Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 10, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001620 (Formerly PL200195)

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

Appellant: ClubLink Corporation ULC

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: 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: D02-02-19-0123

Property Address: 7000 Campeau Drive

Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001620

Legacy Case No: PL200195

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001620

Legacy Lead Case No: PL200195

OLT Case Name: ClubLink Corporation ULC v. Ottawa (City)

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

Appellant: ClubLink Corporation ULC

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Reference Number: D07-16-19-0026

Property Address: 7000 Campeau Drive

Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001622

Legacy Case No: PL200196

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001620

Legacy Lead Case No: PL200195

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 20 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: ClubLink Corporation ULC

Motion for: Order Awarding Costs

Costs sought against: City of Ottawa and Kanata Greenspace Protection Coalition

Heard: May 11, 2026 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

ClubLink Corporation ULC ("ClubLink")

Mark Flowers Kyle Gossen

City of Ottawa ("City")

Timothy Marc

Kanata Greenspace Protection Coalition ("KGPC"/"Coalition")

Sylvain Rouleau

DECISION DELIVERED BY T.F. NG AND C. HARDY AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision and Order arises out of a written motion for costs ("Motion") made by ClubLink following a hearing on January 14, 2026 ("2026 Hearing") convened to finalize an Interim Order issued by the Tribunal on March 22, 2022 ("2022 Decision").

BACKGROUND

2To provide context to these proceedings, the 2022 Decision approved, in principle, a zoning by-law amendment ("ZBA") and draft plan of subdivision ("DPS") with draft plan conditions ("Conditions"). The Final Order was withheld pending fulfilment of the prerequisite conditions, being receipt by the Tribunal of a draft ZBA and DPS with a consolidated list of Conditions ("Prerequisite Conditions").

3Following the 2022 Decision, the City continued with civil litigation and appeals to the courts with respect to a 40% Agreement and its stipulations pertaining to the proposed development. The 40% Agreement was a pre-existing development agreement that was in place prior to ClubLink acquiring the property and relates to the overall development of the area. The 40% Agreement is not relevant to the Tribunal’s determination of costs in this Motion.

4The civil case meandered through the court and appeal courts. Ultimately, the City failed to obtain leave from the Supreme Court of Canada to continue with the appeals.

5As the court process litigating the 40% Agreement came to an end, ClubLink initiated the process to request issuance of a Final Order as set out in the 2022 Decision.

6ClubLink alleged that the City and KGPC did not cooperate in the process, which ultimately required the Tribunal to hold the 2026 Hearing to consider whether the Prerequisite Conditions set out in the 2022 Decision had been fulfilled. The Tribunal determined that the Prerequisite Conditions had been satisfied and issued the Final Order on January 27, 2026 ("2026 Decision") for the ZBA and the DPS with Conditions.

MOTION FOR COSTS

7The Motion by ClubLink requests the following relief:

a. an Order requiring the City and the Coalition to pay ClubLink costs of the 2026 Hearing, on a joint and several basis, in the amount of $62,665.01 within 14 days of the date of issuance of this Decision and Order;

b. an Order requiring payment by the City and the Coalition, on a joint and several basis, ClubLink’s costs of this Motion, to be fixed following the completion of written submissions, which are approximately $10,000 (excluding HST) to date;

c. post-judgment interest on the above-noted costs in accordance with Rule 23.11 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure ("OLT Rules"); and

d. such other relief as counsel may request and the Tribunal may permit.

8The Motion is supported by the Affidavit of Jean-Michel Le Blanc, sworn on March 13, 2026, together with the exhibits referred to therein. ClubLink also filed a Reply motion supported by a further Affidavit of Mr. Le Blanc for costs of the Motion.

9In support of the requested relief, ClubLink’s main grounds for costs are its allegation that the City and the Coalition refused to cooperate with ClubLink, but rather actively opposed the issuance of the Final Order, which ClubLink argued amounts to conduct that was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and/or acting in bad faith.

