Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: January 27, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001620
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 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 section 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 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: 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
Heard: January 14, 2026 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Clublink Corporation ULC | M. Flowers, K. Gossen |
| City of Ottawa | T. Marc |
| Kanata Greenspace Protection Coalition | S. Rouleau |
DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY AND T.F. NG AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The Tribunal convened a hearing to consider the issuance of a Final Order following its Decision and Interim Order issued on March 22, 2022 (“Interim Order”), approving, in principle, a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”), subject to Draft Plan Conditions.
2In 2022, the Tribunal convened hearing to consider appeals filed by Clublink Corporation ULC (“Clublink”) pursuant to ss. 34(11) and 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Planning Act”) (“original hearing”) regarding lands municipally known as 7000 Campeau Drive, Ottawa (“subject property”). Kanata Greenspace Protection Coalition (“KGPC”) had been granted party status in the proceedings.
3Following a lengthy hearing followed by written closing submissions, the Tribunal issued the following Interim Order:
The appeal pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Act is allowed and the Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) is approved in principle subject to a draft ZBA substantially in accordance with the chart in Tab 40 Appendix B in Exhibit 8, Volume 3 prepared by Bousfields Inc. with detailed zoning provisions and regulations being received in a form satisfactory to the parties to be presented for confirmation.
The appeal pursuant to s. 51(34) of the Act is allowed and the Draft Plan of Subdivision shown on the plan Tab 39 in Exhibit 8 vol 3 prepared by Bousfields Inc. comprising 7000 Campeau Drive, Ottawa is approved in principle subject to the fulfillment of the Conditions set out in Attachment 1 and 1A to this Order.
The Orders are withheld pending receipt by the Tribunal of the Draft ZBA together with the Draft Plan of Subdivision and the consolidated list of Draft Plan Conditions, consolidating Attachment 1 and 1A, as directed herein.
Upon issuance of the Tribunal’s Final Order, the City of Ottawa, pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, 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. In the event that there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the draft plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.
4To provide context for the timing of the herein request for a Final Order, concurrent with the Tribunal’s hearing in 2022, the Parties were involved in an ongoing legal dispute launched by the City of Ottawa (“City”) in 2019 relating to the interpretation and applicability of a development agreement referred to as the “40% Agreement” (“40% Agreement”). The legal dispute relating to the 40% Agreement came to a close on September 18, 2025, with the Supreme Court of Canada’s dismissal of the City’s application for leave to appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision that declared all provisions in the 40% Agreement to be considered void.
5Following the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision regarding the non-applicability of the 40% Agreement, Clublink prepared a consolidated list of draft plan conditions based on Attachments 1 and 1A to the Interim Order (“Draft Plan Conditions”). Clublink provided the Draft Plan Conditions along with proposed zoning amendments to the ZBA to the City and KGPC on June 13, 2025, and September 8, 2025, respectively. After having received no substantive comments from either the City or KGPC, Clublink e-mailed the Tribunal on September 22, 2025, requesting direction with respect to the further advancement of the matter. Subsequently, at a Case Management Conference convened on November 26, 2025, the Tribunal directed that a one-day hearing be scheduled for the purpose of considering the issuance of a Final Order.
MATERIALS CONSIDERED
6In advance of the hearing, Clublink and the City filed written submissions, supporting affidavits and supporting materials. The Parties agreed that they would provide oral submissions at the hearing based on the filed materials. KGPC did not file any written materials and did not provide oral submissions, adopting and supporting the filed materials and submissions of the City.
7The City filed written submissions and reply submissions together with the following: Affidavit of Land Use Planner Stream Shen, sworn November 4, 2025, with composite exhibits; Reply Affidavit of Stream Shen, sworn November 20, 2025; and the Affidavit of Engineer Alex Polyak, sworn November 4, 2025, with composite exhibits.
8Clublink filed written submissions, with composite exhibits which included the Affidavit of Land Use Planner Mike Dror, sworn November 19, 2025, with composite exhibits, and the Affidavit of Engineer Matt Wingate affirmed November 19, 2025, with composite exhibits. Clublink also filed the Affidavit of Engineer David Gilbert, affirmed November 24, 2025, with composite exhibits, a draft Order, excerpts of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) and the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4 Sched. 6 (“OLTA”) and a draft Zoning By-law Amendment.
