central Student Association that the city’s strategic plan be amended to include anti-racism and race relations as a strategic priority under the community and wellbeing pillar.

Bierk’s motion also addressed both of Giorno’s suggestions by directing city staff to amend the city’s 2023-2050 strategic plan and to review and amend council’s code of conduct to “explicitly prohibit the use of racial slurs — including but not limited to the N-word — regardless of context or circumstance.”

In his report, Giorno included a detailed statement he received from Mayor Leal about the incident, in which the mayor explained he was unaware that it was no longer unacceptable to speak the N-word aloud in academic settings.

“At the time of the lecture, I was not aware of this shift in practice in an academic setting, for me, this does shed light on why some of the Trent students took offence to my direct quote of Johnson,” Leal wrote in part.

At Monday night’s meeting, councillor Bierk introduced his motion by saying the use of the N-word is never acceptable regardless of the circumstances.

“Some have sought to minimize this incident by focusing on context and intent,” he said. “The harm caused by this word does not depend on context. It does not depend on whether it was quoted or directed at someone. The harm is real, it is documented in the report, and it is felt deeply by members of our community.”

“We have a choice. We can close ranks, minimize, and move on, or we take responsibility tonight and make changes.”

In her comments on the motion, councillor Joy Lachica says she was “shocked and dismayed” on behalf of the complainants by the integrity commissioner’s findings, and zeroed in on the mayor’s statement in the report that he was unaware that it was unacceptable to use the N-word.

“Not being aware is indicative of a need for education as the motion recommends,” she said, adding that the outcome of the report does not “truly acknowledge the centuries-long history of dehumanizing, vilifying, violating, harming, and killing of Black people” and that the use of the N-word “is a tool of racial oppression regardless of intent or context.”

After councillor Keith Riel said he himself welcomed the opportunity to be educated, councillor Kevin Duguay proposed an amendment to Bierk’s original motion, which recommended training only for councillors and senior city staff, so that the training would be provided to councillors and to all city staff.

“Many of our frontline staff have more regular interface with community members,” Duguay said. “They quite often could be in positions, and dealing, in a more public-facing manner.”

Duguay asked city CAO Jasbir Raina if council would be contravening any procedural by-law by requiring all city staff to receive the training, and Raina confirmed there would be no issue.

After councillor Lesley Parnell asked for clarification on past motions by council related to the city’s actions on Indigenous truth and reconciliation, councillor Bierk said his motion was focused specifically on anti-Black racism and reflected a request made by the Trent Central Student Association.

All councillors, including Mayor Leal, then voted unanimously in favour of Bierk’s motion as amended by Duguay.

The motion was then included as an amendment to the original motion to receive the integrity commissioner’s report, which council voted 10-0 in favour of, with the mayor recusing himself from that vote due to a pecuniary interest as he was the subject of the report.

Patients with less serious health concerns can now be assessed and fast-tracked through the emergency department at Peterborough Regional Health Centre (PRHC) under a new initiative that launched Monday (January 12).

Called the Streamlined Treatment and Evaluation Pathway (STEP), the online tool allows patients with minor ailments — such as respiratory symptoms, urinary tract infections, and minor limb injuries — to complete a brief eligibility survey before heading to the hospital.

After they arrive at the hospital, patients who are eligible for STEP will be directed to a dedicated treatment area in the emergency department (ED) and seen by a physician on a first-come, first-served basis. A dedicated physician will be available to see STEP-eligible patients from 8 a.m. to noon Monday to Friday.

After completing the screening survey, patients deemed ineligible for STEP will be instructed to still come to the ED if needed, but will be evaluated through the standard triage process.

PRHC says STEP is designed to reduce wait times and overall length-of-stay for lower-acuity patients, which will help free up capacity for more serious cases. The hospital’s ED handles more than 75,000 visits each year — roughly one patient every seven minutes — with volumes, complexity, and acuity continuing to rise over the last decade.

“STEP is one of many initiatives our emergency department has taken on to help reduce wait times and patient length-of-stay,” said Jessica Jackson, PRHC’s director of emergency, critical care, respiratory services and trauma.

In late November, the hospital launched a real-time online “wait clock” that shows how long patients can expect to wait before being seen in the emergency department.

“We want to ensure that we are able to streamline our patients in the most efficient way possible to improve their care and experience,” Jackson said. “With the support of leadership and staff across the hospital, we will continue to invest in these and other efforts to make innovations like STEP possible.”

The STEP survey is available on PRHC’s website through the emergency department page, or directly at redcap.link/PRHC_STEP.

After completing the survey, eligible patients will receive a confirmation message to present to the registration clerk when checking in at the ED triage desk. Once the triage nurse has verified the patient’s eligibility, they will be directed to the STEP area of the Green Zone waiting room, where they will wait to be seen by a physician.