Sharing an important update from Councillor Curry:
In my role as a municipal representative of the people of Kanata North and the people of Ottawa, and, as a person who is a member of two professional colleges, both of which expect their members to exercise a “Duty of Care” and a “Precautionary Principle” in their actions, I would like to share with you what that actually looks like in my activities over the past week. I have copied and pasted here an exchange of emails between myself and our City Manager and myself and our Chief Medical Officer of Health. Following those responses, I submitted a formal Council Inquiry to our General Manager of Planning, Marcia Wallace. I read it into the record at our City Council meeting yesterday. You can read it below as well.
Finally, I encourage you to read to the end of this newsletter because there have been other letters of support, advocacy and interest that you may be pleased to see.
Correspondence with City Manager Wendy Stephanson
Councillor Curry,
I am writing in response to your emails to myself and senior management over the weekend. At the outset, I acknowledge that recent events have caused considerable consternation within the community and have understandably raised further questions. In light of this, staff have coordinated their efforts to compile up‑to‑date information to address the issues you have identified.
I am also mindful that staff continue to be directed by the Council Resolution of January 28, 2026, which you moved, regarding next steps and options relating to the subject lands and the development approvals process. In this regard, I confirm that Marcia Wallace, General Manager, Planning, Development and Building Services Department, is the executive lead on this file and has established an integrated team across City departments to respond to the Council Resolution, while also providing ongoing monitoring and prompt response as may be required.
Approvals Status
ClubLink Corporation ULC (“ClubLink”) has received Draft Plan Approval and Zoning approval from the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). The next stage at which the City will have an approval role is the review and approval of detailed subdivision design. ClubLink has not yet completed that work, and Planning staff do not expect a submission for several months.
The City has not provided approval for the investigatory works currently being undertaken on the site, nor is City approval required for site investigations carried out in preparation for detailed engineering submissions. As always, ClubLink must comply with all applicable laws, including the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and other relevant legislation.
Stop Work Order
Section 444 of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides a general authority for municipalities to order the discontinuance of an activity that is in contravention of a municipal by‑law. However, this authority is subject to several limitations. Of particular relevance is paragraph (b) of subsection 142(5) of the Municipal Act, 2001, which provides that a municipal Site Alteration By‑law does not apply to:
“the placing or dumping of fill, removal of topsoil or alteration of the grade of land imposed after December 31, 2002 as a condition to the approval of a site plan, a plan of subdivision or a consent under sections 41, 51 or 53 of the Planning Act, or as a requirement of a site plan agreement or subdivision agreement under those sections.”
Based on staff’s understanding of the work occurring to date — namely, testing and investigation in furtherance of draft subdivision approval — staff advise that there is no contravention of the Site Alteration By-law. As such, the City does not have the legal authority to issue a stop‑work order under the Act. City staff will continue to monitor activities and should circumstances change such that a by-law or regulatory contravention arises, staff are prepared to act promptly using all available compliance tools, including a stop‑work or discontinuance-of‑activity order.
Drainage
Staff have shared the workplan provided by the developer with City engineers. The temporary works proposed at this stage relate only to testing. These activities will not affect the existing drainage patterns on the golf course lands or the surrounding subdivisions and will not impact drainage on adjacent properties. Staff have also reviewed the restrictive covenant relating to drainage. The covenant requires that drainage of the golf course lands not be altered in a manner that adversely affects neighbouring properties. As the developer is not making any material change to the existing drainage pattern and is not impacting adjacent drainage, staff have determined that to-date, there is no violation of the restrictive covenant.
Mercury
City staff have notified the local District Office of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), as well as Ottawa Public Health, of the proposed work. The Environmental Protection Act is administered and enforced by MECP and regulates soil, groundwater, and air contamination. Where contaminants are known or suspected, site investigations must be supervised by a Qualified Person (QP). QPs owe statutory obligations both under the EPA and under their respective professional legislation (Professional Engineers Act or Professional Geoscientists Act). City staff are engaging directly with the developer’s QP to ensure all work complies with the EPA.
Although there is no formal subdivision agreement in place yet, staff have requested details from the developer on how they will address Draft Plan Approval Condition #93, as imposed by the OLT. Staff expect a response early this week and will share it with your office.