PRELIMINARY MATTER
9As a preliminary matter, Counsel for Clublink succinctly set out the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider a request for a Final Order in the absence of the consent of all Parties. (Counsel referred to 1319283 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto, August 23, 2023 CanLII 78852 (ON LT) OLT-22-002386). The Tribunal has broad discretion pursuant to s. 9 of the OLTA and Rule 24.2 of the Rules. While uncommon, there is nothing in the legislation or the Rules to suggest that the Tribunal does not have the authority to issue a Final Order if the request is contested by a Party or Parties. The Tribunal agrees with the submissions of Counsel for Clublink and finds that it does have the authority to issue a Final Order which has not been consented to by all Parties. Given this finding, the Tribunal proceeded to hear submissions on whether the prerequisites to the issuance of the Final Order, which were set out in the Interim Order, had been satisfied
SUBMISSIONS
10Following receipt of the City’s initial materials, Clublink amended the draft ZBA in response to a number of comments included in Mr. Shen’s Affidavit. As such, many of the issues raised in the initial materials filed with the Tribunal were resolved and the oral submissions of the Parties focused on the remaining outstanding issues.
11At the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal confirmed that the City and KGPC were contesting the issuance of the Final Order regarding the ZBA only and all Parties were in agreement that the prerequisites for the issuance of the Final Order respecting the DPS subject to the Draft Plan Conditions had been satisfied.
12The City argued that the processes related to the ZBA and the DPS are distinct. There is a two-step process related to the DPS pursuant to s. 51 of the Planning Act, the first step being approval (which is before the Tribunal in this hearing) and the second step being registration of the DPS. The City argued that the legislation permits revisions to the DPS and Draft Plan Conditions, should they be necessary, prior to registration of the DPS. On the other hand, the process related to the ZBA pursuant to s. 34 of the Planning Act is one step and once the ZBA is enacted it is final subject to future applications for amendments. Therefore, the City argued that the ZBA should reflect the DPS as registered and as such, it is premature and inappropriate for the Tribunal to issue final approval of the ZBA at this point.
13The crux of the City’s argument was that there were outstanding issues to be addressed before final approval of the ZBA could be issued by the Tribunal, those being easements on title and unresolved issues due to overland flows.
14The City took the Tribunal to selected Transfer of Easement documents registered on title which restrict any construction within the easement without the prior written consent of the City. In his Affidavit, Mr. Shen explained that several of the proposed lots on the DPS are fully or partially impacted by City-owned easements. The resulting zoning schedule assigns development potential to these lots, which Mr. Shen opines is inappropriate. Mr. Shen referred to the Interim Decision explaining that the City has consistently advised Clublink that relocation or alteration of the easements is not supported. Mr. Shen noted that if the City continued to refuse to modify the easements, adjustments would be required that could change the subdivision layout and associated ZBA, making it premature to provide final approval of the ZBA at this point. Mr. Shen explained that Clublink, could designate the easement areas as Park and Open Space zoning which would indicate that no development is permitted on those areas. In Mr. Shen’s opinion, it is premature for the Tribunal to issue a Final Order respecting the ZBA.
15In his Affidavit, Mr. Polyak noted that an Adequacy of Services Report was required to ensure sufficient surficial major overland flow routes for all locations. The City submitted that buildings cannot be located where overland flow is required and this issue, together with the easement concern, demonstrate why the Tribunal should not issue final approval of the ZBA at this point. The City boldly submitted that the ZBA suggests a development that cannot take place and will not take place because the easements will never be consented to by the City so there is no need for the Tribunal to issue a Final Order regarding the ZBA.
