Ottawa hopes Canada’s Supreme Court can save Kanata golf course

Time is running out: In January the City of Ottawa learned that its appeal to try and stop development on the Kanata Golf and Country Club was dismissed by Ontario’s Court of Appeal.

So what’s the problem? It’s a technical legal challenge. The city has argued a 1981 agreement signed with then-land owner Campeau requires 40 per cent of the property to be kept as open greenspace. But the Court of Appeal called it  “inoperative” and “to be considered void,” reported CTV. 

A part of their reasoning was due to a previous ruling. The Ontario Land Tribunal in 2022 stated that the proposed redevelopment of the golf course is “consistent with both the city’s Official Plan, and the public interest,”. That provincial ruling also declared that Clublinx — who bought the course in 1997 — shouldn’t be “saddled with a perpetual obligation” to operate a golf facility, wrote the Ottawa Citizen. 

What’s proposed: In 2018 Clublinx said operating golf courses was no longer a viable option, and said the large number of golf courses in the National Capital Region made it tough to compete. It would like to build 1,480 housing units, including townhouses, apartments, detached and semi-detached homes. The owners have also stated they would set aside 32 per cent of the current site for parks, woods and open spaces.

But is it even possible? Nearby residents and opponents say no. They have argued the site can’t withstand so much development in the small area. What would happen, they say, is stormwater management concerns which could flood basements in the area. Rain currently drains onto the greenspace. 

• “In 2018, all we heard was criticism that it was a NIMBY [or, not in my backyard] argument. It’s never been a NIMBY argument. It has been an argument about a violation of a strategically created and planned community,” Barbara Ramsay, whose house backs onto the course, told CBC.  

Developers decades ago said no: Kanata North Coun. Cathy Curry told the Lookout that when the community was built in the 80s, developers thought development could not occur on that 40 per cent of land because it was too rocky. 

She said the golf course being lost to more development would provide residents with fewer places to take part in outdoor activities and questions how Ontario’s courts are reading into the previous agreements. 

“They knew in advance that it was very difficult land to build on, but perfect for a golf course and greenspace for the community. Later on, hectares of forest were cut down all across Kanata North and thousands of houses were built,” explained Curry.

“At the time the community was not okay with all of these forests cut down. But their understanding was, at least we had this 40 per cent  that would always in perpetuity remain as greenspace. And now the courts have decided there's a strange little sentence in there that leads people to believe that maybe there was the intention for housing to be built there one day, when in fact, that is not the understanding by anyone who was involved or helped to write that agreement.“

What happens next? At a community meeting at the beginning of February, Ottawa Mayor Mark Sutcliffe said the city would be appealing the decision with the Supreme Court of Canada. 

• “The Supreme Court of Canada is a justice court and hence the reason why our city solicitor said, this needs to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada because it will look at the entire situation,” said Curry. “Because of a comma or a word or something else, there could be this confusion and that's not just. And that is why we say to the Supreme Court, we need to have you look at this because this is about integrity. “

City Solicitor Stuart Huxley said it made sense to appeal the ruling because “voiding municipal contract provisions raises questions of significant public interest and importance as ultimately this is about upholding the decisions made by elected municipal councils, past, present, and future, and ensuring that the contractual commitments made with municipalities in good faith are respected.”