The City’s Environmental Remediation Unit will review the response. Informally, staff currently understand that:
all excavated soil will be contained within silt fencing,
soil will be sampled and tested, and
any soil with elevated mercury levels will be removed and disposed of in compliance with the EPA and the excess soils regulatory framework.
City staff will continue to monitor activities, and should circumstances change such that a condition of draft plan approval or a regulatory issue arises, staff are prepared to act promptly using all available compliance tools.
Pre‑Construction Survey
A pre‑construction survey involves homeowners voluntarily allowing the developer’s engineering consultant to inspect and document the condition of a home’s foundation prior to construction. This minimizes any disputes related to potential vibration‑related damage.
Although this process is common when blasting is anticipated, the developer has confirmed that no blasting is planned for these works. They are offering the survey only as an added precaution for homes closest to the work areas. Participation is entirely voluntary and is not a City requirement.
That being said, staff understand that Promark-Telecon has also been contracted by the developer to provide utility locates, which is a mandatory requirement prior to this work, and may be approaching property owners about accessing lands in furtherance of this survey work.
Inspection
City Development Inspectors have been actively monitoring the site since the investigatory work began and will continue to make regular visits to ensure compliance with all legislative requirements. Staff will continue to share additional updates with your office as they become available.
I trust that the above information is helpful. As noted at the outset, staff are actively monitoring this file and will keep you informed of any developments.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.
Best,
Wendy
Wendy Stephanson CPA, CMRP
She, her, elle
City Manager | Directrice municipale
City of Ottawa | Ville d’Ottawa
613-580-2424 ext | poste 13192
My response
Dear City Manager Stephanson,
Thank you for your response and for outlining staff’s understanding of the current approvals’ framework and monitoring activities.
I am writing to follow up on several substantive risk and duty-of-care issues raised in my earlier correspondence that remain unresolved. My concern is not limited to whether a municipal by-law has been contravened, but whether the City is meeting its broader obligations to protect public health, drinking water systems, and the environment in the context of known mercury contamination and winter ground disturbance.
Specifically, I am seeking clarity on the following points:
- Risk Assessment and Winter Conditions
Has the City conducted, or received from the developer or its Qualified Person, any site-specific risk assessment addressing mercury mobilization under winter conditions, including snow cover, freeze–thaw cycles, and spring melt? If so, please identify the assessment and its conclusions. If not, please explain how staff have determined that proceeding at this time does not pose a credible risk. - Precautionary Principle and Timing
What analysis has been undertaken to determine that winter investigatory work on a known mercury-contaminated site is appropriate, as opposed to deferring intrusive ground disturbance until conditions allow for more reliable containment and monitoring? How has the precautionary principle been applied in this decision-making? - Containment and Enforcement
You note that staff “informally understand” proposed containment measures. What containment, erosion control, runoff management, and contingency measures have been formally reviewed and accepted by the City or relevant authorities prior to work proceeding, and through what enforceable mechanism are these measures secured at this stage? - Public Health and Drinking Water Protection
Beyond notification, has Ottawa Public Health provided any assessment or advice regarding potential exposure pathways or public health risk? As the owner/operator of municipal drinking water and stormwater systems, what steps has the City taken to independently satisfy itself that these systems are not at risk? - Authority Beyond the Site Alteration By-law
While I acknowledge staff’s interpretation of the Site Alteration By-law, please clarify what consideration has been given to the City’s authority and responsibilities under other statutory or common-law duties where there is a credible risk of environmental harm, including circumstances where monitoring alone may be insufficient.
To be clear, my concern is that work is proceeding in advance of clear, documented, and enforceable safeguards, with reliance on monitoring and future responses should “circumstances change.” In the case of mercury, once mobilization occurs, the harm may be irreversible and the City’s ability to respond meaningfully constrained.
I would appreciate a written response addressing the above points directly. Given the time-sensitive nature of the work and the potential consequences, clarity on these matters is essential.
Thank you for your continued attention.
Sincerely,
Cathy Curry
Councillor, Ward 4 – Kanata North
Correspondence with City of Ottawa Medical Officer of Health
Dear Dr. Trevor Arnason,
On behalf of the Kanata North Community, and out of concern for all of the residents of Ottawa, I am writing to request Ottawa Public Health’s urgent review and advice regarding proposed intrusive ground disturbance at the Kanata Lakes Golf Course site in Kanata North, a property with documented mercury contamination.
