Ontario Land Tribunal  
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement  
du territoire  
ISSUE DATE: March 22, 2022  
CASE NO(S).:  
(Formerly PL200195)  
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.  
1990, c. P. 13, as amended.  
ClubLink Corporation ULC  
Application to amend the Zoning By-law Refusal  
or neglect to make a decision  
To permit the redevelopment of the lands for  
residential and open space uses, including 1502  
residential units which will be mixed between  
detached, townhouse and mid-rise apartments.  
Reference Number:  
Property Address:  
7000 Campeau Drive  
OLT Case No:  
Legacy Case No:  
OLT Lead Case No:  
Legacy Lead Case No:  
OLT Case Name:  
ClubLink Corporation ULC v. Ottawa (City)  
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.  
1990, c. P. 13, as amended.  
ClubLink Corporation ULC  
Proposed Plan of Subdivision Failure of Approval  
Authority to make a decision  
To permit the redevelopment of the lands for  
residential and open space uses, including 1502  
residential units which will be mixed between  
detached, townhouse and mid-rise apartments.  
7000 Campeau Drive  
Reference Number:  
Property Address:  
OLT Case No:  
Legacy Case No:  
OLT Lead Case No:  
Legacy Lead Case No:  
January 17, 2022 to February 14, 2022 by video  
Clublink Corporation ULC  
Mark Flowers  
Kyle Gossen  
City of Ottawa (“City”)  
Timothy Marc  
Kanata Greenspace Protection  
Sylvain Rouleau  
Coalition (“KGPC/Coalition”)  
This was the Hearing in the matter of appeals by Clublink Corporation ULC  
(the Applicant/Appellant/Clublink) pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (the Act”)  
from the failure of the City of Ottawa (City) to make a decision with respect to an  
application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) within the statutory time period,  
and pursuant to s. 51(34) of the Act, from the failure of the City to make a decision on  
an application for approval of a Plan of Subdivision within the statutory time period,  
with respect to the Applicants lands comprising 70.89 hectares (ha) municipally  
known as 7000 Campeau Drive in the City (“subject lands/subject property”).  
The proposed ZBA and Plan of Subdivision were requested to facilitate the  
redevelopment of the existing Golf Course on the subject lands. The proposed  
development consists of a total of up to 1,480 residential units in the subdivision, of  
townhouses, semi- detached homes, apartment units and single detached family  
homes, as well as parks and public open spaces.  
Kanata Greenspace Protection Coalition (the Coalition/KGPC) was granted  
party status at a previous Case Management Conference (CMC) as its membership  
generally comprises residents of the existing residential development adjacent to the  
Golf Course and it has an interest, as regards potential impacts of the proposed  
Participant status was also granted to (9) nine individuals at a previous CMC.  
Their participant statements were taken into consideration by the Panel.  
At the hearing on the first day, January 17, 2022, the City and the Applicant  
brought Motions to Adjourn and to Strike Averments, respectively.  
The Panel heard the Motion to adjourn first and then the Motion to strike  
averments. City’s Motion to adjourn was denied and Applicant’s Motion to strike  
averments in Douglas Nuttall’s statement was allowed. The reasons are set out in the  
following paragraphs.  
Motion to Adjourn  
The City’s Notice of Motion dated December 29, 2021 (“Motion to Adjourn”) was  
supported by the Coalition (Notice of Response to Motion dated January 4, 2022) but  
was opposed by the Applicant by Notice of Response to Motion dated January 6, 2022  
together with the Affidavit in support.  
The grounds for the Motion to Adjourn were set out in the City’s Notice of Motion,  
the Affidavit in support and oral submissions. The City submitted that the witness  
statements of the Applicant referred to an updated stormwater management design that  
has not been provided to the City or the Coalition. The City noted that stormwater  
management is complex on the Subject Property and a submission from the Applicant  
detailing a viable means of addressing stormwater. The City argued that they required  
a full package for review and stormwater management is part of that package. The City  
advised the Tribunal that a minimum of (7) seven weeks was necessary to  
comprehensively review the updated stormwater management design once it was  
provided by the Applicant.  
During oral submissions, the City elaborated on the seven week timeline noting  
that once the new submission is received, it would be circulated among various  
departments to enable the City to meaningfully respond. The City argued that  
stormwater is a key component of the hearing and as such, the hearing should not  
proceed until the parties have received a full package from the Applicant.  
[10] The Coalition added further grounds in support of the Motion to Adjourn. The  
Coalition argued that the parties prepared their witness statements based on a  
stormwater management design that is no longer being proposed by the Applicant as  
indicated in the expert witness statements of the Applicant. The Applicant has not  
made the new stormwater management design available to the parties for review and  
comment prior to the start of the hearing.  
[11] During oral submissions, the Coalition argued that a phased hearing is not  
appropriate in this circumstance. The Coalition and the City are opposed to a phased  
hearing as groupings of evidence cannot be made and there is no clear division of  
issues. They argued that the Application is not ready to proceed and the hearing should  
not be phased.  
[12] The Applicant opposed the Motion to Adjourn. The Applicant argued that the  
proposed stormwater management design in question is essentially the same as that  
submitted to the City in the Second Submission. In addition, any further stormwater  
management analysis could occur after subdivision approval during detailed  
engineering design. The Applicant argued that they would suffer prejudice if the hearing  
was adjourned at this late stage.  
[13] The Applicant noted that if the Tribunal were in favour of granting the  
adjournment, the hearing could be phased so that issues relating to stormwater  
management could be adjourned to a future date, but the remaining issues could be  
adjudicated without delay.  
[14] The Applicant in oral submissions argued that there was no change being  
proposed to the location or number of stormwater management ponds, nor were there  
any changes to where storm flows were proposed to drain. They argued that there are  
two matters before the Tribunal, the proposed ZBA and the proposed Draft Plan and no  
changes are being made to the matters that are before the Tribunal.  
[15] After carefully considering the submissions of the parties, the Tribunal orally  
dismissed the City’s Motion to Adjourn and the Coalition’s Response to Motion. The  
Tribunal found that it is in the interest of all parties that the hearing process be managed  
in an efficient manner.  
[16] Under Rule 17.1 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure,  
hearing events will take place on the date set unless the Tribunal agrees to an  
adjournment. Pursuant to Rule 17.4, the Tribunal will grant last minute adjournments  
only for unavoidable emergencies, such as illnesses so close to the hearing date that  
another representative or witness cannot be obtained.  
[17] The reasons stated for the adjournment do not amount to an emergency. The  
Tribunal found that there were no special circumstances in this case. Further, there  
was no serious hardship demonstrated by either the City nor the Coalition if the hearing  
were to proceed as scheduled.  
[18] There is delay in the request for an adjournment as the stated reason, “of  
another submissions requirement”, was known for at least seven months from June  
2021 (the date of the 3rd Submission).  
[19] This Motion was presented at the eleventh hour and the Applicant would suffer  
prejudice if the Motion to Adjourn was granted as the Applicant’s application was made  
more than (2) two years ago.  
[20] The parties and witnesses were all present and ready to proceed and the  
Tribunal was in a position to make its decision based on the planning instruments  
before it.  
Motion to Strike Portions of the Affidavit of Douglas Nuttall  
[21] The Tribunal then addressed the Applicant’s motion to strike portions of the  
Affidavit of Mr. Nuttall filed by Notice of Motion dated December 29, 2021 (“Motion to  
Strike”). The Motion to Strike was opposed by the Coalition by Notice of Response to  
Motion dated January 7, 2022. The City did not take any position on the Motion to  
[22] The grounds for the Motion to Strike were set out in the Applicant’s Notice of  
Motion, Affidavit in support and oral submissions. The Applicant argued that references  
in Mr. Nuttall’s witness statement relating to a restrictive covenant must be struck as  
they are irrelevant to the planning process and are outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.  
The Applicant further argued that Mr. Nuttall’s responses to certain issues should also  
be struck as they relate to matters outside of Mr. Nuttall’s area of expertise. The  
Applicant requested that the Tribunal direct the Coalition to provide the parties with a  
revised witness statement of Mr. Nuttall with the noted references deleted.  
[23] The Applicant noted that the City did not respond to the Motion to Strike, nor  
identify the restrictive covenant as something that required consideration. The  
restrictive covenant was not included in the Issues List as a matter that would be  
adjudicated at the hearing. The restrictive covenant is a private agreement outside of  
the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and should be inadmissible.  
[24] The Applicant further argued that Mr. Nuttall’s responses to issues in his witness  
statement relating to land use planning and parkland be struck. Mr. Nuttall is a Civil  
Engineer and the Applicant put forward that the paragraphs in the witness statement  
that are the subject of the Motion to Strike are outside of Mr. Nuttall’s area of expertise  
as a professional engineer.  
[25] The Coalition opposed the Motion to Strike. The Coalition argued that to properly  
review and design a stormwater management system one must review existing  
conditions, which in this case included parameters established by the restrictive  
covenant. Without a review of historical documents, such as the restrictive covenant,  
the parties would not have a complete picture of the surrounding area and the realities  
within which the Subject Property’s stormwater management system must be designed.  
[26] With respect to matters outside of Mr. Nuttall’s area of expertise, the Coalition  
argued that Mr. Nuttall adopted findings contained within Dennis Jacobs’ witness  
statement when commenting on parkland and planning issues. The Coalition noted that  
this is a common practice among expert witnesses.  
[27] The Coalition argued that the Tribunal could consider the restrictive covenant,  
even if it is outside of its jurisdiction, in order to gain an understanding of current  
conditions and limitations that exist on the Subject Property.  
[28] After carefully considering the submissions of the parties, the Tribunal orally  
allowed the Motion to Strike and the orders requested. The Coalitions Response to  
Motion was denied. The Tribunal found that it has no jurisdiction to consider the  
restrictive covenant, which is a private contractual matter between the parties. The  
Tribunal agrees with the Ontario Municipal Board (in a matter respecting a similar 40%  
agreement between the City and a developer) where the Board found that it does not  
have jurisdiction to address the 40% Agreement, as it is a private agreement between  
the City of Ottawa and KNL Developments Ltd., which these two parties can amend  
without notice to or the consent of residents, and the Board has no free standing  
jurisdiction to interpret contracts. (see: The Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital v  
KNL Developments Ltd. O.M.B. Case No. PL040841, September 26, 2005).  
[29] The private agreement is being litigated in the courts and further, this Tribunal  
finds that a review of the restrictive covenant is not required in order to understand  
stormwater management on the Subject Property or surrounding lands.  
[30] With respect to Mr. Nuttall providing opinions on land use planning and parkland,  
the Tribunal finds that this is outside of his area of expertise as a professional engineer.  
The Tribunal directed that the paragraphs and attachment referring to the restrictive  
covenant and parkland dedication be struck from Mr. Nuttall’s witness statement and  
that the Coalition submit an amended witness statement to the parties and the Tribunal.  
[31] Subsequent to the Panel’s disposition of the Motions, hearing of the subject  
matter of the Appeals commenced from the second day and ended on the fifteenth day.  
