Court File and Parties
CITATION: West Carleton Community Alliance v. City of Ottawa, 2026 ONSC 3824
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 007/26
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Matheson, Schreck and O’Brien JJ.
BETWEEN:
WEST CARLETON COMMUNITY ALLIANCE
Applicant
– and –
THE CITY OF OTTAWA and FITZROY BESS INC.
Respondents
Sarah Spitz and Laura Walsh-Greene, for the Applicant
Stuart Huxley, for the Respondent City of Ottawa
Kristen Crain, Emma Blanchard and Chanel Maillet-Glas, for the Respondent Fitzroy Bess Inc.
HEARD at Toronto: July 2, 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Court:
1The applicant, West Carleton Community Alliance, seeks judicial review of Zoning By-law 2025-493, passed by the City of Ottawa Council on December 10, 2025 (the Zoning By-law). The Zoning By-law amended the zoning of certain lands in a rural area of the City of Ottawa. As a result, that land may be used for a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS).
2The applicant is a not-for-profit corporation, advocating for residents living in the immediate vicinity of the rural property at issue (the Property). The applicant submits that the permitted use as a BESS will directly affect the health, safety and enjoyment of the property residents and owners.
3The applicant seeks to quash the Zoning By-law on the grounds that the Ottawa City Council (OCC) acted in bad faith and passed the Zoning By-law without the required process.
4The respondent City of Ottawa is the relevant local municipality under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, and the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. The respondent Fitzroy BESS Inc. is the proponent for the BESS on the Property (the Proponent).
5The respondents submit that the requisite process was followed, without bad faith. They submit that municipal councils and councillors perform a political role and the ultimate sanction for the decision to pass the Zoning By-law lies with the electorate. The respondents also challenge the applicant’s standing in this Court.
6For the reasons set out below, we grant the applicant standing and dismiss this application.
Brief Background
7In 2023, Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (the IESO) requested proposals to procure new electricity capacity across Ontario. One resource for new capacity is a BESS – an energy storage system that captures energy produced at one time using battery storage, for use at a later time, to reduce imbalances between energy demand and energy production.
8The IESO issued a request for proposals for the construction of BESS facilities. The IESO procurement framework required proponents to provide evidence of municipal support for proposed projects, specifically a municipal support resolution (MSR).
9In early 2025, the OCC put forward a city-wide framework for BESS through Official Plan and zoning by-law amendments under the Planning Act. The proposed amendments sought to add new land use policy specific to BESS. The proposed amendment to the Official Plan (and the resulting amendment) noted that energy storage facilities played an increasingly important role in ensuring Ottawa’s long-term energy security and in supporting greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
10The process followed to amend the Official Plan, and the resulting amendments, are not challenged in this judicial review. There were public meetings with oral delegations and extensive written submissions, advocating both for and against the proposed changes. Two standing committees of Council considered the amendments: the Planning and Housing Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC).
11The ARAC is a standing committee that addresses matters that relate to rural issues. One of the representatives of the applicant provided a deputation to the Planning and Housing Committee opposing the amendments. After hearing from numerous delegations, both standing committees recommended approving amendments to the Official Plan regarding BESS.
12In February 2025, the Council considered the amendments and enacted three by-laws:
(i) By-law 2025-71 (OP Amendment 36), adding BESS policies;
(ii) By-law 2025-72, implementing zoning provisions for BESS; and
(iii) By-law 2025-73, regarding site plan control for BESS.
13OP Amendment 36 added a new s. 4.12 to the Ottawa-wide policies in the Official Plan. Section 4.12, called “Renewable Energy Generation and Storage,” recognizes that renewable energy and storage are important to ensure energy reliability, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide energy resilience during extreme weather events. That section notes that this type of energy storage plays an increasingly important role in protecting Ottawa’s long-term energy security while advancing climate goals.
14OP Amendment 36 discusses the location of BESS facilities, noting that the Official Plan amendment permitted BESS facilities in both urban and rural land use designations.
15It also provides that a non-public BESS requires an MSR from Council and an amendment to the zoning by-law, where applicable, upon the review of certain studies and other materials that are discussed further below.
16The Proponent Fitzroy had submitted multiple proposals in response to the IESO request for proposals. The OCC granted an MSR for one of those proposals and refused the others.
