Salvation Army denies misleading council over shelter

The Salvation Armysays it's been entirely transparent with Ottawa city councillors about who owns the Montreal Road property where itwants to build a 350-bedfacility.

The previous council approved the charity's plan for 333 Montreal Rd. in November 2017. It includes a140-bed emergency shelter, an emergency medical clinic and space for other programming aimed at vulnerable clients.

Last week, Coun. Mathieu Fleuryurged his colleagues on the current council to reverse that decision,citingthe recent discoverythat the Salvation Army didn't actually own the property when the application was approved.

Fleury argues the previous council made its decision without having all the facts. The current council, which has five new members, could reverse the decision with a simple majority vote.

• Marathon meetings for Salvation Army plan end in tears and an approval
• Fleury urges council to overturn Vanier shelter decision

Last week, a Salvation Army spokesperson acknowledged the "oversight," but said the documents indicated there was a conditional offer to buy the property pendingrezoning approval.

The rezoning is now on hold while the province'sLocal Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) hears an appeal from community members.

On Wednesday, the Salvation Army issued an open letter to "address a number of accusations and misinformation presented by Coun. Fleury and reported by Ottawa media."

Spokesperson Glenn van Gulik said Fleury was told at apublicplanning meeting that the Salvation Army doesn't own the site, but has made a "firm conditional offer."

He said a staff report to the planning committee was updated to reflect the conditional purchase.

"Planning Committee, City Council and the public had the clear facts," van Gulik wrote, calling the Montreal Road facility "an important place of hope and transformation" that will provide health care, education, jobs and shelter to vulnerable citizens.

Opponents who prefer to focus on permanent housing say the proposed facility isthe wrong service model in the wrong location.

Fleury's motion is expected to be discussed June 26.