[32] The Parties listed some forty three issues with a fair amount of duplication of  
issues. In the course of the hearing, on January 26, 2022 the City withdrew some sub-  
issues and made concessions as follows:  
City withdrew sub issue PPS s.1.1.1(b) and s. from Issue 2 and  
Issue 23  
City withdrew sub issue Clause 2(q) in Issue 3 and Issue 24  
City withdrew issue 8.  
City withdrew issue 11 (noting it will not seek additional open spaces in  
the Tribunal hearing but will contend in the courts that the subject lands  
shall wholly remain as open spaces. NB. The City and the Applicant are in  
court over an agreement pertaining to the subject property).  
[33] The Panel permitted the withdrawals and directed that the Coalition can continue  
to call evidence on the matters identified in the Coalition’s issues. As for evidence  
already presented by witnesses, the Tribunal will decide on the appropriate weight to be  
[34] When Issue 43 (on draft plan conditions) was brought up, the City proposed to  
draft conditions of Draft Plan Approval in case the Tribunal finds in favour of the Draft  
Plan. The parties concurred and requested January 27 and 28, 2022 to be taken off to  
enable the City time to prepare draft conditions for circulation. Parties then returned on  
January 31, 2022 (Monday) with the draft conditions (which the Applicant and the  
Coalition made suggested changes and revisions to). During the course of hearing, all  
parties had the opportunity to put questions to their own witnesses and to opposing  
witnesses as regards these proposed conditions of draft plan approval.  
[35] The Tribunal views that the Issues are essentially the following:  
Are the Golf Course lands to remain as privately owned open spaces to  
serve the existing residential community?  
Does the proposal benefit the residential community with respect to the  
existing and future residents in the area?  
Is the proposed development premature?  
Does the ZBA and Draft Plan of Subdivision (DPS) meet the  
requirements of the policy and legislative framework?  
Can the DPS be approved subject to conditions?  
Is the proposed development compatible with the existing  
neighbourhood character, in the public interest and represents good  
land use planning?  
[36] The core issue, after further distillation mainly appears to be encapsulated by  
Issue No. 6 above. The question of whether the proposal is compatible with the existing  
residential neighbourhood that surrounds the Golf Course, represents good planning  
and in the public interest.  
[37] The evaluation of compatibility is tested with the proposed instruments ZBA and  
DPS as against the Provincial Policies and Legislative Framework that apply to these  
[38] The Applicant called a total of twelve expert witnesses, the City called two  
experts and the Coalition called three experts as follows:  
Peter Smith Land use planner  
Silvano Tardella Landscape Architect and Urban, Community Designer  
Andrew McKinley Ecologist and Environmentalist  
Andrew Boyd Forrester and Arborist  
Mark Jamieson Transportation and Traffic Engineer  
Mark D’Arcy – Environmental Engineer  
David Gilbert Geotechnical Engineer  
Nicholas Zulinski Hydrogeologist  
Stephen Pichette Civil Engineer  
Jean-Francois Sabourin Water Resources Engineer  
Paul Villard Geomorphologist  
Jennifer Hemmings Landscape Architect and Park Planner City  
Laurel McCreight Land use Planner  
Gabrielle Schaeffer Civil Engineer Coalition  
Dennis Jacobs Land use Planner  
Stephen Quigley Environmental Engineer  
Douglas Nuttall Water Resource and Watershed Engineer  
[39] All experts were duly affirmed and qualified to give expert opinions in their  
respective specializations by the Tribunal. Exhibits marked at the hearing are attached  
as Attachment 2 to this decision.  
[40] The Tribunal finds that the witnesses fall into two groups. The City and the  
Coalition are strongly in opposition to the redevelopment of the existing golf course  
lands which is the subject property that the proposed development is sited. The  
evidence of the witnesses for the City and the Coalition is given in support of that  
[41] The contrary position is firmly held by the Applicant’s expert witnesses who  
collectively mounted evidence in support of the redevelopment of the subject property.  
[42] Having heard the evidence and the submissions, the Tribunal prefers and is  
persuaded by the opinion evidence of the Applicants expert witnesses who generally  
are highly qualified in their disciplines, displayed independence of opinion and  
demonstrated that their opinions are proffered fairly and in an unbiased manner. These  
traits were often evident in cross-examination when the answers given were direct and  
fairly to the point.  
[43] The Tribunal finds in favour of the redevelopment, that the proposal represents  
good land use planning, and that it is in the public interest. The reasons are as set out  
herein after careful consideration of the policy and legislative framework, the appeal  
documentation and the evidence.  
Site Context  
[44] The subject property is currently occupied by the Kanata Golf and Country Club  
which consists of an 18-hole golf course, a two-storey clubhouse and a large surface  
parking lot.  
[45] The subject property is approximately 70.89 ha, is located within the “General  
Urban Area” designation of the City Official Plan (“OP”) and is currently zoned O1A,  
Parks and Open Space Zone, Subzone A by the City Zoning By-law No. 2008-250, as  
amended (the “ZBL”). The parent O1 Zone permits environmental preserve and  
educational areas, parks and urban agriculture and the O1A subzone permits a golf  
course as an additional permitted use.  
[46] The subject property is located within the low-rise residential neighbourhood of  
Kanata Lakes. The subject property fronts onto Campeau Drive, which is a major east-  
west arterial road. There is also frontage along abutting roads including Knudson Drive,  
Beaverbrook Road and Weslock Way. The Kanata Town Centre is south of Campeau  
Drive and comprises a mix of medium density uses.  
[47] The subject property is split into (4) four parcels which are separated by a local  
road network.  
a. Parcel A, the southerly parcel, is the largest parcel (approximately 43.1  
hectares) which is irregular in shape having three prongs emanating from  
Campeau Drive. Parcel A largely fronts onto Campeau Drive and fronts  
onto Knudson Drive at four locations including two pedestrians only  
connections. Currently Parcel A is occupied by the golf course, the 2-  
storey clubhouse near its southwest corner, an accessory building, a  
storage yard and a 1-storey garage.  
b. Parcel B, the easterly parcel (approximately 9.54 ha) is located on the  
east side of Knudson Drive and is long and narrow in shape. Parcel B has  
frontage on Beaverbrook Road to the north and Weslock Way to the  
c. Parcel C, the northerly parcel (approximately 2.36 ha), is the smallest  
parcel and is located north of Beaverbrook Road and north of Parcel B.  
Parcel C has frontage on Beaverbrook Road.  
d. Parcel D, the westerly parcel (approximately 15.98 ha) is on the west side  
of the subject property and has frontage onto Knudson Drive. Parcel D is  
located across Knudson Road to the north of Parcel A.  
[48] With respect to services, the subject property is within an existing community  
which has facilities and services including public transit, schools, public parks and active  
and passive recreational facilities. The Applicant’s proposal includes additional facilities  
and services that will be within walking distance of each of the new residential units  
being proposed.  
[49] The subject property is located between the Kanata Lakes neighbourhood to the  
west and north and the Beaverbrook neighbourhood to the east. The Kanata Town  
Centre is located to the south of the subject property across Campeau Drive. The areas  
surrounding the subject property contain a mix of dwelling types including detached,  
semi-detached and townhomes. The south side of Campeau Drive facing Parcel A  
comprises a mix of medium density uses, including three 16-storey buildings with rental  
apartments. The subject property is well served by public transit. The Terry Fox Bus  
Rapid Transit Station is about 950 metres (m) walking distance from the subject  
property. The City has also completed an Environmental assessment for the extension  
of Light Rail Transit service to Kanata Town Centre with eight new transit stations  
including Terry Fox station.  
[50] There is a pre-existing development agreement relating to the subject property  
that is commonly referred to as the “40% Agreement” (“40% Agreement”). The 40%  
Agreement was in place prior to the Applicant acquiring the subject property and relates  
to the overall development of the area. There is currently an ongoing legal dispute with  
respect to the interpretation and applicability of the 40% Agreement.  
Proposed Development and Applications  
[51] The development proposal for the subject property described below evolved over  
a number of years. The Applicant filed three separate submissions with the City and the  
City provided comments on each submission. Each submission was adjusted to  
respond to various concerns resulting from commenting agencies, City comments and  
interested stakeholders.  
[52] The 1st submission was filed with the City on October 8, 2019 (“1st submission”)  
and was deemed complete on October 17, 2019. A formal public meeting was held on  
November 25, 2019. The City provided technical comments to the Applicant on  
December 19, 2019. The Applicant appealed to the Tribunal on March 6, 2020. The 1st  
submission proposed 37.80 ha of residential land (1502 dwelling units), 19.44 ha of  
open space and 13.65 ha of roads.  
[53] The 2nd submission was filed with the City on July 15, 2020 (“2nd submission”) to  
respond to comments made regarding the 1st submission. The City provided technical  
comments to the Applicant on the 2nd submission on October 9, 2020. City Planning  
Committee considered the Draft Plan and ZBA on November 26, 2020 and carried the  
staff report recommendation to not approve the Draft Plan and refuse the ZBA. On  
December 9, 2020 City Council voted in favour of the City Planning Committee’s  
recommendation to not approve the application. The 2nd submission proposed 36.92 ha  
of residential land (1544 dwelling units), 20.06 ha of open space and 13.91 ha of roads.  
[54] The development proposal now before the Tribunal (“Proposed Development”) is  
the 3rd submission filed with the City on June 17, 2021. It proposes a subdivision  
consisting of a variety of dwelling types and land uses, including residential uses, four  
parks and four stormwater management facilities, which will be conveyed to the City.  
The Proposed Development would divide the subject property into 33.16 ha of  
residential land which comprises 1,480 dwelling units. It would also include 23.14 ha of  
open space (comprising parks, stormwater management ponds, additional open space  
and landscape buffers), and 14.59 ha of roads. The City provided technical comments  
to the Applicant on the Proposed Development on October 18, 2021.  
[55] The Proposed Development is organized so that it transitions from higher product  
along Campeau Drive down to single-detached product. Single-detached homes will be  
located in areas backing onto existing single-detached homes. Townhomes will not  
back onto any existing or new single-detached homes. In addition, there are proposed  
vegetative buffers which will separate all existing dwellings from new dwellings.  
[56] The proposed ZBA would rezone the subject property from O1A to various  
residential zone categories, including R1T (Residential First Density Zone), R3V  
(Residential Third Density Zone), and R5A (Residential Fifth Density Zone), as well as  
O1 (Parks and Open Space Zone).  
Issue. 1:  
Are the Golf Course lands to remain as privately owned open spaces to serve the  
existing residential community?  
[57] City and the Coalition emphasized the historical aspects of the development of  
the Golf course. From the 80s/90s when the then Kanata City (now Ottawa) permitted  
the development, it was contended that there was a requirement to keep the golf course  
lands as green open spaces. This is the alleged 40% agreement which according to the  
Coalition is written into the City’s Official Plan section 4.10.5. The Coalition did stress  
the application of this section through the opinion evidence of Mr. Jacobs.  
[58] The Coalition contends that the 40% Agreement was an agreement to facilitate  
the development of 60% of the lands, in exchange for an agreement that the remaining  
40% would be maintained as areas of recreation and open space and natural areas.  
