Austin, Quebec – Glenn Chamandy, the CEO of Gildan Activewear, and his wife Amel Murad are contesting a legal order requiring them to restore a property to its original agricultural state after constructing a private golf course, the Tribunal administratif du Québec (TAQ) heard Tuesday.
Chamandy and Murad, represented by attorney Isabelle Landry, argue that the July 17, 2025 order issued by the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec (CPTAQ) is “not well-founded,” according to court documents. The CPTAQ alleges unauthorized land use and the destruction of a protected maple grove during the golf course’s development.
Landry contended before the TAQ that the CPTAQ cannot definitively prove the land’s condition prior to the construction. “She cannot order today to make that choice [between cultivation and reforestation] if she is not able to demonstrate that it was the case before,” Landry stated, questioning whether the land was previously cultivated or left fallow.
A central point of contention revolves around a one-hectare area identified by the CPTAQ as a protected maple grove. Landry asserted that the area does not legally qualify as a maple grove, citing a forestry assessment prepared for Chamandy by engineer Jacques Lessard. “None of the stands were qualified as a maple grove by Jacques Lessard,” she told the tribunal.
Maximilien Dion, representing the CPTAQ, countered that Lessard’s assessment was limited to the boundaries of Chamandy and Murad’s property and did not encompass the entire forested area. He presented jurisprudence and forestry maps to support the CPTAQ’s claim, arguing that the presumption of a maple grove was not overturned by the engineer’s report. “The study of a forest stand must be done over the entire stand, regardless of lot boundaries,” Dion argued.
Landry also highlighted that approximately 200 trees, half of which were maple trees, had already been replanted on the property. She argued that the CPTAQ’s order for reforestation was redundant, as the land was already being reforested.
Dion dismissed this argument, suggesting the replanting appeared more akin to “decoration along a golf course” than a genuine reforestation effort, presenting photographs of the site to support his claim. He further stated that the CPTAQ would likely not have recommended the specific reforestation methods employed by Chamandy and Murad.
Beyond the disputed maple grove, the CPTAQ is seeking the removal of all non-agricultural installations, including earthworks, retaining walls, pipes, and tarps. Landry argued that the CPTAQ has not proven the original state of this land, and further contended that the grass installed on the property should be considered an “agricultural state.”
Dion acknowledged difficulty with Landry’s argument regarding the grass, but did not elaborate.
Chamandy and Murad are requesting the complete annulment of the CPTAQ’s order. Alternatively, they seek the annulment of the provisions concerning the maple grove and a clarification of the area requiring restoration, arguing that a significant portion is already in an agricultural state. The CPTAQ is seeking the complete rejection of the landowners’ appeal, maintaining that the original order is “well-founded.”
Administrative judges Annick Guérard-Kerhulu and François Boutin have reserved judgment and will render a decision at a later date. Separately, Quebec’s Environment Ministry is preparing a similar order against Chamandy and Murad concerning the destruction of a wetland area on the property, having issued a pre-notice of the order last week.