17The OCC refused an MSR on one of the Fitzroy proposals due to concerns about the site. In May 2025, Fitzroy gave notice that the prior proposal was being relocated to the Property. More specifically, the proposed BESS and related services would occupy about 15 acres of the 200-acre Property.
18On May 26, 2025, the City received the request from Fitzroy for an MSR for the Property, which was provided to Council members and listed on the agenda for the Council meeting on May 28, 2026.
19At the meeting, Council moved to suspend the Rules of Procedure to consider the request for an MSR. The OCC’s rules permitted their suspension upon a ¾ vote of the members. The Rules were suspended to address the Proponent’s contractual obligations to the IESO and to provide the necessary certainty to the Province and the local hydro utilities that the City recognized the crucial role that BESS systems played in meeting the City and Province’s future electricity needs.
20Council considered the request for an MSR but did not decide whether or not to provide the MSR. The OCC decided to put the request on the agenda for the upcoming meeting of the ARAC on June 5, 2025 so that the ARAC could provide a recommendation for the upcoming OCC meeting on June 11, 2025. The ARAC standing committee, which addressed rural issues, consisted of five members of Council.
21Although formal public consultation was not required because an MSR is not a planning instrument, the ARAC received extensive public input, including a petition in opposition. All four directors of the applicant made submissions. The ARAC recommended that the OCC deny the MSR, but its recommendations also provided proposed steps if the MSR was granted.
22At the July 11, 2025, OCC meeting, the City Council had the input from the ARAC, as well as considerable other material including the Proponent’s application and the supporting studies and other materials submitted with the application.
23After debate, the OCC approved the requested MSR, noting that an MSR is a preliminary approval step, not a planning approval, and did not commit the OCC to any future land use decisions.
24As set out in the OCC motion, the Council found that the new location substantially altered the nature of the proposed project. The City Council noted the critical role that BESS would play in ensuring energy certainty and reliability as electricity demands in the Ottawa region continued to grow exponentially. The Council noted several other factors, including key economic factors.
25In July 2025, the City received the two applications: one for a zoning by-law amendment and the second for site plan approval.
26Following intake, the City conducted a completeness review of the application for a zoning by-law amendment. In August 2025, the City determined that the application was incomplete and provided lengthy comments setting out the deficiencies.
27After further steps, the application was deemed complete in October 2025.
28Once an application is deemed complete, it is uploaded to a public-facing portal, including all plans and studies filed by an applicant in support of a particular development. Here, the portal included both required and supplementary technical materials such as an environmental impact study, the planning rationale, hydrogeological/ terrain analysis, archaeological assessments, plans and drawings.
29Since the detailed and technical review continues after an application is deemed complete, the materials on the public portal may be updated, supplemented or revised going forward.
30After the application was deemed complete, the City gave notice that the application would be considered by the ARAC on December 1, 2025.
31The City also gave notice of the Council meeting on December 10, 2025, at which the application would be considered by Council. The City circulated an email to the relevant Ward Councilor, and to registered community groups and posted a notification on the Property. The City sent a letter to property owners and residents with the area, including a Zoning By-law Amendment Proposal Summary. The Summary set out information about the proposal, how to access the materials on the public portal, submission requirements and appeal rights. Public notice of the upcoming OCC meeting was published in the Ottawa Citizen and Le Droit. There was also circulation internally within the City and to external technical agencies.
32The City received extensive submissions from the public.
33In November 2025, the Director of Planning for the City submitted a staff report based on the application materials, the technical review, circulation responses, public input and the professional planning evaluation undertaken by City staff. The report recommended approval of the proposed zoning by-law amendment. The report provided information about the application, the consultation process, the technical review, the planning rationale, and the Official Plan policies in support of the application.
34At its meeting on December 1, 2025, the ARAC considered the proposed zoning by-law amendment, including a staff presentation, extensive written submissions and numerous oral delegations. Among the public delegates were the four people who are now also the directors of the applicant.
35The ARAC recommended the OCC refuse the proposed zoning by-law amendment.
36The matter was then considered at the OCC meeting on December 10, 2025. The OCC had considerable materials, including the staff report, the public submissions, ARAC’s recommendation and technical advice from senior staff. The motion was debated and approved with a vote in favour of 21 to 4, and the Zoning By-law was enacted.
37Council and committee processes and public delegations are governed by the City of Ottawa By-law 2025-100. The process provides for written delegations and brief oral delegations.