The Coalition said a review of the 40% Agreement and the Genstar Concept Plan  
(GCP) will assist in understanding the purpose of policy 4.10.5 of the OP, which was  
to implement the 40% Agreement’s intent as open space within the OP. The use of a  
historical document like the GCP, according to the Coalition, is both appropriate and  
relevant, especially in circumstances where the text of the OP fails to provide complete  
guidance, or where there is disagreement on the interpretation of an OP policy.  
[59] The Coalition alleges that this 40% open space was to consist of four (4) types of  
areas: (a) the 18-hole Golf Course; (b) the Storm Water Management Area; (c) the  
natural environmental areas; and (d) the lands to be dedicated for park purposes.  
[60] The City introduced section 4.10.5 of the OP to support the 40% agreement. The  
Coalition added that this interpretation is supported by a reading of the 40% Agreement  
as well as section 8 of the Parkland Dedication By-law, which the Coalition claimed,  
provides explicitly that the regular rates do not apply to the subject property as there is  
an agreement that the area be developed as open space. As such, to rezone and  
develop the lands for urban residential purpose would not conform with section 4.10 of  
the OP and would necessitate an amendment to the Plan prior to any proposal to  
rezone for residential development.  
[61] According to the Applicant, the historic use of the subject lands as a golf course  
is not determinative of future land use. Land use planning is not static, and the OP  
specifically contemplates ZBA applications to change the use of private golf courses.  
[62] The Applicant’s position is that compliance lies with the general requirements of  
parkland dedication as found in the OP and the Parkland Dedication By-law. The GCP  
was not a document referenced in the OP and has no force or effect.  
[63] Section 4.10.5 is worded as follows: Policies Parkland Dedication, Policy 5  
Notwithstanding policies 2,3 and 4 above, parkland dedication requirements for  
development or redevelopment on land in b) The area of Kanata Lakes defined in the  
Parkland Dedication By-law: the parkland requirements for all development that is  
subject to the legal agreement to provide 40% greenspace, will be determined based on  
that agreement”.  
[64] The Applicant explained that the terms of the agreement are to be read and  
understood as between the parties to the agreement. The Coalition is not a party to the  
agreement. Nevertheless, this 40% agreement is under appeal before the courts. In any  
event, the Tribunal finds that it has no jurisdiction to decide upon its application. In a  
planning appeal matter before the Tribunal, it is mandated to decide based on the  
planning policies framework and will not be bound by other jurisdictional processes.  
[65] According to the Applicant, the particular section of the OP only speaks about  
parkland dedication. Looking at the parkland dedication by-law, it is clear that the  
proposal’s parkland provision exceeds that which was required in the Parkland  
Dedication By-law No. 2009-95. The By-law requires up to 10 % to be dedicated,  
whereas the proposal intends some 30% as parklands and open space which exceeds  
what is required.  
[66] The subject property is privately owned open space which, although accessible  
to the existing residents, through paths and backyards, is nevertheless, private property.  
Unauthorized people who wander onto the subject property are properly termed as  
trespassers. The subject property is not designated Major Open Spaces, but is  
designated General Urban Area in the OP, which “permits the development of a full  
range and choice of housing types to meet the needs of all ages, incomes and life  
[67] The redevelopment will convert the private open spaces to public open spaces  
(parks and open spaces will be conveyed to the City) which will be publicly maintained  
and publicly accessible.  
[68] While the subject lands are currently privately owned, approximately 30% of the  
lands would be conveyed to the City for public open space under the proposal, including  
four new public parks.  
[69] There is no need for an Official Plan Amendment or a Community Planning  
Study. Ms. McCreight for the City and Mr. Smith for the Applicant agree that neither an  
Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) nor a broader community planning study is required.  
[70] Thus, the Coalition’s Mr. Jacobs’ opinion that an OPA is required based on policy  
4.10.5 of the OP is incorrect, as this policy deals solely with parkland dedication  
requirements, which the proposal exceeds.  
[71] The Tribunal finds that this proposal is beneficial to the existing residential  
community. Currently, non-Golf member residents in the adjacent residential community  
engage in off season activities in the Golf course lands, in all likelihood, as trespassers.  
With the redevelopment, access to public open spaces and amenities will be accessible  
year round.  
[72] The Tribunal agrees with the Applicant that the subject property’s private open  
spaces are not for general public use and random people who walk on those lands are  
likely trespassing. The Tribunal finds that the private open spaces are not there to serve  
the general existing residential community.  
Issue No. 2:  
Does the proposal benefit the residential community with respect to the existing  
and future residents in the area?  
[73] One of the benefits to the existing community, as discussed in Issue 1, is that  
private open spaces will become public open spaces available all year round. In  
addition, when the spaces are transferred to the City, they will be maintained by the  
[74] In Mr. Smith’s and Ms. Hemmingsopinion, the proposed amount of open space  
and mid-block connections are appropriate.  
[75] Through the resubmission process, the proposed open space areas have  
increased to a total of 23.14 ha, which represent approximately 32.6% of the overall  
site. The open space areas will preserve existing natural heritage features, including  
Significant Woodlots. Appropriate mid-block connections are provided throughout  
Parcels A, B and D, both for vehicles and active transportation.  
[76] The redevelopment will be in line with the provincial goal of creating healthy, safe  
and complete communities. Existing residents will benefit from the increased  
landscaping, the creation of connected pathways and roads, preservation of wooded  
treed areas, creation of public amenities, open spaces environment that are revitalized  
that breathe new life to this community.  
[77] New residents who purchase in this proposed development will benefit from the  
varied types of housing that range from apartments, townhouses, semi-detached and  
detached dwellings. The Province’s and the City’s objectives of providing affordable  
housing will bring in new residents to this existing residential community. The proposal  
is a sustainable development catering to healthy family lifestyles and maximizing  
efficient use of municipal infrastructure and services.  
[78] The Tribunal finds that this infill and intensification of the subject lands, through  
the provision of a total of 1,480 units of residential housing is beneficial to the existing  
and future residential community in this area.  
Issue No. 3:  
Is the proposed development premature?  
[79] The City and the Coalition argue that the proposal is premature.  
[80] Their witnesses mainly are of the opinion that the Storm Water Management  
(SWM) measures are lacking in detail and as such it is premature to consider the  
matter of DPS. Hence, the entire proposal and applications are vitiated by prematurity.  
Citys Position  
[81] The resolution of storm water issues in respect of development in the area  
tributary, or seeking to be tributary, to the Beaver Pond is a significant concern. In  
respect of KNL Developments (another development in the vicinity), which was granted  
draft approval in 2006, Phase 9 is only being developed now and the resolution of storm  
water issues for Phases 7 and 8 has not yet taken place.  
[82] Although detailed reports were submitted by the Applicants consultant through  
the three formal submission packages, a viable storm water approach was not found.  
[83] The details of the current proposal are much more limited to the summary sheets  
brought forward in the attachments to the Reply Witness Statements of Stephen  
Pichette and Jean-Francois Sabourin, the City added.  
[84] Significant gaps in knowledge continue such that the City continues to regard  
that it is premature to grant draft approval.  
[85] The storm water model of record, the AECOM model, was developed over a  
period of five years from 2010 to 2015. It was a City-led process with input from several  
stakeholders including the National Capital Commission (NCC), the Ministry of the  
Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) and the Mississippi Valley  
Conservation Authority (MVCA).  
[86] Input was also received from developers with Mr. Sabourin providing comments  
on behalf of KNL Developments (the developer of the KNL lands in the vicinity of the  
subject property). The City noted that Phases 7 and 8 of the KNL lands are not being  
developed yet, and Phase 9 is currently under construction. This means that the  
AECOM model was finalized prior to the development of the KNL lands.  
[87] In addition to having to address the precipitation that currently falls on the subject  
property, the golf course lands also receive drainage from some 70 ha of additional  
residential land that was developed along with the completion of the golf course.  
[88] It is not disputed by any party to this hearing that there is a need to update the  
AECOM model if the subject property is to be developed. The City stated that a meeting  
took place on January 12, 2022 to discuss the update of the model but the only  
resolution that was arrived at was that further meetings will be necessary.  
[89] The City submitted that as with the current AECOM model of record, the update  
of this model cannot be left to one party, but ought to be a similar City-led process  
involving the same stakeholders as the original 2010-2015 process as all continue to  
have an interest. As with KNL this process should be undertaken before the subject  
lands are developed.  
[90] In the Functional Servicing Report, there are nine existing City storm water  
easements identified, in which there are changes proposed in eight of them. Given the  
position of Council with respect to this development, it cannot be assumed that the  
consent of the City to changes to or within these easements and pipes will be  
[91] The City stated that Mr. Pichette, for the Applicant, has acknowledged that  
modifications to the draft plan of subdivision will be necessary if permission to modify  
existing easements is refused. The City submitted that draft approval of this subdivision  
is premature until a storm water design is determined that does not require  
modifications to or within existing City easements.  
[92] The City submitted that the information provided with respect to Low Impact  
Development Techniques (LIDs) is inadequate to warrant the granting of draft  
approval. There is significantly less detail with respect to the proposed LIDs than with  
respect to the other elements of the Applicant’s proposal. Indeed, even elements known  
to the Applicant’s consultants, such as, in respect of amended soils, the house being at  
the maximum permitted size and 50% of the front yard consisting of impermeable  
surfaces, was not provided in documentation for this hearing nor outlined in the  
evidence of chief of the Applicant’s witnesses.  
[93] With respect to the bioswales, it was acknowledged that the figure provided to  
the City was uncertain as to whether such would be located on the right-of-way or  
parkland. Where they are proposed to be located in the entrance to a park, even if on  
the right-of-way, such may not be permitted, as they may be obstructing an access to a  
[94] It was further acknowledged that the width of the bioswale would be 1.5 m and  
that in circumstances where the bioswales were proposed to be on both sides of a  
street such would constitute three metres of the right-of-way. It was further  
acknowledged that there is already difficulty in finding space for infrastructure within the  
rights of way.  
[95] As a result, the City stressed that, the amount of infiltration from bioswales  
identified in the Reply Witness Statement of Mr. Sabourin and within Exhibit 13 cannot  
be relied upon to occur over the long term.  
[96] It was acknowledged that it is open to a homeowner to alter their property to  
provide for a deck, porch, artificial turf or change in soils that would affect the  
percentage of amended soils on the site.  
[97] On the dewatering of the ground, the reply witness statement of David Gilbert (for  
the Applicant) states the following:  
It should be noted that significant dewatering of the ground, which would  
result in excessive settlement of settlement sensitive structures, will not  
occur due to the presence of the proposed SWM system. The presence  
of a silty clay deposit with low permeability and firm to very stiff  
consistency will significantly reduce impact of any long-term  
dewatering. Also, clay seals will be installed at design intervals within  
service trenches to limit long-term dewatering as noted in Subsection 6.4  
of Report PG4135-2 Revision 5 dated May 17, 2021 (Emphasis added).  
[98] The reply witness statement of Mr. Sabourin (for the Applicant) states that it  
utilized the lowest rate of infiltration of 5 millimetre/hour when the studies done by his  
own firm identified an infiltration rate of 3 millimetre/hour.  
