Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 23, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000193
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 6980848 Canada Corporation
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit a zoning by-law amendment to the subject lands to facilitate the development of 71 residential lots.
Reference Number: D02-02-24-0052
Property Address: 1600 Stagecoach Road
Municipality/UT: Ottawa
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000193
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000193
OLT Case Name: 6980848 Canada Corporation v. Ottawa (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(39) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 6980848 Canada Corporation
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Refusal by Approval Authority
Description: To permit a plan of subdivision consisting of 71 residential lots.
Reference Number: D07-16-24-0001
Property Address: 1600 Stagecoach Road
Municipality/UT: Ottawa
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000746
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000193
OLT Case Name: 6980848 Canada Corporation v. Ottawa (City)
Heard: March 12, 2026 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| 6980848 Canada Corporation | Kyle Gossen Grace O’Brien |
| City of Ottawa | Timothy Marc |
DECISION DELIVERED BY F. LAVOIE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision and Order arises from a Merit Hearing converted to a settlement hearing, regarding appeals filed by 6980848 Canada Corporation (“Appellant”) pursuant to subsections 34(11) and 51(39) of the Planning Act, RSO 1990, c. P.13, regarding the City of Ottawa’s (“City”) refusal of the Appellant’s Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) applications. The settlement seeks to permit the development of 69 residential lots on the property municipally known as 1600 Stagecoach Road (“Subject Property”).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2The appeals’ procedural history is detailed in two previous decisions of this Tribunal, by panels differently constituted. On October 23, 2024, the Tribunal ruled Official Plan Amendment 5 (“OPA 5”) was in force and effect.1 Among other things, OPA 5 designated the Subject Property as “Village” in the City Official Plan (“OP”) and “Village Residential” in the Greely Secondary Plan (“SP”). A week later, City Council adopted Official Plan Amendment 35 (“OPA 35”), removing the Subject Property from the Village of Greely, which the Appellant appealed. The City brought a motion to consolidate the OPA 35 appeal with the ZBA and DPS appeals. The Tribunal refused the City’s motion and ordered the OPA 35 appeal in abeyance until the Tribunal’s disposition of the DPS appeal.2 The DPS and ZBA appeals were later consolidated by the Tribunal.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDINGS
3The Subject Property is currently vacant and located in the Village of Greely, in the Rural Transect of the City of Ottawa. The Village of Greely is characterized by rural residential subdivisions with large lot sizes and private services.
4The Subject Property has approximately 198 metres of frontage along Stagecoach Road to the east, and approximately 50 metres of total frontage along Cedarlakes Way to the north. Immediately north of the Subject Property are the first two phases of the subdivision, known as Cedar Lakes. East and west of the Subject Property are other rural residential subdivisions. South of the Subject Property are generally rural vacant lands and forested areas. The lands east, west, and south of the Subject Property are outside of the Village boundary. The Subject Property and its surrounding area are illustrated below in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Subject Property Aerial Map (p.9 of exhibit 5, Appellant’s Visual Evidence)
THE SETTLEMENT
5The Appellant and the City advised the Tribunal of their proposed settlement on March 6, 2026, which they seek to have approved by the Tribunal. The settlement resulted in:
a. A slight reduction of proposed lots from 71 to 69;
b. The addition of condition 93 regarding an updated Hydrogeological Investigation & Terrain Analysis;
c. The revision of condition 119 regarding infiltration based low impact development (“LID”) controls as well as a Drainage Act petition; and
d. The City’s agreement to repeal OPA 35.
PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUESTS
6The Tribunal received Participant Status Requests from Lucie Pyper, William MacNaull, and Roger Shier before the settlement hearing, to which the Appellant and City advised they did not object. The Tribunal granted the three Participant Status Requests and proceeded to conduct the settlement hearing. While the Participants have varied concerns, drainage and traffic concerns feature as common themes across their statements.
THE SETTLEMENT HEARING
7The Appellant presented the evidence of their land use planner, Ryan Poulton. The Tribunal qualified Mr. Poulton to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning.
