Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 5, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000410
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 2436091 Ontario Ltd.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit the proposed development of approximately 1,500 dwelling units
Reference Number: D01-01-24-0023
Property Address: 4497 O'Keefe Court - Unit A, Unit B
Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000410
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000410
OLT Case Name: 2436091 Ontario Ltd. v. Ottawa (City)
Heard: July 29, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties 2436091 Ontario Ltd. (“Mattamy”) Counsel M. Flowers A. Ivo (student-at-law)
Parties City of Ottawa (“City”) Counsel B. Engell T. Marc
Parties O’Keefe Court Properties Ltd. (“O’Keefe”) Counsel R. Aburto E. Fillman
Parties Kathleen Grimes (“Cedarhill Neighbours”) Counsel S. Grassie D. Taylor
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. TOUSAW ON JULY 29, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1A first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was convened for Mattamy’s appeal to the absence of a decision by the City on an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) application pertaining to 4497A and 4497B O’Keefe Court, Ottawa (“site”).
2The OPA seeks to bring the site within the urban boundary to enable urban-scale development comprising some 1,500 residential units in a variety of housing types.
3Mattamy’s Affidavit of Service for Notice of this CMC was marked as Exhibit 1, with no issues raised regarding Notice.
4The Tribunal granted: Party status to O’Keefe and to the Cedarhill Neighbours; Participant status to Audrey and Barry Chapman; and the scheduling a five-week Hearing commencing June 1, 2026.
PARTIES
5The statutory Parties are Mattamy and the City. Two requests for Party status were received.
6O’Keefe owns lands abutting to the south of the site on which it has development aspirations. This site is dependent on the O’Keefe property for access to public streets, as displayed within Mattamy’s studies and plans for its site. Mattamy and the City had no objection to O’Keefe’s request for Party status.
7The Tribunal granted Party status to O’Keefe, having found that, under s. 22(11), 17(44.1) and 17(44.2) of the Planning Act (“Act”) and Rule 8.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), O’Keefe satisfies the applicable legislative tests by displaying reasonable grounds to participate as a Party, including its proximity and access connection to this site.
8The Cedarhill Neighbours, represented by Kathleen Grimes, consist of: Kathleen Grimes and Ersin Ozerdinc; Elgin Ozerdinc and Nadia Mian; Jemil Ozerdinc; and Amal1634158 Holdings Inc.; being the owners/residents of residential lots within the Cedarhill Estates subdivision abutting to the east of the site. Their concerns include those identified in their retained Planner’s report, as well as potential procedural issues regarding fair and due process. Mattamy, the City, and O’Keefe had no objection to the Cedarhill Neighbours’ request for Party status.
9The Tribunal granted Party status to the Cedarhill Neighbours, having found that, under s. 22(11), 17(44.1) and 17(44.2) of the Act and Rules 8.2 and 8.4, the Cedarhill Neighbours satisfy the applicable legislative tests, are a common interest group, and display reasonable grounds to participate as a Party, including as opined in their Planner’s report.
PARTICIPANTS
10Audrey and Barry Chapman sought Participant status as residents of 33 Cedarhill Drive within Cedarhill Estates to the east of the site. Their request includes a written submission on matters including density, infrastructure, transit, and environmental impacts. No concerns on the request were received from the Parties.
11The Tribunal granted Participant status to Audrey and Barry Chapman under Rule 19.1. As this case unfolds, the Procedural Order will establish a date by which a further Participant statement may be filed, should a Participant wish.
NEXT STEPS
12Mattamy advised that it will soon be filing applications with the City for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and draft Plan of Subdivision (“SUB”) for this site, which, if not approved within the statutory timeframe, will result in further appeals that may be heard together with this OPA appeal.
13The City advised that it has received several applications for urban boundary expansions, which, if appealed, may warrant consideration for a combined Hearing, including this site’s OPA. The Cedarhill Neighbours expressed concern for the complexity and cost associated with addressing a ZBA and SUB, preferring, albeit subject to change, to address only the OPA as a precedence matter. The Tribunal accepted that placing this OPA on the Tribunal’s Calendar now does not impede a Party from advancing a Procedural Motion.
14The Tribunal accepted the Parties’ somewhat unusual request to schedule a Merit Hearing while not scheduling the next CMC at this time. Except for the Cedarhill Neighbours, the Parties agreed that this OPA appeal Hearing date should be scheduled now to ensure the availability of the Parties. Should related appeals be filed, they could be considered for hearing together with this OPA within the requested five-week Hearing.
15Mattamy, in consultation with the other Parties, will request in due course that a second CMC be scheduled, likely for early 2026, to finalize the scope and Procedural Order for the scheduled Merit Hearing.
16While not addressed at this CMC, the Tribunal requests the Parties to contemplate mediation and to remain aware of Tribunal-led mediation to reduce or resolve issues as this case unfolds.
17A five-week Hearing on the Merits will be held by video conference commencing on Monday, June 1, 2026 at 10 a.m. and finishing on or before Friday, July 3, 2026. The Tribunal will not be sitting on June 15, 2026 and July 1, 2026. No further Notice will be given, although the Hearing connection details may be reiterated/confirmed at the next CMC.
18Parties and Participants are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections.
GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/348282861
Access code: 348-282-261
19Parties and Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
20Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: 1-647-497-9373 or (toll-free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is as listed above.
21Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the event to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to the event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.
ORDER
22THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS its rulings as set out above.
“S. Tousaw”
S. tousaw
VICE CHAIR
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 Tribunal.