Mercury contamination on this site has been confirmed through Ontario Land Tribunal proceedings, with extensive conditions imposed related to environmental safety and risk management. Residents have now been advised that the developer intends to proceed with ground testing in the coming days, during winter conditions.
Given mercury’s well-established toxicity and the heightened risks associated with soil disturbance under snow cover and freeze–thaw conditions, residents have expressed serious concerns about potential exposure pathways, including:
- Mobilization of mercury-contaminated soils;
- Runoff during snowmelt entering surrounding lands and drainage systems; and
- Potential downstream impacts on drinking water and the broader environment.
As a City Councillor, I am concerned that disturbing contaminated soils before robust, fully implemented, and actively monitored containment measures are in place may pose a credible risk to public health, particularly where winter conditions may limit effective erosion control, monitoring, and rapid response.
I would appreciate Ottawa Public Health’s guidance on:
- Whether the proposed winter ground disturbance raises public health concerns given the presence of mercury contamination;
- What precautions, controls, or conditions would be required to adequately protect nearby residents and water systems;
- Whether OPH recommends that work be delayed or suspended pending further assessment; and
- Whether OPH wishes to formally review or comment on the proposed work and associated mitigation plans.
This request is made in the interest of ensuring that public health considerations are fully assessed before potentially irreversible environmental disturbance occurs. The concerns raised by residents are evidence-based and consistent with federal and provincial guidance regarding mercury exposure.
Given the imminence of the proposed work, I would be grateful for OPH’s timely input.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued work in protecting the health of Ottawa residents.
Sincerely,
Cathy Curry
City Councillor, Kanata North
City of Ottawa
Medical Officer Arnason’s response
Dear Councillor Curry,
Thank you for your message and for bringing forward the concerns of Kanata North residents regarding proposed ground‑disturbance activities at the Kanata Lakes Golf Course property at 7000 Campeau Drive.
Mercury contamination at this site has been documented through Ontario Land Tribunal proceedings. Oversight and regulatory authority for assessing, managing, and directing environmental mitigation or remediation activities rests with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP). MECP is responsible for evaluating contamination and determining whether proposed work poses risks to human health or the environment under the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act, and related provincial legislation. MECP also leads any response where there is a real or potential risk of harm to public health, safety, or the environment.
The evaluation of risks related to soil disturbance—including contaminant mobilization, runoff behaviour during freeze–thaw cycles, and impacts on surrounding lands or water systems—falls within MECP’s technical expertise and regulatory mandate. Decisions about whether work should proceed, be delayed, or be subject to additional controls or monitoring are made by MECP, the Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development, and the property owner and their environmental consultants.
OPH does not have a mandate to conduct environmental site assessments or to direct, halt, or approve contaminated‑site activities. The technical expertise and risk assessments sits with MECP, Public Health Ontario (PHO), and other provincial bodies with the legislated authority and scientific capacity to evaluate environmental exposure risks.
At this time, based on the information available to OPH, MECP has not requested any public health action, review, or intervention related to the proposed work at this site. OPH is not aware of information from MECP suggesting that additional public health measures are required.
OPH will continue to remain available to MECP and City partners should further information emerge or should MECP determine that public health input is required. If MECP identifies risks that warrant public health involvement, OPH will respond promptly and appropriately within our mandate.
Thank you again for sharing the concerns of your residents. Please do not hesitate to contact my office should you require further information or clarification.
Sincerely,
TREVOR ARNASON MSc, MD, CCFP, FRCPC
Medical Officer of Health / Médecin chef en santé publique
Ottawa Public Health / Santé publique Ottawa
My response
Dear Dr. Arnason,
Thank you for your response and for clarifying Ottawa Public Health’s mandate with respect to contaminated sites and provincial regulatory oversight.
I appreciate that MECP holds primary authority for environmental assessment and remediation decisions. My intent in writing is not to request that OPH direct or approve site activities, but rather to seek clarity on whether OPH has applied, or can apply, a public-health lens to the circumstances currently unfolding at the Kanata Lakes site.