[99] Therefore, the City submitted that, based upon the information known to date, the  
rate of infiltration should be conservatively anticipated to be as low as that identified by  
Mr. Sabourin and the factor of safety of 2.5 identified in Mr. Sabourin’s reply witness  
statement should be further applied.  
[100] The table provided by Mr. Sabourin identified an increased rate of erosion within  
the Kizell Creek with the development of the subject land. The City acknowledged that  
the modelling was done without utilization of LIDs but the City stated that, given the  
uncertainty as to the impact of LIDs, a viable storm water approach has not been shown  
by the Applicant.  
[101] The City contended that the legal right to discharge storm water flows from a  
change in use from a golf course to residential development should be demonstrated  
prior to draft approval. Run-off from existing streets will, in major events, be directed to  
the rear yards of new development. Ms. Hemmings (for the Applicant) in her evidence  
noted that it is not appropriate for drainage from parks to be directed to private property.  
[102] Hence the City opined that it is inappropriate to direct street drainage through  
rear yards. A conveyance of land should be provided to the City for the parcels where  
such overland flows are to take place. (Evidence in Chief of Ms. Schaeffer, for the City).  
Coalitions Position  
[103] According to Mr. Nuttall (for the Coalition), the consultants for the proposed  
development have not demonstrated that the proposed works will not negatively impact  
the performance of the existing stormwater management system by the materials  
presented in support of their application to the City.  
[104] He opined that the receiving water body, the Beaver Pond, does not have the  
capacity to receive the change in volume and flow from the imperviousness expected  
with the development. His view is that the downstream channel of Kizell Municipal Drain  
is similarly without the capacity to cope with the increase in volume and flow from the  
[105] There is a Model of Record in place for this subwatershed it is the AECOM  
2015 Model. The Model of Record has been accepted by landowners and approval  
authorities. The Model of Record was developed over a number of years using a wide  
range of storm events, was peer reviewed while it was being created and on a number  
of subsequent occasions, including by the Applicant’s stormwater engineer expert, and  
found to be as accurate as possible.  
[106] This Model of Record has not been used by the Applicant to show that the  
proposed development is viable. Instead, the Applicant’s experts have created their own  
subwatershed model which has not been reviewed or approved by anyone. While the  
new proposed Model appears to accurately replicate the results on the Golf Course  
lands, it fails to accurately replicate the results downstream from the Beaver Pond. This  
may be due to the fact that it has been calibrated using a year in which there were no  
events larger than the 1:2 year event, which does not allow for calibration of more  
significant and potentially impactful events.  
[107] According to the Coalition, this means that the proposed Model cannot be trusted  
to accurately predict the downstream impacts of the proposed development.  
[108] The Coalition contends that the Applicant has found that there will be an increase  
in volume in the Beaver Pond (Exhibit 10, Tab 21, p. 326). The Summary Table of  
Flows and Water Levels showed an increase in water levels at the water pond when  
using the Model prepared by Mr. Sabourin instead of the Model of Record.  
[109] The Applicant has sought to introduce an entirely new SWM Plan through their  
Witness and Reply Witness Statements. The result of this limited information provided  
on the SWM is that the City and the Coalition has been forced to piece together an  
understanding of the proposal by selecting different pieces of information from various  
sources. To this day, neither the Coalition or the City have a complete and integrated  
view of the entire proposal and its impact, and have been unable to fully review the  
proposal to determine whether or not it would function.  
[110] The Coalition stated that the makeup of the soils and their capacity to take in  
water is unclear. The majority of the site consists of clay soils. The Applicant’s  
witnesses have variously indicated, at different times, that the soils would allow a fair  
amount of infiltration or that it has low permeability and will not allow significant rates of  
[111] There are inconsistencies, the Coalition claimed, between the infiltration values  
from the site tests performed, the guideline infiltration values associated with the types  
of soils found on the site, as well as the soils found by the Paterson geotechnical  
investigation. The infiltration values of the soils on site need to be accurate as it affects  
the capacity for the site to increase infiltration through the use of measures such as  
LIDs. Without clarity on these values, the Coalition stressed, it is not possible to  
determine if the proposed SWM plan can function.  
[112] The basic principle of any development from a SWM perspective is that pre-  
development flows must match the post-development flows. In this case, an accurate  
reflection of the potential for infiltration is of particular importance on this site as there is  
no availability downstream for increased flows. It is uncontested that there is already  
erosion occurring downstream from the Beaver Pond, and any increase in flows will  
aggravate this problem. Studies have already been made on the potential to increase  
flows downstream in the context of the development of the KNL lands, and Stantec (the  
firm engaged to do a study) has found that any increase in flow rates and water levels  
will increase flood risks and aggravate existing erosion conditions and downstream  
sedimentation problems.  
[113] The Coalition thus submits that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the  
proposed SWM design can introduce sufficient infiltration to ensure that there are no  
increase in flow rates and water levels downstream of the Beaver Pond.  
Applicants Position  
[114] The Applicant contends that the Applicant’s engineering consultants have  
conducted extensive work to date, even before the detailed design stage that will follow  
draft plan approval.  
[115] The proposed SWM plan before the Tribunal is essentially the same as in  
ClubLink’s 2nd Submission, except that specific Low Impact Development (“LID”)  
measures are now identified.  
[116] Mr. Sabourin has 38 years engineering experience managing and directing  
numerous water resource related studies in detailed conceptual drainage designs for  
new developments, low impact development research, watershed studies, hydrologic  
model calibration and development and programming of several hydrologic software  
such as the SYMHYMO.  
[117] His firm, J.F. Sabourin and Associates (JFSA) was retained by David Schaeffer  
Engineering Ltd. (DSEL) on behalf of Clublink to address SWM requirements for the  
[118] Mr. Sabourin emphasized that the proposed SWM plan incorporates a treatment  
train approach including reduced lot grading, amended soils, catch basins (CB)  
equipped with CB shields and deep sumps, an exfiltration system, Oil Grit Separators  
(OGS) and wet ponds. The proposed storm sewers and pond locations are the same  
as in the 2nd Submission. Reduced lot grading, exfiltration systems, bioswales  
(bioretention filters) and OGS are identified as means of mitigation against contaminant  
loading and promotion of groundwater infiltration.  
[119] The Beaver Pond is the SWM facility currently receiving, treating and controlling  
runoff from the existing development area, including the golf course. There are currently  
no other SWM features with Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) that provide  
stormwater quantity and quality controls within the area that drains into the Beaver  
Pond. The proposed development will drain to the Beaver pond but will incorporate the  
necessary SWM features so as not to increase contaminant loads. The water balance  
will be met by the use of LID measures such as amended soils, bioswales and  
exfiltration systems tied to CBs.  
[120] The proposed SWM plan will ensure that there are no adverse increases in the  
hydraulic grade line of the receiving sewer system and ensure that quality control  
objectives are met prior to the release of stormwater to the existing sewer system.  
[121] JFSA and DSEL prepared an up to date storm drainage model to represent the  
existing condition where the previous 1986 reports on stormwater for Kanata Lakes,  
Shirley’s Brook and Watts Creek were found inconsistent and out of date (The AECOM  
model had to incorporate subsurface volumes to the Kizell Wetland and the Beaver  
Pond to get a better comparison between simulated and observed flows).This update  
was done to determine the current system capacity of the receiving stormwater system  
(i.e. the sewers, Beaver Pond, Kizell Drain, and Watts Creek).  
[122] For the proposal, Mr. Sabourin’s firm undertook additional rainfall and flow  
measurements within the study area. The new monitoring data was used to recalibrate  
the previous AECOM stormwater model for the area. Through the recalibration, he  
found that the subsurface water storage that had to be included in the model, could be  
[123] Mr. Sabourin then used the updated model to re-evaluate existing conditions and  
proposed future conditions with and without the approved KNL Stage 9 being  
developed. Potential impacts to the Beaver Pond outflow and along the downstream  
reaches of the receiving watercourse were assessed. Based on the proposed SWM  
design he opined that the proposed development would not impact stormwater quality  
and that no increases in design peak flows out of the Beaver Pond and along the Kizell  
Drain/Watts Creek would occur.  
[124] Only ClubLink called witnesses in the highly technical and specific disciplines of  
geotechnical engineering, hydrogeology and geomorphology.  
a) Mr. Gilbert (geotechnical engineer), for the Applicant, concluded that the  
subsurface conditions at the subject lands can support the proposed  
redevelopment. He confirmed that geotechnical investigation was  
completed according to the City’s standards. A sump pump feasibility  
report letter dated September 29, 2020 was prepared in accordance  
with City Guidelines. He noted that no significant dewatering of  
groundwater would occur that could lead to excessive settlement, due to  
the proposed SWM system. Further, he opined that no drainage of  
groundwater into or out of the SWM system will occur long term in  
bedrock areas as there is recommended inclusion of impermeable clay  
liner over bedrock subgrade throughout for pond construction.  
b) Mr. Zulinski (Hydrogeologist), for the Applicant, completed a subsoil  
infiltration review used by JFSA and prepared a sump pump  
assessment that was accepted by the City. He reviewed the existing  
hydrological conditions of the subject property in support of the Sump  
Pump Feasibility Study and Subsoil infiltration Review. He reviewed the  
material insitu which is generally low permeability soils and bedrock. He  
opined that the hydrological conditions are not suitable for any  
significant groundwater recharge potential to the underlying aquifer, nor  
suitable for notable groundwater discharge to surface water features.  
The proposed development is not located in or near sensitive  
groundwater features. Mr. Zulinski’s opinion is that the infiltration is  
limited due to low permeability. The JFSA revised LID system will  
consist of minimum infiltration volumes to meet the predevelopment  
conditions. The subsurface material identified is acceptable for the  
revised LID with sufficient time for infiltration to meet predevelopment  
conditions and a conservative infiltration value is considered for the  
proposed LIDS.  
c) Dr. Villard (geomorphologist), for the Applicant, prepared a  
geomorphology assessment as part of the 2nd Submission (based on  
unidentified low impact development measures (LIDs) at that time). Ms.  
Schaeffer confirmed that assessment was acceptable to the City’s peer  
reviewer, and Dr. Villard noted that he had used a “conservative”  
erosion threshold. Although Dr. Villard’s updated erosion mitigation  
modelling was completed without LIDs (as such the modelling does not  
account for the mitigative value of LID features) at the City’s request, the  
final SWM plan will limit post-development erosion potential in the  
stream to existing levels through on-site controls and/or instream works  
or a combination of both. Dr. Villard opined that this approach is  
appropriate to address future downstream erosion potential. He also  
noted that there are existing erosion conditions along Kizell Drain and  
Watts Creek not associated with the Applicant. Ms. Schaeffer (for the  
City) has since confirmed that erosion mitigation modelling can account  
for proposed LIDS.  
[125] The Tribunal accepts that the SWM is designed as a treatment train incorporating  
the appropriate LIDs. The stormwater runoff will drain to the Beaver Pond, then to the  
Kizell Wetland, to Watts Creek and ultimately to the Ottawa River.  
