City officials in Toronto have reversed course on a controversial decision to remove the name of a prominent early 20th century Toronto businessman from a historic home, in light of new information brought forward by his descendants.
City council voted in April to remove Robert Stapleton Caldecott’s name from his former home’s heritage designation on the grounds that he held restrictive — some said racist — views on immigration.
But earlier this week, council voted to restore his name after Caldecott’s descendants complained that he was being unfairly condemned and produced research in his defence.
“No way was [Caldecott] interested in dividing people by their physical appearance,” Lucelle Schmitz told CBC Toronto, from her home in Saskatchewan.
“He was more concerned with how we can make Canada as a whole a prosperous nation.”
City council passed a bylaw in 2018 designating the home at 64 Woodlawn Ave., as a heritage building, based on its association with Caldecott, a well-known philanthropist and businessman who died there in 1907, and because it was designed by prominent architect Eden Smith, who brought unique structural qualities to the building.
The controversy began in 2022, when the 9,000-square-foot house was bought by Dr. Arnold Mahesan, a fertility specialist of Sri Lankan descent, and his wife, entrepreneur and former Real Housewives of Toronto star Roxanne Earle, whose family comes from Pakistan.
The couple told a Toronto Preservation Board (TPB) meeting in March they only discovered that Caldecott House was a heritage property last year, when they began looking into modifying its steep stairway from the sidewalk.
When they began investigating the house’s history, they found, they say, that the original owner held racist views.
Caldecott would be “appalled by us living in the house he commissioned,” Mahesan told the TPB.
A heritage designation limits homeowners’ ability to renovate or demolish a home, although Earle has said that’s not why they wanted the designation removed.
The TPB recommended that city council retain the home’s heritage designation but that all references to Caldecott be removed, including the name Caldecott House. Council agreed.
The recommendation was based on a report by University of Toronto history lecturer Michael Akladios, who’d been hired by Earle and Mahesan to find out more about Caldecott.
Akladios found Caldecott held “restrictive views” on immigration but, he told CBC Toronto, does not consider him a racist.
Another report, brought by Schmitz and her husband — C. Michael Schmitz, Caldecott’s great-great-great grandson — led to the about-face. It relied on extensive research, including private family letters that Akladios did not have access to.
Family did ‘great work’
That 15-page report, signed by 19 of his descendants, states that although Caldecott believed immigration to Canada should be restricted to people from the British Empire, he had sound reasons for his views.
Caldecott “did not separate people by race or creed,” it says, noting that, at the time, the British Empire “was not just Canada, Australia and Britain, it encompassed many Islands in the Caribbean like Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Bermuda, India, Pakistan, East Pakistan (Bangladesh) as well as Ceylon (Sri Lanka).
“The only people he would have attempted to block from entering the country was the likes of American merchants in order to protect and build the young nation of Canada.”
Akladios welcomed that decision, saying the family did “great work” with the additional material.
“I don’t think [Caldecott’s name] should have been removed in the first place,” he said.
Earle declined to comment on the decision, citing her family’s security.
Both Akladios and Schmitz say they hope that, in the future, the city does more thorough research before deciding to add or delete a historical figure’s name from a house or place.
“If someone wants something to be renamed or called into question, research should be done. Thorough research,” she said. “Due diligence should always be done.”
City of Toronto staff said in email they were simply abiding by Ontario’s Heritage Act, which limits the amount of time the city has to respond to a request regarding heritage sites.