Caivan (Stittsville) Inc. v. Ottawa (City), 2026 CanLII 55979

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 05, 2026 CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-001013, OLT-26-000213

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Caivan (Stittsville) Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit a new subdivision with a mix of residential dwellings of approximately 362 dwelling units Reference Number: D01-01-24-0017 Property Address: 5971 Flewellyn Road, 1770 Shea Road, 1820 Shea Road Municipality/UT: City of Ottawa OLT Case No.: OLT-25-001013 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-001013 OLT Case Name: Caivan (Stittsville) Inc. v. Ottawa (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Caivan (Stittsville) Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit a new subdivision with a mix of residential dwellings of approximately 362 dwelling units Reference Number: D02-02-24-0042 Property Address: 5971 Flewellyn Road, 1770 Shea Road, 1820 Shea Road Municipality/UT: City of Ottawa OLT Case No.: OLT-26-000213 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-26-000213 OLT Case Name: Caivan (Stittsville) Inc. v. Ottawa (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Caivan (Stittsville) Inc. Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Description: To permit a new subdivision with a mix of residential dwellings of approximately 362 dwelling units Reference Number: D07-16-25-0011 Property Address: 5971 Flewellyn Road, 1770 Shea Road, 1820 Shea Road Municipality/UT: City of Ottawa OLT Case No.: OLT-26-000214 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-26-000213

Heard: May 22, 2026, by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Caivan (Stittsville) Inc. ("Caivan")	Mark Flowers, Alexia Ivo
City of Ottawa ("City")	Bruce Engell, Timothy Marc (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN ON MAY 22, 2026, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held for the purpose of organizing the appeal by Caivan, the owner of the lands municipally known as 5971 Flewellyn Road, 1770 Shea Road, and 1820 Shea Road (“Subject Lands”), in the community of Stittsville, in the City. The application was originally submitted by Caivan (Stittsville South) Inc. and Caivan (Stittsville West) Ltd. As a result of a subsequent corporate amalgamation, Caivan (Stittsville) Inc. is the current owner of the Subject Lands and has assumed carriage of the application.

2The Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) appeal was filed pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act on the failure of the City to make a decision on a revised application. The OPA seeks to include the Subject Lands within the City’s urban boundary and to apply a Neighbourhoods designation to permit residential development consisting of approximately 362 dwelling units with a mix of single-detached and townhome units.

3Further to the OPA appeal, Caivan filed Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) applications to the City in late June and early July 2025.

4The ZBA application seeks to rezone the Subject Lands to residential and open space zones to permit single detached dwellings and townhouses (including rear lane, stacked, and back-to-back townhouse forms) and associated parks and open space. Specifically, the proposed zoning includes an R3YY[XXXX] zone for detached and townhouse dwellings, an R4Z[XXXX] zone for stacked townhouse blocks, and an O1 (Open Space) zone for park and natural area blocks, together with site-specific exceptions to implement the Proposed Development.

5The DPS application would establish the public street network, development blocks, parkland, and servicing framework required to implement the Proposed Development. The City confirmed that the ZBA and DPS applications were complete as of July 7, 2025.

6The City failed to make a decision in respect of the ZBA and DPS applications within the statutory timeframes set out in the Planning Act. As a result, Caivan appealed the ZBA and DPS applications to the Tribunal pursuant to ss. 34(11) and 51(34) of the Planning Act.

7The Tribunal marked the Affidavit of Service of the Notice of this first CMC, in respect of Tribunal Case Nos. OLT-26-000213 and OLT-26-000214, as Exhibit 1. No issues were raised regarding service, and no further notice is required.

PARTY/PARTICIPANT REQUEST

8At the outset of the CMC, the Tribunal heard from a member of the public seeking guidance on how to submit comments for the Tribunal’s consideration. The Tribunal advised that the individual must apply for Participant/Party status and directed him to the Tribunal’s website to submit the necessary Status Request form.