[126] Mr. Pichette and Mr. Sabourin, for the Applicant, addressed in reply evidence the  
concerns raised during the hearing by Ms. Schaeffer and Mr. Nuttall regarding the  
proposed SWM plan. In some cases, these concerns were based on a lack of  
understanding or experience. For example, contrary to Ms. Schaeffer’s (for the City)  
The distance from the bottom of the proposed bioswales to the  
groundwater is identified in the materials already filed;  
The proposed exfiltration trenches are not essentially the same as the  
Etobicoke Exfiltration System, which was rejected by the City;  
Standard CBs are designed to have standing water, and the proposed  
deep sump CBs vary only in the depth of standing water; and  
Very conservative assumptions had been made regarding the amount of  
amended soils that could be accommodated on residential properties.  
Contrary to Mr. Nuttall’s (for the Coalition) assertions:  
Infiltration tests conducted by JFSA had not been “run for 8-15 minutes”,  
but for between 1 hour 13 minutes and 2 hours 37 minutes; and  
Mr. Nuttall’s calculations regarding flows and water levels in the Beaver  
Pond were based on an improper “apples and oranges” comparison, that  
is comparing: a single event AECOM model without the KNL 9  
development, versus a continuous JFSA model with the KNL 9  
development (without SWM controls) and the proposed redevelopment  
(without accounting for LIDs).  
[127] In response to assertions by Ms. Schaeffer (City) and Mr. Nuttall (Coalition)  
inferring that the entire subject lands have highly impermeable soils, Mr. Sabourin  
confirmed he applied a very conservative infiltration rate (the lowest rate identified by  
Mr. Zulinski (Clublink), with a factor of safety of 2.5) and demonstrated that the “model  
of record” identifies approximately three-quarters of the subject lands as having “Group  
B” soils with a “moderate infiltration rate”, a far better infiltration capability than  
suggested by Ms. Schaeffer or Mr. Nuttall.  
[128] The Applicant contends that the proposed redevelopment can be serviced with  
municipal water, sanitary and storm sewer systems, as proposed by Mr. Pichette  
(Clublink). Any sanitary capacity constraint can be overcome with the City’s proposed  
diversion of flows to another trunk sewer this is simply an issue of timing, and could  
be front-ended by the developer if necessary.  
[129] ClubLink asserts that it has clearly demonstrated feasibility for the proposed  
redevelopment, and further analysis and details can and should be resolved during the  
detailed design stage, including any additional permits and/or approvals as is the  
typical subdivision approval process.  
[130] The Applicant emphasized that the proposed Draft Plan Conditions will ensure  
that any outstanding technical issues are addressed prior to final subdivision approval.  
For example, the suite of LIDs proposed by Mr. Pichette and Mr. Sabourin must be  
supported by a hydrogeological report, and ClubLink must demonstrate that the on-site  
water balance will be maintained with LIDs. As Mr. Pichette noted, a similar amount of  
information was provided to the City regarding proposed LIDs for the Conservancy East  
development (a development by another Developer), and the City recently issued draft  
plan approval with a condition to refine LIDs at the detailed design stage.  
[131] The Tribunal prefers the opinion evidence of Clublink’s witnesses in particular Mr.  
Smith, Mr. Pichette, Mr. Sabourin, Mr. Villard (and other Clublink’s witnesses) over  
those contrary opinions of Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Nuttall, Mr. Quigley, Ms. McCreight and Ms.  
Schaeffer on the Coalition’s and City’s side. The Tribunal accepts the opinion evidence  
of Mr. Sabourin on the SWM modelling. The Tribunal finds that the Applicants  
witnesses have provided full and comprehensive studies, that are convincing and  
acceptable. The Tribunal notes that none of the City’s or the Coalition’s witnesses  
carried out their own studies apart from critiquing the applicant’s witnesses’ reports.  
[132] One main contention made by the City is that KNL had been struggling for 16  
years to even get their projects off the ground in the vicinity of the subject property. The  
issue being the difficulty in getting storm water management and drainage matters right.  
Two of the KNL projects, KNL 7 and 8 are yet to proceed to construction, while KNL 9  
has recently begun the process of construction.  
[133] The Tribunal finds that past tribulations of another developer are not indications  
that the Applicant would have to endure the same delay. It could be the difference in  
resources, the comprehensiveness of the research or the greater number of specific site  
studies undertaken that will make a difference in this matter.  
[134] The Applicant has undertaken a large number of specific studies through many  
specialized experts and those studies have been outlined and emphasized at the  
hearing. The several well qualified experts had accordingly testified at the hearing.  
[135] Mr. Sabourin has presented, in the Tribunal’s opinion, a SWM model that  
replicates the existing ground conditions of the subject site. It is an updated model  
which Mr. Nuttall (Coalition) affirmed in oral testimony as perfectin modelling the  
subject land condition, though Mr. Nuttall had reservations of the downstream  
[136] Those reservations have, in the Tribunal’s opinion, been addressed by the reply  
opinion evidence of Mr. Sabourin and Mr. Pichette (of DSEL).  
[137] Mr. Pichette is an engineer with 38 years of experience in the design of sewers,  
sanitary sewers, watermains and SWM facilities. In response to City’s comments and  
rejection of the Etobicoke Exfiltration System (EES), Mr. Pichette responded that the  
Applicant will proceed with the 2nd Submission and supplement onsite LIDs, including  
amended soils, deep sump CBs, CB shields, infiltration trenches tied to CBs, and OGS  
to provide 80% total suspended soil removal. He also stated that these measures have  
all been favourably received by the City on other projects. In his opinion, the City has  
enough detail based on the 2nd Submission enhanced with LIDs to support draft plan  
approval. The detailed engineering design will then be addressed through draft plan  
[138] Ms. Shaeffer (City) had expressed concerns with the proposed major system  
overland flow arrangement. Mr. Pichette stated that, as per the existing condition,  
several locations are landlocked without emergency overland route. The proposed  
SWM plan introduces 100 year intakes at strategic locations to ensure the full capture of  
the 100 year event. In the detailed design stage, the plan will have regard to the stress  
test event, in accordance with the City Sewer Design Guidelines.  
[139] The Tribunal finds that the opinion evidence of Clublink’s expert witnesses is  
reasonable and more in keeping with the facts, the topography, the geomorphology,  
hydrology and the relational matrix with the adjacent residential community.  
[140] The City and the Coalition are quite concerned that the DPS had no hard lotting  
patterns and the draft plan is merely conceptual. The other significant worry is that the  
Applicant had put much emphasis on the lot frontage of 9 m, to which the City opined  
that since there is no real fixed lotting line, the Applicant could in theory then redraw the  
Draft Plan to only provide for lots measuring all uniformly at 9 m for the whole project.  
[141] The Tribunal agrees with the Applicant’s counsel that such concerns are  
overblown and not realistic, as the DPS will be as per the site plan that accompanies  
the application. Further the detailed design stage will properly address all matters that  
arise at that stage. In the meantime, the Draft Plan Approval is subject to the numerous  
draft plan approval conditions that need the City to sign off on. This means that the  
City’s worries are unfounded. The Tribunal finds that the proposed development is not  
Issue No. 4:  
Does the ZBA and the DPS meet the requirements of the policy and legislative  
[142] The Applicant contended that in Ottawa, unlike other municipalities, there is no  
requirement to present a draft ZBA with the Zoning application.  
[143] Neither the City, nor the Coalition attempted to counter or state anything in  
opposition to that contention. In any event, there is no draft ZBA in the documents and  
there is no contrary evidence that an application in the City requires a Draft ZBA to  
accompany the Zoning application.  
[144] Appendix B to Mr. Smith’s Planning Rationale Addendum letter dated June 17,  
2021 sets out the proposed list of zoning regulations/provisions for the proposed zones  
for the subject property. These regulations proposed may be fine-tuned with the City.  
[145] Following from the expert opinion evidence of Mr. Smith, the Applicant’s planning  
expert witness, the Tribunal accepts that the ZBA meets the requirements of the policy  
and legislative framework.  
[146] The fact that there is no draft ZBA does not detract from the Applicant’s ability, in  
consultation with the City, to draft the necessary zoning provisions/regulations and the  
required zone mapping for the desired zone changes. The Tribunal may grant approval  
in principle for the zone changes subject to the zoning provisions/regulations and  
mapping being confirmed by the City and duly notified to the Tribunal. Meanwhile, a  
holding provision could be put in place until the conditions are satisfied.  
[147] The DPS meets the requirements of s. 51(24) of the Planning Act (Act) as the  
subsequent paragraphs will demonstrate.  
Issue No. 5:  
Can the Draft Plan of Subdivision be approved subject to conditions?  
[148] In the planning context, the DPS is a conceptual plan that is still amenable to  
further amendments. There could be several iterations of the DPS and the site plan will  
be finalized at the detailed design planning and site plan approval stage.  
[149] The City had drafted 192 “standard” conditions that the Draft Plan Approval may  
be subject to. The Applicant had suggested revisions, deletions and amendments to 18  
conditions. The Coalition had also suggested revisions and amendments.  
[150] Based on the Applicant’s experts’ opinion evidence, the Tribunal finds that DPS  
should be approved subject to conditions. The conditions that the Tribunal will impose  
for the approval are as set out in Attachment 1 and 1A to this decision.  
Issue No. 6:  
Is the proposed development compatible with the existing neighbourhood  
character, in the public interest and represents good land use planning?  
[151] The Tribunal regards this as the core issue that is before it. This redevelopment  
represents good land use planning and is in the public interest. In evaluating this  
proposal, the Tribunal finds that the redevelopment is compatible with the existing  
character of the neighbourhood. The conclusions are based on the cogent and credible  
evidence presented by the Applicant’s expert witnesses.  
[152] City Planner, Ms. McCreight questioned whether the lots are compatible with the  
surrounding subdivisions (s. 51(24)(c) Planning Act). She opined that without a  
proposed lotting pattern and appropriate front and rear yard setbacks, it is not possible  
to decide whether the proposed plan of subdivision is well designed. New development  
is required to be compatible with the surrounding community as this is not an urban  
expansion area or developing community.  
[153] Ms. McCreight pointed out that many lots in the Beaverbrook and Kanata Lakes  
area are wider than 18 m and there are no examples of 9 m frontages (proposed) in  
either community. Therefore, she opined that the proposal is not in keeping with the  
character of lotting in the community.  
[154] She further opined that new development is reviewed and evaluated with respect  
to urban design and compatibility pursuant to section 4.11 of the OP. Compatibility is  
needed with the surroundings of new buildings and parts of new buildings facing the  
public realm (section 4.11.5) and minimizing undesirable impacts on existing private  
amenity spaces of adjacent residential units (section 4.11.19).  
[155] Her opinion is that the proposed 3 m front and corner side yard setbacks are not  
reflective of the required 4.5 m setback. The greater 4.5 m setback will assist in creating  
a compatible public realm to built form relationship with the abutting existing streets, she  
stated. For her, the character of a community is expressed in the built environment and  
features such as setbacks and building structures from the property line. The 4.5 m front  
and corner side yard setback is representative of the zoning in the surrounding  
residential community.  
[156] Mr. Jacobs (Coalition), opined that Policy 4.11.1 requires a design brief which the  
Applicant’s final version was dated June 2021. His view is that the design brief is flawed  
as the foundation for the brief is that of a Greenfield site adjacent to developed lands.  
