Mayor Gillingham's Gamble: What Does It Mean for Winnipeg's Future

Winnipeg is going to court. Anyone paying attention knew this was coming.

Mayor Scott Gillingham and a majority of council chose to ignore a clear recommendation from the Manitoba Municipal Board on the Granite Curling Club land. They overruled provincial oversight, dismissed a condition designed to protect a long-standing community institution, and pushed through a zoning by-law anyway. The predictable result is now in front of the courts, with taxpayers once again footing the bill.

This did not happen by accident. It was the product of a deliberate choice by the mayor and his council allies to treat the Municipal Board as optional rather than authoritative. That choice speaks volumes about how this council views accountability and its own limits.

The Granite Curling Club operates on city-owned land at 22 Granite Way. It is a non-profit organization with deep roots in Winnipeg. Council rezoned part of its west parking lot to allow a 123-foot residential development. The Municipal Board reviewed the file and made its position clear. The rezoning should proceed only if a specific condition was adopted to ensure adequate parking and protect the club’s ongoing operations. The Board stated plainly it would not recommend passage of the by-law without that condition.

Council ignored it.

Instead, Mayor Gillingham and his supporters passed By-law 36/2025 without the required safeguard. They relied on advice from the city’s own public service to justify doing so. The result is a legal application asking the court to quash the by-law as invalid and beyond the city’s authority. The club is also seeking an injunction to stop development permits and is arguing the city breached procedural fairness by refusing to hear its submissions.

None of this should surprise anyone who has watched city hall operate over the past several years.

When the Municipal Board agrees with council, its role is praised. When it disagrees, council suddenly discovers technical arguments to explain why the Board can be ignored. That is not principled governance. It is convenience dressed up as legal reasoning.

The city’s argument hinges on a distinction between zoning and development permits. That distinction may sound clever in a briefing note, but it does not change the underlying issue. The Board exists to provide independent oversight and consistency in land-use decisions. Council does not get to treat that oversight as advisory when it becomes inconvenient.

What makes this worse is who council chose to listen to.

The advice to disregard the Board did not come from independent legal counsel retained for an objective assessment. It came from internal planning staff. This is the same system where the public service drafts policy, interprets it, defends it, and then advises politicians on whether oversight bodies can be brushed aside. That concentration of influence is unhealthy, and it has already cost Winnipeg dearly.

The Parker Lands case should have been a warning. The city pushed a weak position through the courts, lost, and taxpayers absorbed millions in costs. That loss was driven by internal certainty rather than external scrutiny. Today, council is walking the same path, convinced once again that its interpretation will prevail.

This is not how serious cities govern.

Most members of council, including the mayor, are not planners, lawyers, or development experts. That is not an insult. It is reality. Their role is to weigh evidence, listen to expertise, and make decisions within a defined legal framework. When they begin to believe they can substitute their judgment for provincial oversight, supported by the same bureaucracy that benefits from that power, governance breaks down.

Business leaders understand this instinctively. Investment follows predictability. Developers, lenders, and institutions want to know the rules will not shift based on internal politics. A city that overrides a provincial board today and prepares for litigation tomorrow sends the opposite signal. It tells the market that decisions can hinge on who has influence inside city hall rather than on stable, enforceable processes.

That uncertainty hurts everyone, including the city’s own financial position.

Winnipeg depends heavily on provincial funding for transit, housing, infrastructure, and operations. It cannot credibly argue that it stands above provincial oversight while simultaneously asking the province to write cheques. That contradiction weakens the city’s standing and invites conflict where cooperation is needed.

There is also a broader planning failure on display. CentrePlan 2050 requires development near the Granite Curling Club to support the club’s operations or building maintenance. Council brushed past that requirement as well. This was not a balanced decision. It was a narrow one, driven by pressure to approve density at almost any cost.

Winnipeg does not need fewer checks and balances. It needs better ones.

This is why the city needs a real planning commission. Not an advisory panel, not another internal committee, but an independent body with expertise in land use, transportation, economics, and development. A commission that evaluates proposals based on evidence, not ideology. A commission that gives council clear, defensible recommendations and reduces the risk of costly overreach.

Other cities use this model because it works. It separates technical analysis from political pressure. It protects council from bad advice and protects taxpayers from expensive mistakes. Most importantly, it restores confidence that decisions are being made within the rules.

The Granite Curling Club case did not need to end up in court. Council chose that outcome. It chose to ignore the Municipal Board, silence a stakeholder, and gamble with public money.

Strong leadership is not about testing boundaries for the sake of ego. It is about knowing where those boundaries are and respecting them. Winnipeg cannot grow, attract investment, or maintain credibility with this style of governance taking root at city hall.

This fight was avoidable. The next one should be too.