Specifically, I would appreciate clarification on the following points, within OPH’s advisory and preventive mandate:
- Public Health Risk Consideration
Based on the information available to OPH, has any preliminary consideration been given to potential human exposure pathways associated with intrusive ground disturbance on a known mercury-contaminated site (e.g., runoff, dust, soil tracking, or downstream impacts), particularly under winter and spring melt conditions? - Uncertainty and Precaution
Where there is acknowledged uncertainty and the potential for irreversible harm from a neurotoxin such as mercury, how does OPH typically approach its preventive role in advising municipal or provincial partners, even in the absence of a formal request from MECP? - Triggers for Public Health Engagement
What types of information or conditions would ordinarily prompt OPH to provide proactive public-health advice or flag concerns to MECP or the City, short of assuming regulatory control? - Public Reassurance
Given the level of community concern, is OPH able to articulate—at a high level—whether it sees any plausible public-health concerns associated with the proposed work, or whether it has insufficient information at this time to form such a view?
My concern is that, while regulatory responsibility may rest elsewhere, residents reasonably expect that public-health expertise will be brought to bear where environmental activities have the potential to affect human health. Clarifying OPH’s perspective would assist both Council and the community in understanding how public-health considerations are being integrated into the broader oversight framework.
Thank you for your continued engagement. I appreciate your assistance in helping ensure that public-health considerations are clearly understood and appropriately reflected as this situation evolves.
Sincerely,
Cathy Curry
Councillor, Ward 4 – Kanata North
Council Inquiry
Finally, you can read my Council Inquiry below. You can view me reading that at Council yesterday on YouTube (3:58:35). It was important to formally submit this inquiry as it also addresses a long-term concern that councillors, residents and other municipal leaders all across the Province have had for decades regarding the reliance on developer-paid experts for testing and study results. Please take the time to read it. I understand from General Manager Wallace that staff will be working quickly to address the questions in my inquiry.
I have already been contacted by other municipal leaders who are watching this whole file carefully. I will remind all residents that the City has taken this case all the way to the Supreme Court twice. This is not something a municipality does lightly. That alone should indicate to residents all across Ottawa that there is significant concern regarding this piece of land and the court rulings. Please also take the time to read the letter from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.
Council Inquiry – Kanata Lakes Golf Course Lands (175 Acres)
Public Health, Environmental Risk, Precaution, and Independent Oversight
This inquiry concerns the Kanata Lakes Golf Course lands, comprising
approximately 175 acres of a site with documented mercury contamination within and beyond residential limits, as acknowledged through Ontario Land Tribunal proceedings.
Residents have expressed significant concern not only about the timing and nature of current ground-disturbance activities, but also about how risk is being assessed and by whom. Specifically, there is growing unease that environmental testing and monitoring are being undertaken by consultants retained and paid for by the developer, which may create a reasonable perception of bias, regardless of professional obligations.
My questions are intended to clarify how the City is ensuring independent, precautionary, and credible oversight across the entire contaminated site — and how public confidence is being safeguarded where potential harm may be irreversible.
QUESTIONS
Site-Wide Risk Assessment Across 175 Acres
Has the City received or conducted any site-wide risk assessment addressing mercury mobilization across the full 175 acres of contaminated lands in relation to the current and anticipated ground-disturbance activities?
- If yes, who prepared the assessment, under what authority, and what conclusions were reached?
- If no, on what basis has staff concluded that activities proceeding on any portion of the site do not pose a credible risk beyond the immediate area of disturbance?
Reliance on Non-Municipality-Retained Consultants
To what extent is the City relying on environmental testing, monitoring, and assurances provided by consultants retained and paid for by non-independent entities in determining that work may proceed safely on a known mercury-contaminated site?
Independence and Perceived Bias
While I recognize that Qualified Persons have professional and statutory obligations, what consideration has the City given to the reasonable perception of bias when assessments critical to public health and environmental safety are conducted by parties financially retained by the proponent?
Independent Third-Party Oversight
Has the City considered requiring or requesting independent third-party testing, peer review, or monitoring, retained by the City or another neutral body and not influenced by the developer now or in the future, particularly given:
- the incomplete assessment to date of the scale or location of contamination across 175 acres,
- the irreversible nature of mercury harm, and
- the level of community concern and the close proximity of thousands of homes?
- the recommendations of the Carp River Audit
- Winter Conditions and Mercury Behaviour
- What analysis has been undertaken — independent of the developer’s consultants — to assess how winter conditions, freeze–thaw cycles, and spring melt may affect mercury mobilization across the site, and why winter ground disturbance was determined to be appropriate rather than deferring work to less complicated conditions?