MEDIATION

9In response to inquiries, the Parties indicated they will continue discussions and may pursue Tribunal-led mediation, if necessary. The Tribunal advised that information regarding mediation is available through the Case Coordinator.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND HEARING DATES

10A finalized Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”), now including all hearing dates and issues, was provided, on consent, and is attached as Schedule 1 to this Decision. The PO is in full force and effect and shall govern the merit hearing. Any amendments to said shall require Tribunal approval.

11The Tribunal canvassed the anticipated length of the merit hearing with counsel. Based on the number of witnesses expected to provide testimony, the Tribunal directed a three-week merit hearing.

12The Parties submitted that it would be more efficient to have Tribunal Case Nos. OLT-25-001013, OLT-26-000213, and OLT-26-000214 heard together at the upcoming merit hearing. The Tribunal agreed that doing so would provide an expeditious and efficient means of resolving the outstanding issues included in all three cases.

13The Parties indicated that discussions to reduce the number of issues will continue. The Parties are directed to contact the Case Coordinator should some, or all, of the issues be resolved to reduce time set aside for the merit hearing.

14The merit hearing is scheduled to proceed by video on Monday, February 1, 2027 at 10 a.m. The Tribunal will not sit on Monday, February 15, 2027.

15Parties and Observers 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/357283957

Access code: 357-283-957

16Parties and 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

17Persons 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: +1-647-497-9391 or (toll-free) +1-888-455-1389. The access code is: 357-283-957.

18Individuals 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.

19As of March 30, 2026, all hearing events are governed by the Tribunal’s Artificial Intelligence Practice Direction. This Practice Direction requires a party, participant, or witness to include a declaration within each submitted document if generative AI was used to create or generate content.

20If the Parties resolve the remaining issues, they are directed to contact the Case Coordinator to set a date for a settlement hearing.

ORDER

21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS its directions as set out in this Decision.

22THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that Tribunal Case Nos. OLT-25-001013, OLT-26-000213, and OLT-26-000214 be heard together.

23This Member remains available to assist with the case management of this proceeding, subject to the Tribunal’s calendar.

24This Member is not seized.

25No further notice will be given.

“D. Chipman”

D. CHIPMAN 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.

SCHEDULE 1

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-001013, OLT-26-000213

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

PROCEDURAL ORDER

The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

The video hearing will begin on Monday, February 1, 2027, at 10:00 a.m.
The length of the hearing will be approximately 14 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.
The parties and participants (see Attachment “4” for the meaning of these terms) are set out in Attachment “1” to this Order.
The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment “2”. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.
The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment “3” to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.
Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.
A party, participant, or witness who intends to submit document(s) to the Tribunal must include a declaration within each submitted document if generative AI was used to create or generate content. A declaration is not required if AI was used to merely suggest changes, provide recommendations, or critique content already created by a human who then considered and manually implemented the changes.

Requirements Before the Hearing

A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they are intended to be called. This list must be delivered on or before Thursday, September 24, 2026, and in accordance with paragraph 24 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified.
Any party proposing revisions to the draft plan of subdivision and/or proposing conditions of approval shall provide those revisions and/or proposed conditions to all other parties on or before Wednesday, October 14, 2026.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Monday, October 26, 2026 and use reasonable efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting, the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Monday, November 9, 2026.
An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 15 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.
Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 15 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 15 below.
On or before Monday, November 23, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 24 below.
On or before Monday, November 23, 2026, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the parties and the OLT case co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 24 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.
On or before Wednesday, December 23, 2026 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before Friday, December 18, 2026, in accordance with paragraph 24 below.
On or before Monday, January 11, 2027, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 24 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Monday, January 18, 2027.
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.
A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal and the other parties at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.
The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Monday, January 25, 2027. with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.
All filings shall be submitted electronically unless otherwise directed. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 30MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.
No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
September 24, 2026	Parties to exchange lists of witnesses (names, disciplines, CVs and intended order to be called)
October 14, 2026	Parties to exchange any proposed revisions to the draft plan of subdivision and/or proposed conditions of approval
October 26, 2026	Meetings of Expert Witnesses
November 9, 2026	Parties to file Statements of Agreed Facts and Issues
November 23, 2026	Exchange of Witness Statements, summonsed witness outlines, and Participant Statements
December 23, 2026	Parties to advise OLT if all scheduled hearing days are required
December 18, 2026	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements
January 11, 2027	Exchange of visual evidence
January 18, 2027	Joint Document Book to be filed
January 25, 2027	Parties to file hearing plan
February 1, 2027	Hearing commences