10ClubLink offered examples of what it asserts demonstrated unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious and bad faith conduct on behalf of the City and the Coalition, which can be summarized as follows:

a. attempting to re-litigate the final and binding determination of the Tribunal in the 2022 Decision and neither the City nor the Coalition pursued a Request for Review of the 2022 Decision pursuant to Rule 25 of the OLT Rules;

b. advancing a prematurity argument to the finalization of the zoning based on unresolved easement and overland flow matters and the potential for subdivision plan adjustments, none of which were Prerequisite Conditions to the issuance of a Final Order; and

c. the almost five-month delay by the City, and two month delay by the Coalition, in providing substantive comments on the proposed instruments circulated by ClubLink.

RESPONSES TO MOTION

City

11The City’s response was supported by the Affidavit of Stream Shen, which provided a chronology of events but did not address the specific claim for costs.

12The City submitted that no conduct in the 2026 Hearing approached the high threshold established in Rule 23.9 of the OLT Rules to warrant an award of costs, particularly on a substantial indemnity or full indemnity basis. With respect to the general conduct of the entirety of the proceedings related to the planning applications, the City submitted that it dealt with the planning applications professionally from the moment they were received.

13The City argued that ClubLink could have requested finalization of the ZBA and the DPS with Conditions at any time following the 2022 Decision. However, draft materials were not circulated to the City until June 13, 2025, more than three years following the 2022 Decision. The City responded within five months and was prepared to make submissions at the case management conference in November, 2025, at which point the Tribunal instead scheduled the 2026 Hearing. Accordingly, the City submits that it was not responsible for any delay in finalizing the orders.

14The City focused its submissions on the ZBA and did not oppose the issuance of the Final Order on the DPS with Conditions. ClubLink’s planner agreed to amendments to the draft ZBA in response to the City’s planning evidence. In these circumstances, an award of costs against the City is not warranted, as its conduct cannot be characterized as unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith, particularly where its evidence contributed to revisions to the ZBA.

KGPC

15KGPC submitted that the Motion should be dismissed in its entirety as against KGPC. It did not file any affidavit in response.

16KGPC argued that its participation in the proceedings was limited, procedurally efficient, and consistent with the Tribunal’s processes, and as such, no finding of costs for KGPC’s conduct can be supported. KGPC complied with all procedural requirements, limited its participation to adopting and supporting the City’s submissions, and did not engage in any conduct that caused delay or prejudice.

17KGPC submitted that the 2026 Hearing involved a disagreement between the Parties, which the Tribunal resolved. KGPC’s unsuccessful legal position during the 2026 Hearing is not a basis to attract an award of punitive costs. It further submitted that the Tribunal has repeatedly emphasized that costs are exceptional and are not to be used as a mechanism to punish parties for advancing positions within the scope of a proceeding.

18The issues raised by the City, and supported by KGPC, arose from legitimate planning and implementation concerns that formed part of a broader dispute between the Parties. The Tribunal’s conclusion that these issues were not Prerequisite Conditions to the issuance of the Final Order does not render their advancement frivolous or vexatious. As KGPC argued, there is a fundamental distinction between an argument that is unsuccessful and one that is unreasonable.

19Although the City’s prematurity argument, based on easements and overland flow, supported by KGPC, was ultimately unsuccessful, this does not make it unreasonable, nor does it amount to an abuse of process or an attempt to re-litigate settled matters. The Tribunal’s findings do not support the imposition of costs against KGPC.

20KGPC emphasized that the Tribunal did not make any finding or suggestion that KGPC’s conduct during the 2026 Hearing was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith. In the absence of such a finding, KGPC argued that there is no basis upon which costs can be awarded, and in particular, no basis to attribute any portion of the claimed costs to KGPC.

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

21Pursuant to section 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal may, in the circumstances set out in the OLT Rules, order a party to pay all or part of another party’s costs in a proceeding. Section 20 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 grants the Tribunal jurisdiction to fix the costs and order a party to pay the costs, in accordance with the OLT Rules.