His view is that the subject property is actually a fundamental part of an overall master  
planned community that was based on a very different set of guiding principles. He  
opined that an appropriate approach would have been to start with the original master  
plan for Kanata Lakes and from there determine where and how much if any, new  
development could be added without adversely impacting the principles of the original  
masterplan design. He goes on to say that the original master plan was a community  
design plan in the context of the Official Plan and as such the submitted Design Brief  
has insufficient regard to Policy 4.11(1)(c). (Alluding to the original 1987 Genstar Master  
Concept Plan (GCP)).  
[157] Mr. Jacobs added that the response to the land’s suitability for subdivision has to  
be tied back to the original master plan GCP for this community. In this masterplan  
concept, he opined that the lands were not intended for any form of land use or  
development other than open space and recreational uses to be shared with  
neighbouring residents. The golf course lands were not intended as an interim use and  
according to him, this commitment was addressed in the 40% Agreement whereby the  
lands were required to be transferred to municipal ownership should the golf course  
cease to exist to maintain their open space usage.  
[158] From this premise, it was therefore unsurprising that Mr. Jacobsplanning  
opinion is diametrically opposed to that of Mr. Smith’s. Suffice to say that Mr. Jacobs’  
opinion is that the proposal is not compatible with the existing neighbourhood, does not  
conform to the legislative framework and does not represent good planning.  
[159] Mr. Smith, the Applicant’s planner, disagreed with the City’s and Coalition’s  
[160] He disagreed with Mr. Jacob’s contention that the Design Brief has had  
insufficient regard to Policy 4.11(1)(c) of the Official Plan. He stated that the GCP is not  
a “community design plan” within the meaning of Policy 4.11(1)(c). Annex 5 to the  
Official Plan shows “areas subject to a community design plan or policy plan approved  
by the Ottawa City Council”. The subject property is not so indicated. Mr. Smith in his  
reply witness statement had responded to Mr. Jacobs’ other issues and opinions.  
[161] Mr. Smith expressed that 9 m is the minimum lot frontage for single family  
dwellings, and other lot sizes greater than 9 m (30 feet) are envisioned. There will be lot  
sizes of 30 feet to 70 feet in the lotting, which are reflective of the existing lot patterns in  
the community. He stated that the Zoning permits a minimum of 9 m frontage, and it is  
not the intention of the Applicant to apply 9 m across the board.  
[162] Mr. Smith added that section of the OP speaks to intensification that is  
compatible with the surrounding context will also be supported on… underdeveloped  
sites. He emphasized that compatible development means “development that although  
it is not necessarily the same as or similar to existing buildings in the vicinity, can  
enhance an established community through, good design and innovation and coexist  
with the existing development without causing undue adverse impact on surrounding  
properties” (section 2.5.1 of the OP).  
[163] His opinion is that the proposal will enhance and complement the desirable  
characteristics of the General Urban Area and its long term renewal by introducing new  
housing options in a form that is compatible with its surroundings.  
[164] Mr. Tardella, the Applicant’s Landscape Architect’s opinion evidence collaborated  
Mr. Smith’s opinion. He opined that the range of housing typologies will add to the  
community character. The interiors of the proposed development will be low density  
two-storey detached residences backing onto detached dwellings in keeping with the  
existing setbacks, and townhouses will back onto existing townhouses.  
[165] He stated that the design objectives in section of the OP are met and  
reflected in the proposed plan. It respects the surrounding urban fabric, enhances the  
overall character and adds to the range of housing. The proposed plan maintains the  
low density character that defines the surrounding neighbourhoods and concentrates  
the medium density forms along Campeau Drive. Specific considerations were made for  
the interface between the new and the existing residential properties.  
[166] Architectural styles will incorporate many common elements in the neighbouring  
communities to create uniformity and ensure compatibility. Further vegetative buffers of  
3 m and 6 m are incorporated in the proposed plan to create greater separation  
between the properties.  
[167] The proposed redevelopment is compatible with the existing surrounding  
neighbourhood. “Compatibility”, in section 2.5.1 of the OP, means development that is  
“not necessarily the same as or similar to”, but coexists with existing development  
without causing undue adverse impact on surrounding properties, and that “fits” and  
“works” well with the physical context and planned function.  
[168] The surrounding community has a wide range of lot sizes (approximately 35-70  
foot frontages) and a broad mix of housing types (detached, semi-detached,  
townhouses, apartments), and is a stable residential area with no evidence of  
[169] Smaller lot sizes and the potential for multiple lots backing onto existing detached  
lots does not create “incompatibility”, and already exists in the immediate  
[170] Further, ClubLink proposes interface treatments, including landscaped buffers,  
to address potential privacy and visual concerns in rear yards.  
[171] Neither Ms. McCreight (City) nor Mr. Jacobs (Coalition) could identify any  
instability or adverse impact that would be created with the introduction of detached  
dwellings, which would, in some cases, be on lots of different sizes and have different  
setbacks than the existing community.  
[172] The Tribunal finds that the existing residential subdivision already contains  
examples of detached lots backyards being backed onto by, in some instances, multiple  
lots (Exhibit 17-Geo-Ottawa Map). The proposal with, for example, three lots backing  
onto a larger lot is thus not out of character in this area. The proposal is thus compatible  
with the existing neighbourhood.  
[173] The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Smith’s professional opinion that the Planning  
Applications represent good planning, are in the public interest and should be  
Policy Framework  
Matters of Provincial Interest Section 2 of the Planning Act  
[174] Section 2 of the Act prescribes a list of non-exhaustive criteria that the Tribunal  
must have regard to in carrying out its responsibilities under the Act.  
[175] Mr. Smith informed the Tribunal that the Planning Applications have appropriate  
regard to these criteria. In his opinion, the proposed plan of subdivision conforms with  
the Official Plan of the City and is compatible with adjacent plans of subdivision.  
Applicable Planning Policy Documents  
[176] The Tribunal agrees that the planning context for the proposed Development  
is established by the following:  
a. The PPS;  
b. The City OP  
c. The ZBL  
The PPS 2020  
[177] Section 3(5) of the Act requires the decision on a planning matter of the Tribunal,  
shall be consistent with the provincial policy statements that are in effect.  
[178] The PPS 2020 applies and the proposed plan of subdivision is consistent  
with the Provincial Policy Statement. Mr. Smith (Clublink) and Ms. McCreight (City)  
agree that the proposal is consistent with the PPS from the planning perspective.  
[179] Specifically, Mr. Smith stated, with respect to Policy 1.1.1(b), the proposed  
plan will provide additional housing options with a mix and range of residential  
types, including detached dwellings, semi-detached, townhouses, back-to-back  
townhouses, stacked townhouses and apartment units, which will help meet long-  
term needs, along with recreation, park and open space use, including new public  
[180] With respect to Policy, the proposed plan of subdivision promotes  
appropriate development standards that will facilitate intensification,  
redevelopment and compact form, while avoiding or mitigating risks to public  
health and safety. Development standards in this case include the proposed lot  
sizes and densities and the proposed public street widths, all of which will result in  
an appropriate balance between making efficient use of land and infrastructure  
and ensuring compatibility with the existing and planned built form context. The  
proposed plan will provide a range of new housing options within a community that  
already includes a range and mix of housing types, including detached, semi-  
detached and townhouse dwellings, along with mid-rise and high-rise residential  
buildings, as well as hotel and residential care uses.  
[181] In addition, the proposal is consistent with Policy 1.1.1(c) in that it avoids  
development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or public health and  
safety concerns. In this regard, there is no apparent reason that the proposed  
development would give rise to such concerns.  
City Official Plan  
[182] The City Official Plan sets the policy framework within which development is to  
take place. Mr. Smith opined that the proposed plan of subdivision conforms with  
the Official Plan of the City and is compatible with adjacent plans of subdivision.  
[183] In particular, the proposed plan conforms with Policies and It will result in compatible intensification within the urban boundary,  
including areas designated General Urban Area.  
[184] Policy promotes “opportunities for intensification in areas  
determined by the policies in Section 3.6.1”. In this regard, the proposed  
development would conform with the policies in Section 3.6.1, in particular Policy  
[185] Furthermore, Policy explicitly states that “intensification that is  
compatible with the surrounding context will also be supported on …  
underdeveloped sites … (and) sites that are no longer viable for the purpose for  
which they were originally used or intended …”.  
[186] With respect to Policy, the word “compatible” has a generally  
understood meaning from a planning perspective. Section 2.5.1 of the OP indicates  
that, in general terms, “compatible development” means “development that, although it  
is not necessarily the same as or similar to existing buildings in the vicinity, can enhance  
an established community through good design and innovation and co-exist with  
existing development without causing undue adverse impact on surrounding properties”.  
[187] In accordance with Policy, the interior portions of the proposed plan will  
be characterized by low-rise buildings i.e. four (4) storeys or less. In Mr. Smith’s  
opinion, the intensification permitted by the proposed plan will enhance and  
complement the desirable characteristics of the General Urban Area and its long-term  
renewal by introducing new housing options in a form that is compatible with its  
[188] He stated that the proposed plan conforms with Policy 2.4.5(4). The policy  
addresses circumstances in which ZBA applications are brought forward to redevelop  
privately-owned open spaces, specifically including golf courses. In such circumstances,  
it requires that the City consider opportunities to maintain the Greenspace Network  
through the area and otherwise reduce the impact of the loss and provides that the City  
“may consider” acquisition of the land.  
[189] Failing a decision by the City to acquire the lands, it is his opinion that the policy  
framework requires the City to consider the proposed plan on its land use planning  
merits. In this respect, Policy 2.4.5(5) recognizes that open space and leisure land  
where access is restricted, such as school grounds, private golf courses or other  
facilities, are not included in the Greenspace Master Plan target of 4.0 ha per1,000  
population. Furthermore, the Greenspace Master Plan explicitly recognizes that the  
economic feasibility of maintaining some privately owned but accessible open spaces,  
such as marinas, campgrounds and golf courses, may be reduced “to the point where  
redevelopment is a viable option”.  
[190] In such cases, the Greenspace Master Plan states that the City needs to  
“consider the open space function of the site to see whether a greenspace function can  
be retained even as the land redevelops”.  
[191] In this regard, the proposed development would include 23.14 ha (32.6% of the  
site area) for various parks and open space uses (4 new public parks, as well as  
stormwater management ponds, open spaces and landscaped buffers). As compared  
with the existing private golf course use, which is not publicly accessible, the proposed  
development will include 6.24 ha of new public parkland, as well as providing for public  
access through the site through the introduction of public streets and pedestrian trails.  
[192] With respect to Policy 2.5.1(1), it is Mr. Smith’s opinion that the proposed plan  
satisfies the Design Objectives set out in Section 2.5.1.  