Application of the Precautionary Principle
Given the known contamination and uncertainty associated with mercury movement, how has the precautionary principle been applied in allowing work to proceed based largely on developer-provided information rather than independent verification?
Public Health Assessment and Independence
Beyond notification, has Ottawa Public Health provided or been asked to provide any independent public-health assessment of potential exposure pathways across the 175-acre site, and if not, why was such independent public-health input not sought?
Authority and Duty of Care
While staff have referenced limitations under the Site Alteration By-law, what consideration has been given to the City’s broader duty of care, including whether reliance on developer-retained consultants alone is sufficient where there is a credible risk to public health or municipal infrastructure?
Triggers for Escalation and Independent Review
What thresholds or trigger points would prompt the City to require independent testing or oversight, and how are those triggers being tracked and documented?
Accountability for Early Risk Identification
Finally, where responsibility is shared among the City, Ottawa Public Health, MECP, and developer-retained professionals, who is accountable for ensuring that credible risk across the full 175 acres is identified early, independently assessed, and addressed before harm occurs, rather than after?
Letters From Other Levels of Government
I am also grateful for the support of both Member of Parliament Jenna Sudds and Member of Provincial Parliament Karen McCrimmon. They have each written letters to City of Ottawa City Manager Wendy Stephanson outlining their concerns regarding the activities taking place on the golf course lands right now given the known mercury contamination.
Letter from MP Jenna Sudds
Dear Ms. Stephanson,
I am writing regarding the mercury testing planned to take place this week at the Kanata Golf Course by the Minto Construction Group.
I have heard directly from residents in our community who are deeply concerned about the potential environmental and public health risks associated with this testing. These concerns are serious and well-founded, particularly given mercury’s well-documented toxicity and the long-term consequences of disturbing contaminated soils without robust safeguards in place.
As Councillor Curry has outlined in her correspondence, disturbing mercury-contaminated soil without fully approved, implemented, and actively monitored containment and mitigation measures presents real and potentially irreversible risks. This concern is heightened by current winter conditions, which may further complicate proper containment and remediation efforts.
Given the level of concern being raised and the potential risks involved, I urge the City to exercise caution and intervene to pause this planned testing until residents can be assured that all necessary protections are firmly in place.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and to continued collaboration in ensuring the safety and well-being of our community.
Sincerely,
Hon. Jenna Sudds, P.C., M.P.
Member of Parliament, Kanata
Letter from MPP Karen McCrimmon
Dear Wendy,
I have been made aware of mercury testing that is planned to be undertaken this week at the Kanata Golf Course by the Minto Construction Group.
We have heard the concerns of members of our community who are deeply troubled by the proposed testing.
I wish to reiterate what Councillor Curry outlined in her letter to you over the weekend:
“Mercury is a well-documented neurotoxin. Disturbing contaminated soils without fully approved, implemented, and actively monitored containment and mitigation measures — particularly under winter conditions — presents a risk that is not speculative. Once mercury is mobilized through runoff or subsurface movement, the impact may be irreversible, and remediation may no longer be fully achievable.”
Mercury is a very dangerous substance that requires the highest level of professional monitoring and remediation by a reputable certified professional, not by untrained personnel. Mistakes handling mercury could have catastrophic consequences.
Your immediate intervention to stop this planned testing is required.
Kind regards,
Karen McCrimmon
MPP for Kanata-Carleton
Letter from Association of Municipalities
For those who do not know, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) is a non-partisan organization that represents Ontario’s municipal governments at the provincial and federal levels. They work on behalf of municipalities to advocate to the provincial and federal governments. The AMO influences policy development, education and training. In this case, they are advocating that the Attorney General of Ontario take a look at the current situation we are looking at with the loss of community greenspace that the municipality relied on and upon which it made many other significant planning decisions. This is a concern many municipalities are concerned with. Hence the great interest many other municipalities across Ontario and across Canada had in the City of Ottawa’s determination to take the 40% agreement case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada twice. You can read AMO’s letter here.
Thank you all so much for all of your letters of support and encouragement. Know that I am doing and will continue to do everything I can here to ensure community safety and to preserve the greenspace that Kanata North was built around. I will continue to keep you updated.
Councillor Cathy Curry