22Rule 23.9 of the OLT Rules sets out examples of the types of conduct which may attract an award of costs and provides as follows:

The Tribunal may only order costs against a party if the conduct or course of conduct of a party has been unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious or if the party has acted in bad faith. Clearly unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious or bad faith conduct can include, but is not limited to:

a. failing to attend a hearing event or failing to send a representative when properly given notice, without contacting the Tribunal;

b. failing to give notice without adequate explanation, lack of co- operation with other parties during the proceedings, changing a position without notice to the parties, or introducing an issue or evidence not previously mentioned or included in a procedural order;

c. failing to act in a timely manner or failing to comply with a procedural order or direction of the Tribunal where the result is undue prejudice or delay;

d. a course of conduct necessitating unnecessary adjournments or delays or failing to prepare adequately for hearing events;

e. failing to present evidence, continuing to deal with issues, asking questions or taking steps that the Tribunal has determined to be improper;

f. failing to make reasonable efforts to combine submissions with parties of similar interest;

g. acting disrespectfully or maligning the character of another party;

h. knowingly presenting false or misleading evidence; or

i. breaching a confidentiality requirement of a mediation, settlement conference or of a decision of the Tribunal in the hearing of the merits.

ANALYSIS AND DISPOSITION

23As a starting point, costs are rarely awarded in Tribunal proceedings. The approach of the Tribunal is to ensure that litigants are not dissuaded from exercising their rights of appeal for fear of costs, and historically, the Tribunal has demonstrated a sensitivity to the right of appellants to bring matters before the Tribunal.

24As set out in the City’s submissions, the Tribunal, in Kimvar Enterprises Inc., Re, 2009 Carswell 666 ("Kimvar"), recognized the "chilling effect" an award of costs may have and its deterrence of public participation in planning processes. In Kimvar, the Tribunal held that:

…[t]he Board….takes a cautious approach to cost awards against citizens and strives to accommodate public participation in land use planning decisions… costs cannot be used as a threat to deter public participation; and costs will only be awarded (whether the parties are commercial entities, ratepayers or citizens) where the conduct complained of is so improper that it cannot be ignored.

Further, if the Tribunal exercises its discretion, costs awarded on a substantial indemnity or full indemnity basis are reserved for conduct characterized as truly egregious, reprehensible, outrageous, or scandalous, and beyond the type of misconduct identified in Rule 23.9 of the OLT Rules.

25In Midland (Town), Zoning By-law 94-50, (1995) 32 O.M.B.R 3, cited in Askander v. Richmond Hill (Town), 2022 CanLII 34916 (ON LT), the Ontario Municipal Board described unreasonable, vexatious, or frivolous as follows:

"Frivolous" means "characterized by lack of seriousness"…

"Vexatious" … describes action "instituted without sufficient grounds for the purpose of causing trouble or annoyance to another party…"

"Unreasonable" means "irrational" or not in accordance with good sense…

(emphasis added)

26ClubLink advanced its claim for costs on three grounds: 1) re-litigation; 2) prematurity; and 3) delay. The Tribunal finds that ClubLink is successful with respect to its re-litigation and prematurity arguments, but not with respect to delay.

27The Tribunal found that neither the City nor KGPC caused any meaningful delay following receipt of ClubLink’s draft materials. The Tribunal accepts ClubLink’s submission that the relevant period of time for the Motion began in June 2025. Although there may have been some delay, the Tribunal issued its Final Order in January 2026 – approximately seven months after ClubLink’s initial request for comments from the City. Ultimately, the Tribunal cannot agree with ClubLink’s claim that it suffered prejudice as a result of any delay caused by the City or KGPC.