16Clublink argued that the consideration of the issuance of a Final Order does not concern easements and overland flow. Rather, the Tribunal’s Interim Order required receipt of final documents, it did not require satisfaction of easements or overland flows or any other technical issues. Clublink argued that the written closing submissions of the City and KGPC, for the Interim Order, requested that the Tribunal withhold issuance of its Final Order pending the final determination of the lotting pattern and the Tribunal rejected these submissions in its Interim Order, accepting Clublink’s submissions to withhold its Final Order pending receipt of a draft ZBA. Clublink argued that it is inappropriate for the City and KGPC to re-open this argument at this stage or attempt to re-write the Interim Order to include additional prerequisite matters to be addressed prior to issuance of the Final Order.
17Clublink addressed the City’s submissions on easements and overland flows despite maintaining that neither issue needs to be resolved prior to the Tribunal issuing its Final Order on the ZBA and DPS. Clublink submitted that easements and servicing related matters are dealt with in the Draft Plan Conditions, such as Condition 11 which requires Clublink to take appropriate steps and ensure that prior to registration, the proposed plan of subdivision aligns and conforms with the zoning by-law. As such, Clublink argued that there is no basis to reject the issuance of a Final Order.
18Clublink’s position is that it is not premature to issue final approval of both the ZBA and DPS. Clublink did not disagree with the City that the two were distinct processes but maintained that concurrent approval is common. Clublink submitted that it agrees with Mr. Shen that the zoning may require adjustments after enactment but argued that this is not unique to the subject property. Mr. Wingate’s Affidavit referred to two examples in the City where a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision were approved concurrently or within weeks of one another. Changes to the zoning are contemplated in the Draft Plan Conditions and Clublink argued that both instruments are routinely approved concurrently by municipalities and by the Tribunal. Speculation that amendments to the zoning will be required is not a reason to deny final approval of the ZBA and the risk of further amendments to the zoning is solely that of Clublink’s.
19Clublink submitted that the Tribunal is not tasked with determining the validity of the easements registered on title, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The City’s submission that Clublink’s development cannot proceed unless it releases the easements or consents is not correct, as Clublink has mechanisms available to challenge the easements if it decides to pursue them. In his Affidavit, Mr. Dror notes that there are many instances where residentially zoned properties are subject to easements. He disagreed with Mr. Shen’s statement that a zoning exception or zone of Parks and Open Space should be applied to the lots and blocks that are impacted by the easements. In Mr. Dror’s opinion, this is unnecessary as easements control the use of the lands to which they apply, independent of zoning permissions. Mr. Dror noted that the rezoning is appropriate because the lands impacted by the easements are restricted no matter what zoning permissions are applied to them. It is Mr. Dror’s opinion that the rezoning of the subject property is appropriate and that it is common practice for zoning to be approved concurrent with draft plan approval. Mr. Dror noted that the proposed ZBA provides flexibility for adjustments to be made to the DPS, if necessary, while continuing to align with the ZBA. In Mr. Dror’s opinion, the ZBA is appropriate for approval and the DPS is appropriate for approval subject to the Draft Plan Conditions
20Mr. Wingate disagreed with Mr. Polyak’s suggestion that a further report is required relating to overland flow routes. Mr. Wingate stated that the reports filed during the original hearing addressed Mr. Polyak’s concerns.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
21The issue before the Tribunal is whether the prerequisites set out in the Interim Order have been satisfied. If so, the Tribunal can issue its Final Order. The Parties provided submissions and materials with respect to easements and overland flows, which the Tribunal has addressed below, however, these issues are not relevant to the Tribunal’s determination of whether a Final Order can be issued with respect to the ZBA and DPS.
22The Tribunal is satisfied that the prerequisites set out in the Interim Order have been fully satisfied and will issue final approval of the ZBA set out in Attachment 1 to this Final Order, the DPS set out in Attachment 2 to this Final Order and the Draft Plan Conditions set out in Attachment 3 to this Final Order.
23The Parties jointly submitted that the prerequisites to the Tribunal’s issuance of a Final Order on the DPS subject to the Draft Plan Conditions have been satisfied. The Tribunal agrees. The prerequisites set out in the Interim Order were receipt by the Tribunal of the DPS and consolidated Draft Plan Conditions, which the Tribunal has received and reviewed.