[193] He emphasized that the proposed plan conforms with Policy 3.6.1(5). The policy  
is clear that the City “supports” intensification in the General Urban Area where it is  
complementary; i.e. intensification is not merely permitted, but supported. The  
predominant form of housing proposed by the subdivision plan will be detached, semi-  
detached and other ground-oriented multiple unit housing (1,043 of 1,480 units, or  
70.5%). In particular, the proposed development will be compatible with the existing  
community character by enhancing and building upon established patterns of built form  
and open spaces, while contributing to “the maintenance and achievement of a balance  
of housing types and tenures to provide a full range of housing for a variety of  
demographic profiles throughout the General Urban Area”.  
[194] With respect to Policy 4.10(5), Mr. Smith said that the parkland requirement  
pursuant to the “legal agreement to provide 40% greenspace” will be determined, in  
part, through the ongoing litigation regarding that agreement.  
[195] The effect of Policy 4.10(5) is that Policies 4.10(2), 4.10(3) and 4.10(4) do not  
apply and that, instead, parkland requirements are “to be determined” based upon that  
agreement. Mr. Smith opined that, in this regard, Section 4(4) of the 1981 agreement  
states that “the landsto be dedicated for parks purposes will be determined at the time of  
the developmentapplications in accordance with the Planning Act”. This will be further  
determined by the Parkland Dedication By-law.  
[196] In Mr. Smith’s opinion, the policy does not prohibit redevelopment of the subject  
site. The proposed plan conforms with Policies 4.11(5), 4.11(19) and 4.11(20).  
[197] It is Mr. Smith’s opinion that draft conditions of approval are appropriate in this  
S. 51(24) Planning Act  
[198] Regarding s. 51(24) of the Act, Mr. Smith provided his opinion that theproposed  
plan of subdivision has regard to the prescribed criteria for the following reasons.  
[199] With reference to s. 51(24)(a), the proposed subdivision has regard for matters of  
provincial interest as referred to in s. 2 of the Act.  
[200] In Mr. Smith’s opinion, the subdivision is not premature (s.51(24)(b). Approval of  
the plan of subdivision would be timely, in that it would provide for new housing options,  
while resulting in a more efficient use of land and infrastructure. There are no apparent  
physical constraints to redevelopment, subject to approval and satisfaction of draft plan  
[201] In his opinion, the proposed plan of subdivision appropriately addresses the  
criterion in s. 51(24)(c) of the Act, and is compatible with adjacent plans of subdivision.  
[202] With reference to s. 51(24)(d), it is his opinion that the land is suitable for the  
purposes for which it is to be subdivided i.e. residential uses, roads and parks and open  
space. It is noted that those purposes are consistent with the general land uses on  
adjacent lands.  
[203] In his opinion, the proposed lotting pattern is appropriate (s. 51(24)(f)).  
[204] As set out in his firm’s June 17, 2021 letter, the detailed lotting layout requested  
by City staff and provided as part of the first resubmission was further refined, with  
detailedlot frontages included in the draft plan of subdivision. While the lot frontages are  
stillconceptual and are subject to revisions, they reflect a potential lotting pattern based  
on the detached housing products identified in the updated NAK Design Strategies  
Urban Design Brief (dated June 2021), which include 30, 31, 35, 36, 43 and 44 feet wide  
lots. This flexibility is necessary and appropriate in order to respond to future housing  
market trends and in recognition that lot dimensions may be refined as a result of  
detailed engineering design. The lots are compatible with the surrounding  
community/adjacent plans of subdivision.  
[205] With reference to s. 51(24)(g), it is his opinion that the proposed subdivision has  
appropriate regard for the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land  
proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it  
and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land.  
[206] With regard to the applicable statutory tests established by the Act, Mr. Smith  
provided his overall opinion that:  
The proposed draft plan of subdivision and the proposed ZBA have  
appropriate regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in section 2  
of the Planning Act;  
The proposed draft plan of subdivision and the proposed ZBA are  
consistent with the PPS and conform to the policies in the City’s Official  
[207] The proposed plan of subdivision has appropriate regard to the criteria  
prescribed in s. 51(24) of the Act. In his opinion, the proposed zoning amendment and  
plan of subdivision conform with the OP.  
[208] The subject site is an appropriate site for intensification and in Mr. Smith’s  
opinion the subject site is not part of “an area specific land dedication as required by  
Section 4.10 of the Official Plan. Policy 4.10(5) is not a land dedication policy and is not  
specific to the subject site.  
[209] The redevelopment of the existing golf course represents good planning and it is  
in the public interest. The related natural areas identified for protection by Dr. McKinley  
(for the Applicant) are not proposed to be redeveloped.  
[210] Redevelopment of the existing golf course would result in the creation of new  
housing options within the built-up urban area and would result in the efficient use of  
land and infrastructure. Such an outcome is in the broad public interest. Similarly, the  
creation of new public parkland and publicly accessible active transportation and  
vehicular connections through what are now privately ownedlands not accessible to  
the general public is also in the broad public interest.  
[211] Mr. Smith concluded that the proposed development will not cause undue  
adverse impacts on adjacent properties. The scale and density of the proposal has been  
carefully considered to locate the most intense forms of development in proximity to  
Campeau Drive and the existing and planned apartment developments toward the  
southern edgeof the site, while locating less intensive forms of development in proximity  
to existing detached dwellings in a manner that is compatible and would result in no  
unacceptable built form impacts.  
[212] The Tribunal accepts, the planning evidence provided by Mr. Smith in support of  
the redevelopment proposal and agrees that the requisite orders may be made to  
implement the planning instruments.  
[213] The proposed development has regard for the matters of provincial interests in s.  
2 of the Act in particular s. 2(f) the adequate provision and efficient use of…sewage and  
water services and waste management systems; s. 2(h) the orderly development of safe  
and healthy communities; s. 2(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing,  
including affordable housing; s. 2(p) the appropriate location of growth and  
development; and s. 2(r) the promotion of built form that, (i) is well-designed, (ii)  
encourages a sense of place, and (iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality,  
safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant.  
[214] The Tribunal finds that the proposal is not premature. The SWM measures based  
on the 2nd Submission with the appropriate proposed LIDs are acceptable. The DPS  
should be approved subject to the City’s standard conditions which are numerous,  
adequate and appropriate in this instance to ensure compliance by the Applicant. These  
conditions are apparently routinely imposed for proposed large developments within the  
City (examples of these conditions, attached to other developments, were provided as  
exhibits in the hearing Exhibits 18 and 20).  
[215] The Tribunal notes that there is no dispute that the subject lands and the  
surrounding residential community lands utilize the existing sanitary and wastewater  
sewer systems and drains stormwater to the Beaver Pond, the Kizell Wetlands, the  
Watts Creek and ultimately to the Ottawa River. The Tribunal finds that the proposed  
SWM measures that incorporate the existing system with the potential LIDS will  
maintain the existing and post development conditions of the subject property.  
[216] The Tribunal is persuaded by the Applicant’s experts, Messrs. Sabourin, Pichette  
and Villard on the implementation of the SWM treatment train with LIDs, the ponds and  
Beaver Pond with the existing system onsite and instream. The Tribunal finds that the  
comprehensive studies and reports by the Applicant’s witnesses and their testimonies in  
reply adequately addressed the critical reviews and testimonies by the City’s and  
Coalition’s witnesses. Apart from critical opinions and reviews, there was no  
independent study or countervailing report proffered by them for the Tribunal to  
[217] Any other separate approval processes by the MECP or MVCA are matters  
which are regulated. The respective agencies have the jurisdiction to issue any required  
permits for the proposal.  
[218] This Tribunal finds that matters of the legality of an outlet and the Drainage Act,  
are matters that it has no jurisdiction to dispose of.  
[219] The Tribunal is persuaded by Dr. McKinley’s opinion evidence that there is no  
change in land use, and no development on a significant wetland feature, Kizell  
Provincially Significant Wetland (KPSW), adjacent to the existing Beaver Pond  
stormwater pond facility, when there is a potential water level change in the KPSW.  
There is no “Development” under the PPS policy 2.1.4, as development means the  
“creation of a new lot, a change in land use or the construction of buildings and  
structures, requiring approval under the Planning Act”. There is no “change in land use”  
here or development as defined that requires approval under the Act. (see Marquis v  
Kawartha Lakes (City) 2003 CarswellOnt 5770 (O.M.B.).  
[220] The Tribunal acknowledges that the existing community residents perceive that  
they have rights of access and use of the Golf Course during the off seasons. The  
participants’ statements have indicated as much. Participantsstatements indicate that  
the Golf Course grounds are to be perpetually used for winter skiing activities and  
general walk-abouts even during golf season (though that may constitute trespassing).  
There is a general expectation (perhaps wrongly held) that these private open spaces  
should remain for the continued off season use by the community.  
[221] The Tribunal finds that it is in the public interest for the redevelopment to proceed  
as the planned development intends to dedicate 32.6% of the development lands to  
open spaces which include, parklands, woodlots, green areas, and parkettes. These  
open spaces are to be conveyed to the City, hence will become public open spaces,  
available for the community all year round.  
[222] The Tribunal is satisfied that the 3 m and 6 m landscape buffers that will afford  
screening for the existing residential community from the proposed development are  
adequate and appropriate to address the potential privacy issues between the abutting  
[223] With respect to the protection of the existing trees and the new plantings from  
being cut down by purchasers of the project and subsequent purchasers, the Tribunal  
finds that a restrictive covenant that prohibits tree removal in an agreement registered  
on title is a sufficient safeguard. The Tribunal agrees with the Applicant that a  
conservation easement is unnecessary.  
[224] The southernmost portion of the subject property is fronted by Campeau Drive,  
an arterial road. Targeted intensification and development are supported under the OP  
where proposed development is located along an arterial road. The redevelopment  
along this arterial road will focus on higher density units in the built form of apartments.  
This southernmost part of the proposed development is also approximately 950 m from  
a Major Transit Station (MTS). Admittedly that is not 800 m walking distance from the  
MTS, but the Tribunal finds that the development is well placed to maximize the efficient  
use of the transportation infrastructure and services that are intended for the  
revitalization and growth of a complete, healthy and connected community.  
[225] The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed development is compatible with the  
adjacent residential properties, in lotting pattern, built form, scale, architectural design  
and typology. There is no evidence of adverse impacts on the neighbourhood character  
by virtue of the compatibility.  
[226] The Tribunal finds, upon the preferred planning evidence presented by Mr.  
Smith, that the proposed ZBA and the proposed Plan of Subdivision, subject to the  
conditions of approval, have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest set  
out in s. 2 of the Act; are consistent with the PPS 2020; conform with the City’s OP and  
conform with the ZBL.  
[227] The Tribunal also finds that the proposed plan of subdivision has appropriate  
regard for the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act.  
[228] Further, the Tribunal finds, that Ms. McCreight, Ms. Schaeffer, Mr. Jacobs, Mr.  
Nuttall, Mr. Pichette, Mr. Gilbert, Dr. McKinley and Mr. Sabourin, have all  
variously opined on the conditions of draft plan of subdivision approval appended as  
Attachment 1, which are agreed between the parties in the event the Tribunal  
approves the applications.  
[229] The Tribunal will add the contested conditions in Exhibit 36 (after having  
considered parties’ submissions, determined their appropriateness and  
reasonableness) noting and directing as follows:  
Condition 36 – Apply City’s wordings as drafted.  