28The Tribunal finds that the City's conduct, along with KGPC’s adoption and support of the City’s position, falls within the scope of Rule 23.9 of the OLT Rules. In particular, the City and KGPC advanced arguments that had already been decided in the 2022 Decision. This conduct amounts to proceeding in a manner not in accordance with good sense and meets the definition of being "unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious", as well as being undertaken "in bad faith" insofar as it reflects an attempt to use the Tribunal for a purpose other than that for which it is intended.

29To be clear, and to respond directly to KGPC’s submissions, the Tribunal does not find that KGPC’s limited participation was itself improper. Rather, KGPC chose to support the City’s opposition to the issuance of the Final Order. In doing so, KGPC adopted the City’s position and advanced arguments relating to prematurity and the re-litigation of issues that had already been determined. The Tribunal finds that this conduct constitutes unreasonable conduct.

30In its submissions, KGPC relied on Abbotts v. Blue Mountains (Town), 2023 CanLII 56712 (ON LT), emphasizing the finding that "…participation through advancing issues, testing evidence, or requiring a responding party to address those issues does not, without more, constitute improper conduct warranting costs". However, the circumstances in the present case are distinguishable. In its 2026 Decision, the Tribunal found that the City and KGPC appeared to be reiterating arguments determined in the 2022 Decision. Consistent with the reasoning in Corsica Developments Inc. v. Richmond Hill (Town), 2015 CanLII 59661 (ON LPAT), the Tribunal concludes that advancing issues already determined amounts to unreasonable conduct warranting the award of costs.

31The City's unreasonable conduct was demonstrated in its refusal to accept the finality of the 2022 Decision as it relates to the issuance of the Final Order. This is despite the City’s knowledge that the only prerequisites to issuance of the Final Order were the Tribunal’s receipt of the ZBA and the DPS with the consolidated Conditions.

32This cannot be characterized as a matter of misunderstanding or misinterpretation as the Interim Order, set out in the 2022 Decision, was clear in its terms. Moreover, neither the City nor KGPC sought a review of the 2022 Decision, and therefore did not challenge the Prerequisite Conditions identified by the Tribunal as necessary for the issuance of the Final Order. As the City and KGPC are aware, the appropriate course of action, if they opposed the prerequisites, was to request a review of the 2022 Decision. Instead, raising opposition to those same Prerequisite Conditions four years later constitutes improper and unreasonable conduct. Attempting to "surprise" both ClubLink and the Tribunal in this manner is inconsistent with orderly process and weighs in favour of an award of costs.

33The City and KGPC persisted in maintaining this unreasonable position from the time the draft instruments were circulated to the City for comment. Counsel for both the City and KGPC are experienced and sophisticated practitioners in planning law. An objective reading of the relevant paragraph of the Interim Order makes clear that the sole Prerequisite Conditions to the issuance of the Final Order were the Tribunal’s receipt of the final draft ZBA and the DPS with consolidated Conditions. There is no reasonable alternative interpretation of the Tribunal’s Interim Order.

34Contrary to KGPC’s submissions, there is no requirement for the Tribunal, in the course of a merit hearing, to characterize or particularize conduct that may later justify an award of costs. The Tribunal does not generally make findings of bad faith or unreasonable conduct in merit hearing decisions, and the absence of such findings does not imply that no conduct occurred that could support an award of costs. Rather, such matters are properly addressed and must be established by the parties on a motion for costs, where the Tribunal determines whether liability for costs is warranted.

35Raising irrelevant matters at the 2026 Hearing not only prolonged the proceeding but detracted from the specific issue to be determined, namely, whether the Prerequisite Conditions for the issuance of the Final Order had been satisfied. The easement and overland flow issues were wholly irrelevant to the 2026 Hearing. From the Tribunal’s perspective, the reintroduction of these issues at the 2026 Hearing constitutes unreasonable conduct.

36In paragraph 14 of Kimvar, Vice-Chair Seaborn referred to earlier decisions which defined conduct which was clearly unreasonable, as follows:

…Would a reasonable person, having looked at all the circumstances of the case, conclude the conduct was not right, the conduct was not fair and that person ought to be obligated to another in some way for that kind of conduct.