8Mr. Poulton opined the Proposed Development has regard for the s. 51(24) Planning Act, which reveal the DPS criteria as follows:
a. Has regard for matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act, particularly paragraphs a), d), e), f), h), j), n), o), p), and r). The City and Appellant have agreed to address any remaining environmental comments to be addressed through detailed design, and the City is satisfied with the Transportation Impact Assessment Strategy;
b. The Proposed Development is not premature and is in the public interest, being a logical extension of the abutting residential land uses with four proposed roadway connections providing access to the subdivision;
c. The Proposed Development conforms to the OP, detailed further below;
d. The Subject Property is suitable for the purpose of 69 residential lots;
e. The Proposed Development provides adequate connections through four roadway connections, connected to Stagecoach Road, Cedarlakes Way, and two new north-south roads which will end in cul-de-sacs both in the southern portion of the Subject Property;
f. The dimensions of the proposed lots include a minimum lot area of 4000 square metres, meeting the minimum size required for the Village Residential Designation of the Secondary Plan, and a minimum lot width of 30 metres;
g. The DPS application is supported by a ZBA application which will ensure that adequate setbacks are provided, and the subdivision is proposed to be rezoned V1E and OS, with site specific provisions;
h. No anticipated impacts on natural heritage features by the proposed subdivision provided the recommendations of the Environmental Impact Study and Tree Conservation Report are implemented;
i. A water budget analysis concluded that the use of Low Impact Development measures would result in no increase in total runoff discharged from the Subject Property;
j. The proximity of four schools within the Village and surrounding rural area is adequate;
k. Blocks 78 along Stagecoach Road, and Blocks 73, 74 along the southern boundary of the Subject Property are proposed to be provided as a park and trails, respectively.
l. The development of each residential property will not be subject to site plan control.
9Mr. Poulton testified the Proposed Development is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS”). Notably, the Proposed Development is consistent with Policy 2.3.1.1 by directing growth and development in a settlement area, Policy 2.3.1.2 through an efficient use of land resources to support a land use pattern desirable in the Village of Greely, and Policy 2.5.1 by adding new housing in vacant lands in keeping with the rural character of the area. Regarding stormwater management, Mr. Poulton relied on the reports and witness statements of Jonathon Burnett, Senior Water Resources Engineer at JFSA Canada Inc., and Dan Payer, President, Senior Design and Construction Engineer at Ark Engineering and Development, to opine that the proposed development is consistent with Policy 3.6.8, as peak flows leaving the Subject Property are maintained or decreased for all storm events.
10Mr. Poulton’s opinion was that the proposed development conforms with the City’s OP and SP. Indeed, Policy 3.4 of the OP focuses rural growth in Villages and Policy 5.5.1 requires development in rural transect areas to be low-rise, as proposed. With respect to the SP, the proposed development will be serviced by private wells and septic, is supported by hydrogeological and terrain analysis, will have cul-de-sacs for future connections were the village boundary to expand, and meets the 0.4 hectares required minimum lot area, conforming with Policies 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 2.1.8, 3.2.12 respectively.
11Mr. Poulton advised that all Draft Plan Conditions have been resolved, and that in his opinion, the conditions are reasonable and have regard to the nature of the Proposed Development.
12Lastly, Mr. Poulton testified as to the concerns raised in the three Participant Statements. He said he was satisfied with the water quality, water quantity, and drainage concerns have been addressed by the Hydrogeological Investigation and Terrain Analysis. Regarding the proposed road connection to Deermeadow Drive to the west of the Subject Property, he said his planning opinion did not change whether that connection was provided or not, but that it would be good practice to improve connectivity for both subdivisions. He further testified that the Appellant and City have agreed to engaging in discussions to attempt to address issues with downstream landowners.
13The Tribunal accepts Mr. Poulton’s uncontroverted evidence. The Tribunal finds the DPS has regard for matters of provincial interest under section 2 of the Planning Act and the s. 51(24) criteria. The DPS and ZBA are consistent with the PPS, conform with the City OP and SP, and overall represent good planning in the public interest.
ORDER
14THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
a. the Zoning By-Law appeal is allowed in part and the Zoning By-Law for 1600 Stagecoach Road in the City of Ottawa is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Ottawa to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes;
b. the Draft Plan of Subdivision appeal is allowed and the draft plan shown on the plan prepared by J.D. Barnes Limited last revised February 2, 2026, comprising Part of Lot 8 Concession 3 (Geographic Township of Osgoode) and Blocks 42, 44, 45, 51, 52 and 57 Registered Plan 4M-1479 and Blocks 21 and 23 Registered Plan 4M-1555 and Block 59 Registered Plan 4M-833, set out in Attachment 2 to this Order, is approved subject to the fulfillment of the conditions set out in Attachment 3 to this Order; and
c. pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the City of Ottawa 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.
15The Tribunal may be spoken to if there are any difficulties implementing this Decision and Order, including the implementation of the conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision approval.
“F. Lavoie”
F. LAVOIE
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.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.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
Footnotes
- 6980848 Canada Corporation v Ottawa (City), 2024 CanLII 106134 (ON LT).
- 6980848 Canada Corporation v Ottawa (City), 2025 CanLII 50819 (ON LT).