Condition 46 – Apply City’s wordings as drafted.  
Condition 70 – Apply City’s wordings as drafted.  
Condition 88- Apply Clublink’s revisions as drafted.  
Condition 91 – Apply City’s wordings as drafted.  
Condition 92 – Apply Coalition’s revisions as drafted.  
Condition 94 – Apply Coalition’s revisions as drafted.  
Condition 115 Apply Clublink’s revisions as drafted.  
Condition 116 Apply Clublink’s deletions.  
Condition 117 Apply Clublink’s deletions.  
Condition 118 – Apply Clublink’s deletions.  
Condition 121 – Apply Clublink’s revisions as drafted.  
Condition 124 – Apply City’s wordings as drafted.  
Condition 126 Apply City’s wordings as drafted.  
Condition 128 – Apply Clublink’s deletions.  
Condition 129 – Apply Clublink’s deletions.  
Condition 133 Apply Clublink’s revisions and as amended.  
Condition 186 Apply Clublink;s wordings as drafted.  
and append that as Attachment 1A to this Order. The Tribunal is satisfied by the  
totality of evidence that the proposed development is in the public interest and  
represents good planning.  
[230] THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that :  
The appeal pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Act is allowed and the Zoning By-  
law Amendment (ZBA) is approved in principle subject to a draft ZBA  
substantially in accordance with the chart in Tab 40 Appendix B in Exhibit  
8, Volume 3 prepared by Bousfields Inc. with detailed zoning provisions  
and regulations being received in a form satisfactory to the parties to be  
presented for confirmation.  
The appeal pursuant to s. 51(34) of the Act is allowed and the Draft Plan  
of Subdivision shown on the plan Tab 39 in Exhibit 8 vol 3 prepared by  
Bousfields Inc. comprising 7000 Campeau Drive, Ottawa is approved in  
principle subject to the fulfillment of the conditionsset out in Attachment  
1 and 1A to this Order.  
The Orders are withheld pending receipt by the Tribunal of the Draft ZBA  
together with the Draft Plan of Subdivision and the consolidated list of  
Draft Plan Conditions, consolidating Attachment 1 and 1A, as directed  
Upon issuance of the Tribunals final order, the City of Ottawa,  
pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, shall have the  
authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and to administer  
final approval of the plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection  
51(58) of the Act. In the event that there are any difficulties implementing  
any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes are  
required to be made to the draft plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.  
“T.F. Ng”  
T.F. NG  
C. Hardy”  
Ontario Land Tribunal  
Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248  
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local  
Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and  
continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding  
tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the  
File: D07-16-19-0026  
Corporation ULC  
7000 Campeau  
General...................................................................................................................................... 4  
Zoning........................................................................................................................................ 5  
Roadway Modifications .............................................................................................................. 5  
Highways/Roads........................................................................................................................ 7  
Public Transit ............................................................................................................................. 7  
Geotechnical.............................................................................................................................. 8  
Pathways, Sidewalks, Walkways, Fencing, and Noise Barriers.................................................10  
Tree Conservation ....................................................................................................................16  
Gateway Features.....................................................................................................................16  
Parks ........................................................................................................................................18  
Environmental Constraints ........................................................................................................26  
Record of Site Condition / Contaminated Soil............................................................................28  
Sump Pumps ............................................................................................................................29  
Stormwater Management..........................................................................................................30  
Sanitary Services....................................................................................................................346  
Water Services..........................................................................................................................35  
Serviced Lands .........................................................................................................................36  
Utilities ......................................................................................................................................37  
Fire Services.............................................................................................................................41  
Noise Attenuation......................................................................................................................42  
Land Transfers..........................................................................................................................43  
Development Charges By-law...................................................................................................44  
Survey Requirements................................................................................................................45  
Closing Conditions..................................................................................................................467  
The City of Ottawa's conditions applying to the draft approval of ClubLink CorporationULC’s  
Subdivision (File No. D07-16-19-0026), 7000 Campeau Drive, are as follows:  
This approval applies to the draft plan certified by Francis Lau of  
Stantec Geomatics Ltd., Ontario Land Surveyor, dated April 1, 2021,  
showing 632 Residential Lots, 2 medium density blocks, 1 stacked  
townhouse block, 20 streets, 76 blocks, 3 pathway blocks, 4 park  
blocks, 4 stormwater management blocks, 11 open space blocks and  
1 road widening block.  
In seeking draft approval the Owner has submitted the following  
reports. Prior to the issuance of the order by the Ontario Land Tribunal  
granting draft approval the Owner shall update each of thesereports,  
as necessary, and provide consolidated copies of such updates in  
accordance with the witness statements provided by the Owner and  
accommodating any modifications made by the decision of the Ontario  
Land Tribunal.  
1) Transportation Impact Assessment, 7000 Campeau Drive,  
prepared by BA Group, dated June 2021.  
2) Roadway Traffic Noise Feasibility Assessment, 7000 Campeau  
Drive, prepared by Gradient Wind, dated April 29, 2021.  
3) Combined Environmental Impact Statement and Tree  
Conservation Report (Revised) Kanata Golf and Country Club  
Redevelopment, 7000 Campeau Drive, Ottawa” by McKinley  
Environmental Solutions, dated May 2020.  
4) Combined Environmental Impact Statement and Tree  
Conservation Report (Revised) Addendum #1 Kanata Golf  
and Country Club Redevelopment, 7000 Campeau Drive,  
Ottawa” by McKinley Environmental Solutions, dated May 28,  
5) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 7000 Campeau  
Drive, prepared by Patterson Group Inc., dated January 18,  
6) Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 7000 Campeau  
Drive, prepared by Patterson Group Inc., dated April 1, 2021.  
7) Functional Servicing Report for 7000 Campeau Drive,  
prepared by DSEL, dated June 2021.  
8) Kizell Drain Downstream of 7000 Campeau Drive  
Geomorphological and Erosion Threshold Assessment,  
prepared by GEO Morphix, dated May 18, 2021.  
9) Geotechnical Investigation Kanata Lakes Golf and Country  
Club 7000 Campeau Drive, prepared by Patterson Group Inc.,  
dated May 17, 2021.  
10)Downstream of 7000 Campeau Drive Hydrologic  
Assessment, prepared by J.F. Sabourin and Associates Inc.,  
dated June 15, 2021.  
11) Kanata Golf & Country Club 2019 Monitoring & Hydrologic  
Model Calibration Report, prepared by J.F. Sabourin and  
Associates Inc., dated July 2020.  
12) Preliminary Water Balance & Water Quality Controls, prepared  
by J.F. Sabourin and Associates Inc., dated April 16, 2021.  
13) Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan Report, prepared  
by J.F. Sabourin and Associates Inc., dated June 15, 2021.  
14) 2018 Surface Infiltration Testing, prepared by J.F. Sabourin  
and Associates Inc., dated February 6, 2019.  
15) Sump Pump Feasibility Report, Groundwater Monitoring  
Program, prepared by Patterson Group Inc., dated September  
29, 2020.  
16)Subsoil Infiltration Review, prepared by Patterson Group Inc.,  
dated April 27, 2021.  
17) Witness Statement of Stephen J. Pichette, dated November  
12, 2021.  
18)Reply Witness Statement of Stephen J. Pichette, dated  
December 10, 2021.  
19) Witness Statement of J.F. Sabourin, dated November 12,  
20) Reply Witness Statement of J.F. Sabourin, dated December  
10, 2021.  
Subject to the conditions below, these plans and reports may require  
updating and/or additional details prior to final approval.  
The Owner agrees, by entering into a Subdivision Agreement, to  
satisfy all terms, conditions and obligations, financial and otherwise,  
of the City of Ottawa, at the Owner’s sole expense, all to the  
satisfaction of the City.  
Prior to the issuance of a Commence Work Notification, the Owner  
shall obtain such permits as may be required from Municipal or  
Provincial authorities and shall file copies thereof with the General  
Manager, Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development  
Prior to commencing construction, the Owner shall enter into a  
subdivision agreement with the City. The subdivision agreement shall, Planning  
among other matters, require that the Owner post securities in a  
format approved by the City Solicitor, in an amount of 100% of the  
estimated cost of all works, save and except non-municipal buildings.  
The aforementioned security for site works shall be for works on both  
private and public property and shall include, but not be limited to, lot  
grading and drainage, landscaping and driveways, roads and road  
works, road drainage, underground infrastructure and services (storm,  
sanitary, watermains), streetlights, stormwater management works and  
park works.  
The amount secured by the City shall be determined by the General  
Manager, Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development  
Department, based on current City tender costs, which costs shall be  
reviewed and adjusted annually. Securities for on-site works may be  
at a reduced rate subject to the approval of the General Manager,  
Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department.  
Engineering, Inspection and Review fees will be collected based on  
the estimated cost of the works (+HST) and a park review and  
inspection fee will be based on 4% (+HST) of the total value of the  
park works as noted herein and in accordance with the City's Fees  
By-law for planning applications (By-law No. 2018-24 or as  
The Owner acknowledges and agrees that any residential blocks for  
street-oriented townhouse dwelling units on the final Plan shall be  
configured to ensure that there will be no more than 25 units per  
The Owner acknowledges and agrees that any person who, prior to  
the draft plan approval, entered into a purchase and sale agreement  
with respect to lots or blocks created by this Subdivision, shall be  
permitted to withdraw from such agreement without penalty and with  
full refund of any deposit paid, up until the acknowledgement noted  
above has been executed.  
The Owner agrees to provide to the General Manager, Planning, Real  
Estate and Economic Development Department an acknowledgement  
from those purchasers who signed a purchase and sale agreement  
before this Subdivision was draft approved, that the Subdivision had  
not received draft approval by the City. The Owner agrees that the  
purchase and sale agreements signed prior to draft approval shall be  
amended to contain a clause to notify purchasers of this fact, and to  
include any special warning clauses, such as but not limited to Noise  
Warnings and easements.  
All prospective purchasers shall be informed through a clause in the  
agreements of purchase and sale of the presence of lightweight fill on Legal  
the lands, and that the presence of such lightweight fill may result in  
specific restrictions on landscaping, pools, additions, decks and  
The Owner, or his agents, shall not commence or permit the  
commencement of any site related works until such time as a pre-  
construction meeting has been held with Planning, Real Estate and  
Economic Development Department staff and until the City issues a  
Commence Work Notification.  
Prior to the Ontario Land Tribunal order and granting approval of the  
draft plan being issued, the Owner agrees to provide the City an  
updated version of the draft plan.  
The Owner agrees to submit a signed and dated draft plan to the City OTTAWA  
for submission to the Ontario Land Tribunal.  
The Owner agrees that prior to registration of the Plan of Subdivision, OTTAWA  
the Owner shall ensure that the proposed Plan of Subdivision shall  
conform with a Zoning By-law approved under the requirements of the  
Planning Act, with all possibility of appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal  
The Owner undertakes and agrees that prior to the registration of the  
Plan of Subdivision, the Owner shall deliver to the City a certificate  
executed by an Ontario Land Surveyor showing that the area and  
frontage of all lots and blocks within the Subdivision are in accordance  
with the applicable Zoning By-law.