37Based on the foregoing, a reasonable person would conclude that the conduct of the City and KGPC was unreasonable, improper, and unfair, and that they ought to be liable to ClubLink for costs. The issues of easements and overland flow were, plainly, not proper grounds to oppose the issuance of the Final Order in this case. As the Tribunal made clear in its 2022 Decision, the issuance of the Final Order was not contingent upon the resolution of those issues.

38For clarity, the Tribunal does not award costs merely because the City and KGPC were unsuccessful. The Tribunal accepts, as submitted by KGPC, that there is an important distinction between an unsuccessful argument and an unreasonable one. However, the Tribunal does not agree with KGPC’s position that the arguments advanced regarding easements and overland flow were not frivolous. These issues had already been determined by the Tribunal and were clearly unrelated to the issuance of the Final Order. Advancing them in these circumstances was therefore unreasonable.

39The evidence of the City’s Planner at the 2026 Hearing, which led to revisions to the final draft ZBA, does not shield the City from an award of costs. The modifications ultimately agreed to could just as readily have arisen through discussions and negotiations conducted outside of the Tribunal process. Such an approach accords with the ordinary course of proceedings and represents a more efficient and cost-effective means of resolving planning matters.

40The Tribunal finds that the City’s deliberate adherence to a fixed narrative regarding matters that had already been litigated and decided constitutes clearly unreasonable conduct warranting liability for costs. The Tribunal further finds that KGPC’s adoption and support of the City’s position likewise constitutes unreasonable conduct, meeting the high threshold required for an award of costs.

41In particular, the City’s recalcitrant refusal, supported by KGPC, to acknowledge that the only prerequisites for the issuance of the Final Order were the Tribunal’s receipt of the final draft ZBA and the DPS with consolidated Conditions, is significant. The City, with KGPC’s support, also improperly relied on matters not directed or required by the Interim Order in the 2022 Decision, including issues related to easements and overland flow.

42Taken together, the Tribunal finds that the conduct of the City and KGPC in this matter was unreasonable and amounts to bad faith.

Quantum

43ClubLink is seeking full indemnity costs plus post-judgment interest. In Richcraft Group of Companies v. Ottawa (City), [2012] O.M.B.D. No. 840, 2012 CarswellOnt 16281, the hierarchy of conduct which may trigger awards of costs in various amounts was addressed. Clearly unreasonable conduct may justify a partial award of costs, whereas conduct going beyond "unreasonable" and becoming (in terminology originated in the courts) "reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous", may lead a court or tribunal to consider costs on a substantial or full indemnity basis. The Tribunal will grant partial costs in favour of ClubLink. The Tribunal did not find the conduct of the City and KGPC to rise to the level of reprehensible conduct which may warrant costs on a full indemnity basis.

44The City and KGPC were represented by experienced counsel with a thorough understanding of the OLT Rules and the strict requirements of the legal process, which is relevant to the Tribunal’s assessment. The Prerequisite Conditions for the issuance of the Final Order were neither complex nor ambiguous. The Interim Order in the 2022 Decision set them out clearly and precisely: a request for the Final Order could be made upon the Tribunal’s receipt of a draft ZBA and draft DPS with a consolidated list of Conditions.

45In considering the appropriate amount of the award of costs against the City and KGPC, the Tribunal exercises its discretion pursuant to Rule 23.10 of the OLT Rules and fixes the amount of the costs award at $15,000.00.

ORDER

46THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the motion for costs is granted and directs the City of Ottawa and the Kanata Greenspace Protection Coalition to jointly and severally pay ClubLink Corporation ULC a costs award in the amount of $15,000.00. The costs award is to be paid within 30 days of the date of issuance of this Order and is subject to interest calculated in accordance with section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act.

"T.F. Ng"

T.F. NG

VICE-CHAIR

"C. Hardy"

C. HARDY