On May 12, 2025, the Honourable Rob Flack, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Minister), introduced Bill 17—the Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025 (Bill 17). On June 5, 2025, Bill 17 received royal assent. As a whole, Bill 17 is an omnibus bill that amends multiple statutes with respect to infrastructure, housing and transit, aiming to accelerate the construction of infrastructure and homes while supporting economic and community growth.
Notably, Bill 17 amends the following statutes:
Bill 17 is part of what has become a long line of legislation from the province of Ontario looking to improve the land use planning process (and related legislation around the development of lands). As with other such legislation, the overall intent is to accelerate construction in Ontario (in this case, by enabling construction to be "faster and smarter"). As will be touched on below, whether the province will achieve this goal will be dependent not only on the language of the legislation but its implementation at the municipal level.
New subsection 17(21.1) of the Planning Act adds that the council of a municipality or a planning board shall obtain written approval from the Minister before adopting an amendment to an official plan that adds, amends or revokes its official plan for various planning applications. Specifically, these changes apply to complete applications for official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, site plan control, plans of subdivision and consents. Similarly, these changes are mirrored in the site plan control provisions located within the City of Toronto Act, 2006. Bill 17 further clarifies that any official plan amendment adopted on or after May 12, 2025 without ministerial consent, is deemed to not have been adopted, which appears to be an effort to reduce municipalities imposing new requirements prior to the legislation coming into effect.
This is an example of the amendments aiming to limit "gatekeeping". In this case, Bill 17 would restrict a municipality's power in determining what is required for a complete application, aiming to reduce inconsistencies in the scope, type and number of studies or reports required for planning applications.
In an attempt to create more consistent and predictable requirements across municipalities, the province has also proposed new limits on the information and material required by a municipality for an application for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, site plan control, a plan of subdivision or consent. Specifically, the following studies may not be required as part of a complete planning application:
The province solicited feedback on these proposed regulations up until June 26, 2025; however, no comments or results have been published as of the date of this paper.
It is important to note that these limits are being proposed as it relates to a complete application only at this time. In other words, it will still be left to "good planning" for a municipality to request additional information as part of a land use planning process. The key difference is that the applicants will have the right to refuse to provide such additional information (at the risk of a refusal). In some ways, these gatekeeping amendments are a step back to the Planning Act as it was prior to the amendments that started in the 2000's, where application requirements started to get much larger.
New subsection 34(1.4) provides that, subject to subsection 4(1.5), a "minimum setback distance is deemed to be the prescribed percentage of the setback distance." Section 34(1.7) clarifies that "setback distance" means the "distance that a building or structure must be setback from a boundary of the parcel on which the building or structure is located in accordance with a by-law passed under this section." Put differently, this provision will provide an automatic permitted reduction in minimum setbacks.
As of the date of this paper, the prescribed percentage is not yet available. However, the province is consulting on a new regulation that contemplates prescribed percentages of up to 10 percent.
This policy could be quite helpful in providing immediate relief to owners who find that they need a quick adjustment to a permitted setback, or owners of lands who in the future obtain site specific zoning by-law exemptions that then later need such setback adjustments. However, the general benefit of this section is still up in the air—if, for example, over time municipalities adjust their as of right setbacks such that they now account for the prescribed reduction, then the vast majority of properties will ultimately see little benefit from this provision.
It is important to note that there are also transition periods to these setbacks—subsection 34(1.6)—such as for a building with an existing permit. In addition, subsection 34(1.5) establishes general exemptions where a building or structure is located in: (i) the Greenbelt Area; (ii) a parcel of land that is not a parcel of urban residential land; or (iii) a parcel of land in an areas prescribed for the purposes of subsection 41(1.2) of the Planning Act.
Subsections 22(6.0.1) (official plans), 34(10.3.1) (zoning by-laws), 41(3.5.1) (site plan control), 51(19.0.1) (subdivision of land), and 53(4.0.1) (consents) of the Planning Act and subsection 114(23) (site plan control) of the City of Toronto Act now state that certain requisite information and materials provided as part of a development application are deemed to meet the applicable requirements if the information or material is prepared by a person authorized to practice a prescribed profession.