Issues and Standard of Review
38Preliminary issues have been raised regarding the jurisdiction of this Court and the applicant’s standing to bring this application for judicial review.
39The jurisdictional issue arises because the applicant has brought an application for judicial review but has also asked, in the alternative, for relief under s. 273 of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Divisional Court has jurisdiction to quash the Zoning By-law, as set out in s. 2(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c J.1. However, if the applicant wanted to proceed under s. 273 of the Municipal Act, 2001, it had to bring its application in the Superior Court, not the Divisional Court. It cannot be addressed, as suggested, in the alternative.
40This Court may exercise its discretion not to hear the judicial review because the applicant could have proceeded under s. 273: Yatar v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2024 SCC 8, 489 D.L.R. (4th) 181, at paras. 51 and 54. Several factors inform the question of whether that alternative process is adequate in this case: Yatar, at para. 64, citing Strickland v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 37, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 713, at para. 43. We have not been asked to dismiss this application in favour of that alternative process and, having considered the factors relevant to the exercise of our discretion, we would not do so. In the circumstances of this case, it is appropriate to proceed with the judicial review application, which can fully and efficiently address the issues raised.
41The issue of standing arises because the applicant corporation did not itself participate in the underlying proceedings. It was incorporated on December 18, 2025, after the passage of the Zoning By-law. However, the applicant submits that it has public interest standing and has provided relevant evidence in support of its position.
42The criteria for public interest standing are well-settled, including whether a serious and justiciable issue is raised, whether the applicant has a genuine interest in that issue, and whether this application is a reasonable and effective means of bringing the issue before the courts: Ontario Place Protectors v. Ontario, 2025 ONCA 183, 175 O.R. (3d) 561, at para. 22. These are interrelated considerations. They must be weighed cumulatively, not individually, having regard for preserving limited judicial resources and ensuring that government action can be subject to judicial scrutiny: Ontario Place Protectors, at para. 22.
43We exercise our discretion to permit the applicant standing to bring the application. The evidence shows that the applicant was established to promote the health, safety and environmental well-being of the rural community. The applicant coordinates a network of individuals including almost 90 local residents, many of whom attended the court hearing. The applicant’s four directors each personally participated in a number of the steps that led up to the passage of the Zoning By-law, expressing concerns that overlap with the issues raised in this judicial review. While, after the full airing of the issues, we dismiss the application below, we are persuaded to grant standing.
44The applicant seeks judicial review on the basis that the City acted in bad faith and failed to comply with its statutory procedural obligations. These issues are interrelated. The applicant does not point to one step, or breach, to show bad faith. The applicant submits that there were steps or breaches that, cumulatively, show that the City proceeded in bad faith. The applicant submits as follows:
(i) that the City’s decision to allow the Zoning By-law despite incomplete studies required by s. 4.12 of the Official Plan (as amended by OP Amendment 36) was undertaken in bad faith;
(ii) that the City breached s. 24 of the Planning Act by passing the Zoning By-law in a manner that did not conform with its Official Plan; and
(iii) that the City failed to comply with the requirements of s. 34(12) of the Planning Act.
45The presumptive standard of review is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653. For issues of procedural fairness, the requisite level of process must be provided.
46However, the parties disagree about the standard of review in this case. The applicant relies on Tiny Township Association of Responsible STR Owners v. Tiny (Township), 2026 ONCA 408. In Tiny Township, the Court of Appeal was addressing an application under s. 273 of the Municipal Act, 2001. At para. 34, the Court applied Auer v. Auer, 2024 SCC 36, 497 D.L.R. (4th) 381, holding that: “A court’s review of a by-law is limited to assessing the reasonableness of the enacting municipality’s interpretation of its statutory power, and not the reasonableness or policy merits of the by-law itself, that is, whether a by-law is “necessary, wise, or effective”. The respondents submit that Auer is limited to cases about whether the municipality has the statutory power to pass a by-law (which is not at issue here).
47The applicant submits that it is not, in any event, challenging the merits of the Zoning By-law or whether it is good policy. The applicant agrees that a high degree of deference is shown to the decision of a municipal council. However, the applicant alleges bad faith and associated breaches.
48The applicant therefore submits that s. 272 of the Municipal Act, 2001 does not arise. Section 272 provides that a by-law passed in good faith shall not be quashed or open to review because of the unreasonableness or supposed unreasonableness of the by-law. The crux of the applicant’s case is the allegation that the City proceeded in bad faith. The burden rests on the applicant to show bad faith.