Attachment 1

LIST OF PARTIES / PARTICIPANTS

Parties

Caivan (Stittsville) Inc. Mark Flowers / Alexia Ivo Davies Howe LLP The Tenth Floor 425 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON M5V 3C1 Email: markf@davieshowe.com / alexiai@davieshowe.com Tel: 416-263-4513 / 416-871-0543
City of Ottawa Timothy Marc Legal Services Branch 3rd Floor 110 Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1 Email: timothy.marc@ottawa.ca Tel : 613580-2424 x21444

Bruce Engell WeirFoulds LLP 66 Wellington Street West, Suite 4100 P.O. Box 35, TD Bank Tower Toronto, ON M5K 1B7 Email: bengell@weirfoulds.com Tel: 416-365-1110

Attachment 2

ISSUES LIST

The identification of an issue on this list does not mean that all parties agree that the issue, or the manner in which it is expressed, is appropriate for or relevant to the proper determination of the appeals. The extent of the appropriateness and/or relevance of the issue may be a matter of evidence and/or argument at the hearing.

Issues List of City of Ottawa

Urban Boundary Expansion

In considering the Appellant’s proposed settlement area expansion, is there a need to designate and plan for additional land to be included within the City’s urban area to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses in light of the PPS and the Official Plan, including the following policies:

a. PPS 2024 Policies 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 2.1.4(a) and (b), 2.3.1 and 2.3.2.1; and

b. Official Plan Policies 2.1, 2.2.1, 3.1 and 3.2?

If not, should the subject lands be included within the City’s urban area nonetheless?
Would the proposed settlement expansion conform with the Growth Management Framework policies of the Official Plan, including the policies in section 3 Introduction, section 3.1 (including 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.1.5 and 3.1.6) and section 3.2 (including 3.2.1, 3.2.8, 3.2.9 and 3.2.10)?

Proposed Form of Development

If the subject lands are to be approved for urban development, is the form and density of development proposed by the Appellant for the subject lands feasible and desirable and does it represent good planning in light of the PPS and Official Plan policies, including the following policies relating to:

a. Infrastructure availability and financial feasibility (including PPS Policies 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.6.1, 3.6.8; Official Plan Policies 4.7.1, 11.6.11);

b. Transit and accessibility (PPS Policies 2.2.1, 2.3.2, 2.9.1, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2; Official Plan Policies 4.1.1 (5), 4.1.2);

c. Complete communities (PPS Policies 2.1.6, 2.9.1; Official Plan Policies 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 5.4.1 (2.a), 5.4.4, 6.3.1);

d. Road and emergency service access (PPS Policies 2.2.1, 2.3.1.2, 3.1.3, 6.2.7; Official Plan Policies 4.1.1);

e. Natural heritage issues including floodplain impacts on the developable area (PPS Policies 5.1 and 5.2; Official Plan Policies 4.9.3, 10.1.1, 10.1.3)?

If the subject lands are to be approved for urban development, what is the appropriate form of the zoning by-law?
If a plan of subdivision is to be draft approved for these lands, what form should that plan of subdivision take and what are the appropriate conditions of approval, including such conditions as are appropriate to address the issues noted in Issue 4 above?

Attachment 3

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

Caivan (Stittsville) Inc.
City of Ottawa
Reply of Caivan (Stittsville) Inc. (if any)

Attachment 4

meaning of terms used in the procedural order

A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party, and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions, and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.