Ottawa city council voted 21 to 3 to direct staff to explore options to protect the Kanata Golf and Country Club lands from urban development, including the possibility of acquiring the property. The motion, moved by Kanata North Coun. Cathy Curry, asks staff to report back on lawful, voluntary measures such as acquisition or conservation easements, subject to council approval and budget authority.
Councillors Jessica Bradley, Shawn Menard, and Stéphanie Plante opposed the motion. Coun. Steve Desroches was absent for the vote.
What council approved
Curry’s motion asks council to adopt a policy position that residential or other urban development on the Kanata Lakes Golf and Country Club lands, as referenced in a 1981 agreement, would be inconsistent with the planning framework under which Kanata Lakes was developed. It directs staff to explore options to secure long-term protection of the lands as open space through voluntary, lawful measures and to return with recommendations for council consideration.
The greenspace in this area was fundamental to the rest of the development of Kanata. Kanata is one of the most highly developed parts of our city and it continues to be. Since I have been councillor alone, there have been almost 10,000 units approved. There’s no shortage of housing applications in Kanata North, nor will there ever be.
Coun. Cathy Curry
Legal background
The Campeau Drive site has been the subject of protracted litigation. Last September the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the City of Ottawa’s appeal of an Ontario Court of Appeal decision, a move that effectively cleared the way for up to 1,500 homes on the golf course lands. The Ontario Court of Appeal had found a 1981 agreement between the former City of Kanata and Campeau Corporation, which sought to reserve 40 per cent of the property as green space, to be inoperative.
ClubLink and developers Minto Communities and Richcraft Homes filed an application with the city in 2019 proposing homes with a minimum of 25 per cent green space.
Having 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 routinely approves zoning bylaw 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.
Ontario Land Tribunal
The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a final order this week, finding that prerequisites set out in its 2022 interim order had been satisfied and dismissing the argument that technical issues should delay final zoning approval. The tribunal also expressed concern about the city’s earlier submission that no final order on the zoning bylaw amendment was required because, in the city’s view, the proposed development would never proceed.
This position reflects a disregard for the Tribunal’s Interim Order that is both surprising and troubling.
Ontario Land Tribunal
The tribunal warned that unreasonable terms, non-support, or intransigence by the city could be considered contrary to provincial development objectives set out in Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement.
City response and next steps
Mayor Mark Sutcliffe said the greenspace commitment was a central part of how the surrounding community was developed, and that many residents bought homes expecting the space to be preserved. City staff said they are reviewing the tribunal’s final order and will report back as directed by council.
This is a very, very specific set of circumstances where it wasn’t just a golf course. It was promised as greenspace that the community could use. The community counted on that commitment. People bought homes on the assumption that that greenspace would be maintained. They heard the words ‘in perpetuity.’ They went into it with good faith and now they’re learning that ‘in perpetuity’ doesn’t mean forever.
Mayor Mark Sutcliffe
Curry’s motion requires staff to identify lawful, voluntary options that could include outright acquisition of the property, conservation easements, or other arrangements that protect the land long term. Any proposed action would be subject to council approval and budgetary constraints.
Why this matters
The decision pits competing priorities: protecting neighbourhood greenspace and respecting development approvals and tribunal rulings. For residents around the golf course, the outcome will determine whether a large swath of land remains open or is transformed by a major housing development that backers say includes significant green space.
Council’s motion does not stop the tribunal process, but it signals the city’s interest in pursuing ways to retain open space. Staff now must evaluate options and costs, then return recommendations that council can approve or reject.
The city’s next report will be closely watched by homeowners, developers and provincial officials who have an interest in how planning rules and tribunal decisions intersect with local policy choices.