49We therefore conclude that it is not necessary to resolve the dispute about the reach of Auer.
Analysis
50The applicant submits that bad faith may be established by showing that a by-law has been passed for an improper purpose that is outside the planning authority’s statutory purpose. The applicant relies on the breaches of statute and policy that it alleges combine to show bad faith, along with the submission that the City improperly preferred the private interests of the Proponent.
51The applicant submits that the indicia of bad faith in this case includes rushed timelines for improper motives, a failure to follow usual practices, and the provision of insufficient information. These are to some extent interrelated.
52The applicant submits that this Court should look to the Planning Act to assess the alleged bad faith and related breaches. The applicant relies on s. 1.1(d), which provides that one of the purposes of the Act is to provide for planning processes that are fair by making them open, accessible, timely and efficient.
53The process issues must be considered in context. Municipal councillors perform a political, not adjudicative function: Know Your City Inc. v. The Corporation of the City of Brantford, 2021 ONSC 154, 11 M.P.L.R. (6th) 50, (Div. Ct.), at para. 39.
54None of the applicant’s allegations establish bad faith by the OCC or a failure to follow the required procedural steps.
55The applicant states the City process was rushed to accommodate the project timelines, for example by suspending the Rules of Procedure to consider the MSR and by providing the MSR before considering the Zoning By-Law amendment. It says this was done to prefer the interests of the Proponent, pointing, for example, to provisions in the contract awarded by the IESO that provided timelines for obtaining an MSR and for the BESS facility to become operational. It also relies on a letter from the Minister of Energy and Mines to the Ottawa Mayor dated April 15, 2025 encouraging the City to approve zoning by-law amendments for BESS projects promptly before key contractual deadlines.
56These are not indicia of bad faith. First, the evidence does not support the conclusion that OCC preferred the interests of the Proponent, since it refused several of the Proponent’s proposals before granting the MSR at issue. Second, it is not necessarily unusual or improper to adjust rules of procedure. The OCC’s rules permitted their suspension, and it suspended the rules for several other matters at the same meeting. Third, it is not bad faith or improper for OCC to adjust its process to meet contract timelines if it considers it in the public interest to do so. The timelines in the Proponent’s contract were derived from the IESO standard form. The Minister’s letter stated that the purpose of BESS projects was to assist the capacity of the province’s grid to meet forecasted electricity demands with renewable energy sources. The Rules of Procedure were suspended to address the Proponent’s contractual obligations and to provide certainty with respect to the City and Province’s electricity needs. It was open to OCC to consider municipal and provincial electricity needs in reaching its decision.
57With respect to approving the MSR before the Zoning By-Law amendment, s. 4.12(8) of the Official Plan, which was amended by OP Amendment 36, says only that non-public utility BESS “shall require an amendment to the Zoning By-law and a Municipal Support Resolution from Council, where applicable”. Both the Zoning By-law amendment and the MSR must be based on the review of studies, as discussed below, but the Official Plan does not specify that they must be considered together.
58It also is not unusual or improper for them to be considered separately. MSRs are considered only an expression of support in principle and do not guarantee other approvals, like zoning by-law amendments. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario, a non-profit organization representing all municipalities in Ontario, has published guidance to assist municipal decision-makers. Its guidance document describes MSRs as “only a moment-in-time expression of support – they are not binding final approvals, and do not guarantee a project will be awarded a contract.” After an MSR is passed, municipalities retain the right to require developers to submit studies and reports to obtain other municipal approvals including related to zoning: Association of Municipalities of Ontario: Municipal Energy Procurement Toolkit: Guidance for Municipal Decision-Makers and Staff on Long-Term Energy Procurement Projects (updated February 3, 2025).
59The process followed by the OCC in passing its MSR was consistent with Ontario Regulation 101/25 under the Electricity Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 15, Sched. A, which came into force on July 1, 2025, shortly after the MSR was given in this case. Regulation 101/25 requires an electricity generator to obtain an MSR, but the MSR can be given subject to the generation facility complying with all applicable municipal by-laws.
60Since it is not unusual or improper for an MSR to be given before a zoning by-law amendment is passed, the OCC’s sequencing of the MSR and Zoning By-Law amendment in this case was not a failure to follow the proper process, nor an indicia of bad faith.