24The Tribunal cannot agree with the City that final approval on the ZBA is not necessary or appropriate at this point. The Tribunal’s Interim Order withheld final approval of the ZBA and DPS “…pending receipt by the Tribunal of the Draft ZBA together with the Draft Plan of Subdivision and the consolidated list of Draft Plan Conditions…”. This is exactly what is before the Tribunal. The Interim Order does not require the Parties to satisfy technical issues, including easements or overland flows. In fact, the Interim Order does not mention anything about these two issues.
25The Tribunal asked Counsel for the City whether the prerequisites set out in the Interim Order had been satisfied. In response, the City did not directly answer the question, but rather, submitted that it was a matter of timing explaining that Clublink only requires final approval of the DPS to progress the development, not the ZBA. The Tribunal notes that timing was not set out as a condition in the Interim Order. To reiterate, the only prerequisite set out in the Interim Order to the issuance of final approval of the ZBA was receipt by the Tribunal of a draft ZBA, which the Tribunal has received.
26The easements on title that affect some of the lots and blocks on the DPS are not relevant to the Tribunal’s determination of whether the prerequisites for issuance of a Final Order have been satisfied. That said, the Tribunal will briefly address the submissions and evidence proffered. The Tribunal was not persuaded by Mr. Shen that assigning zoning potential to the lots and blocks impacted by the easements was inappropriate. As Mr. Dror noted in his Affidavit, easements control the use of land. It does not matter if the zoning schedule has assigned development potential to that land or if the land is zoned Parks and Open Space. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that final approval of the ZBA is appropriate because, until the easements have been addressed, the lands impacted by the easements are restricted regardless of the zoning permissions assigned to them. At the risk of being repetitive, resolution of the easements was not a prerequisite to the issuance of a Final Order.
27Similar to the Tribunal’s finding related to the easements, resolution of overland flow was also not a prerequisite to the issuance of a Final Order. Further, the Tribunal received reports and heard fulsome evidence at the original hearing related to overland flows and storm water management and found it was appropriately addressed through the numerous Draft Plan Conditions.
28Having considered the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal finds that there is no impediment to issuing Final Orders on the DPS and ZBA at the same time. The Tribunal agrees with the City that the ZBA and DPS are distinct processes, however, this does not prevent their concurrent approval. The Tribunal routinely approves zoning by-law amendments concurrent with draft plans of subdivision and there is nothing unique about the ZBA and DPS currently before the Tribunal that would preclude the Tribunal from approving both concurrently.
29The Tribunal agrees with Clublink that the City and KGPC appear to be reiterating arguments raised at the original hearing, being that final approval of the ZBA should be withheld until the DPS is in its final form. This was rejected by the Tribunal in its Interim Order and neither the City nor KGPC requested a review of the Tribunal’s Interim Order. The Tribunal was persuaded by Clublink’s evidence and submissions that should the ZBA require further revisions, the Draft Plan Conditions contemplate this possibility and the risk is that of Clublink’s, not the City or KGPC.
30The Tribunal notes with concern the City’s submission that no Final Order is required on the ZBA because, in its view, the proposed development will never proceed. This position reflects a disregard for the Tribunal’s Interim Order that is both surprising and troubling.
31The Tribunal notes that the Provincial Planning Statement (“PPS”) directs optimization of municipal infrastructure, storm water management and facilities. Thus, if the Municipality imposes unreasonable terms or states non-support or intransigence on matters of infrastructure and facilities that it controls, this may amount to frustrating the PPS and provincial objectives on development and good planning.
FINAL ORDER
32THE TRIBUNAL, having previously allowed the appeals, Orders that in accordance with s. 34(26) and s. 51(56) of the Planning Act,
a. The City of Ottawa Zoning By-law No. 2008-250, as amended, is hereby further amended in the manner set out in Attachment 1 to this Final 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 certified by Francis Lau of Stantec Geomatics Ltd., Ontario Land Surveyor, dated April 1, 2021 set out in Attachment 2 to this Final Order is hereby approved subject to the Draft Plan Conditions set out at Attachment 3 to this Final Order.
c. The City of Ottawa, pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, 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. In the event that there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the draft plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.
“C. Hardy”
C. HARDY VICE-CHAIR
“T.F. Ng”
T.F. NG VICE-CHAIR
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.