61With respect to the allegation that the OCC made its decision on incomplete information, the applicant submits that the studies required by s. 4.12(8) of the Official Plan at the time the Zoning By-Law amendment was passed were incomplete. It says this was a violation of s. 24 of the Planning Act, which requires the City to pass zoning by-laws in conformity with its Official Plan, including s. 4.12(8). The applicant argues the studies were drafts or otherwise incomplete and that it was not sufficient for the studies to address only setbacks; they also needed to address concerns including environmental impacts and fire protection. The applicant further states it was not reasonable to defer further study to the site plan control stage.
62This submission overlaps with the applicant’s submission regarding s. 34(12) of the Planning Act. That provision requires that a “public meeting” be held to give the public an opportunity to make representations in respect of a proposed by-law. The applicant clarified in oral submissions that it does not say a public meeting did not occur. The applicant submits that even though the meeting of the ARAC on December 1, 2025 was a public meeting, at which members of the applicant’s board made representations, it was not meaningful participation because the ARAC recommendation was not accepted by the OCC. Further, it argues the meeting occurred on insufficient information since the studies were incomplete.
63The applicant’s submissions fail to demonstrate the OCC acted in bad faith or to otherwise follow the required process regarding a public meeting. Subsection 4.12(8) provides that zoning by-law amendments and MSRs needed for non-public BESSs should be based on a review of minimum setbacks as determined by various studies including: a noise control study; an environmental impact study and wildland fire hazard assessment, where applicable; fire protection and emergency response plans to the satisfaction of the Ottawa Fire Services; and a commissioning and decommissioning plan. Here, the Proponent submitted those studies. The studies had been reviewed by City staff, who considered them to be sufficient to support the Zoning By-Law Amendment. The applicant may have a different view, but that does not show bad faith.
64By way of background, City staff conducted a pre-consultation process with the Proponent starting in March 2025 to ensure the City had the necessary information for the requested Zoning By-Law amendment and site plan approval. The process included identifying the studies and plans that would be required.
65Zoning by-law amendments and site plan approvals are two distinct steps. A zoning by-law amendment is generally sought to permit a new use on a property or to address performance standards such as building setbacks or height. A site plan approval requires the approval of detailed plans and drawings showing all facilities and works required as part of a proposed development including access routes, drainage, and landscaping.
66In turn, the studies to support an application for a zoning by-law amendment differ from those required for a site plan approval. Submissions for site plan approvals are usually more extensive. However, the process is iterative such that experts and consultants may provide reports for the zoning by-law amendment stage and refine the same reports for the site plan approval stage.
67The Proponent provided eighteen reports and technical studies to City staff. These documents did not address only setbacks. The reports and studies included, for example, a hazard mitigation analysis to address fire hazards, an emergency response plan, a noise control options assessment, and a commissioning and decommissioning plan. The City staff report that was put before both the December 1, 2025 ARAC meeting and the December 10, 2025 OCC meeting concluded that all the documents required by s. 4.12(8) had been provided. It also concluded the studies were sufficient to support the proposed Zoning By-Law amendment though they would require further refinement and additional detail to support the application for site plan approval.
68In other words, the OCC had information before it that supported its conclusion that the reports were sufficient and appropriate for the Zoning By-Law amendment. It falls squarely within the scope of the OCC’s role to determine whether the studies it relied upon were sufficient to reach its decision. The applicant has not shown a basis for the court to interfere in that decision. The fact that the reports may evolve for the site planning stage does not change that conclusion. The applicant’s belief that the studies were not sufficiently complete does not establish bad faith, nor does it show a failure to comply with the Planning Act.
69Given our conclusion, we do not need to address the respondents’ submission that the applicant was precluded by s. 24(4) of the Planning Act from alleging that the Zoning By-Law amendment did not conform with the Official Plan.
70This application is therefore dismissed with costs. We have considered the agreed amounts submitted regarding costs. However, having regard for the overlap in the submissions of the City and the Proponent, the extremely high bill submitted by the Proponent, which is disproportionate, and the other factors in the exercise of our discretion including the bills of costs, we fix costs to be paid to the City at $15,000 and the Proponent at $25,000, totaling $40,000, all inclusive.
Matheson J.
Schreck J.
O’Brien J.
Date: August 5, 2026