This is another of the proposed amendments to limit "gatekeeping". In this case, it was not uncommon for municipalities to get into the process of both dictating the "how" a qualified professional had to draft their reports, but also to get into the content of their reports prior to the filing of an application (where the appellant has more limited appeal rights). These changes could have significant benefits to filing applications if the regulations ultimately establish a significant list of prescribed professionals.
The Province has introduced new provisions preventing official plan policies and zoning by-laws from prohibiting the use of urban residential land for elementary or secondary schools operated by school boards, as well as related uses like childcare centres within those schools.
Section 47 of the Planning Act outlines the powers of the minister with respect to zoning and subdivision control, typically referred to as MZO's. New subsection 47(1.0.1) permits the minister to impose conditions on the use of land or the erection, location or use of buildings or structures if, in the opinion of the minister, such conditions are reasonable. "Conditions" is drafted rather broadly, similar to powers given to municipalities when approving minor variances or consents. In the context of minor variances, such powers have been upheld as providing significant flexibility in their enforcement, although courts have also tied them back to require a reasonable nexus with the applicable request in the underlying application.
The legislation also empowers the minister to secure such conditions through an agreement that can be registered on title. The legislation also makes it clear that where conditions have been set, the MZO is suspended until the minister is satisfied that the condition has been or will be fulfilled and, once the minister is satisfied, the minister shall provide notice to the clerk of the local municipality.
The overall intent of this provision appears to be to provide the Minister with a mixture of the old "s.37" authority and the power to zone with conditions. The impact of this power will depend greatly on the activity level of the minister in issuing MZO's.
One of the more interesting amendments in Bill 17 are the changes to the Building Code Act (BCA).
In particular, Bill 17 stipulates that municipalities will no longer have the authority to pass by-laws that impose construction rules and standards that extend beyond the provincial Building Code. Section 35 of the BCA currently contains a paramountcy provision which delineates that the BCA and the Building Code supersede all municipal by-laws respecting the construction or demolition of buildings. However, new subsection 35(1.1) takes this one step further by clarifying that sections 9, 10, and 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001 and sections 7 and 8 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, do not authorize a municipality to pass by-laws respecting the construction or demolition of buildings.
Potentially, such a provision could have a significant impact on the cost of construction in Ontario. However, many municipalities justify imposing such standards through other general powers. As a result, construction projects frequently face inconsistent code and standard requirements depending on the municipality, with the Toronto Green Standards being a leading example.
Municipalities are already starting to give an indication that they will look for means to get around this restriction, such as securing green standards through means other than by-laws, such as development agreements.
Bill 17 introduces a new section 4.4 to the Development Charges Act (DCA), which provides that the development of any part of a building or structure intended for use as a long-term care home is exempt from development charges subject to transition provisions.
Bill 17 amends subsection 19(1.1) to remove the need for a development charge study where an amendment to a development charge by-law's only effect is to: (i) repeal a provision specifying the date on which the by-law expires or to amend such a provision to provide for the by-law to expire on a later date; (ii) repeal a provision providing for the indexing of a development charge or to amend such a provision to provide for a development charge not to be indexed; or (ii) decreases the amount of a development charge that is payable for one or more types of development in the circumstances specified in the amendment.
A new development charge deferral was introduced through subsection 26.1(3.1)—shifting the timing for the payment of development charges for any residential development that is not rental housing—specifically moving it to the earlier of (i) the day a permit is issued authorizing occupation of the building; or (ii) the day the building is first occupied. This is much later than the previous requirement that payment be due (by default) upon first building permit. The municipality may require the person required to pay the DC charge to provide an instrument to secure the payment of the charge.
Changes were also made as it relates to the calculation of interest where there is a "DC Freeze" (in short, the concept that the DC rates are set at the timing of certain events, most typically site plan application). Bill 17 amends the legislation such that on a go forward basis, interest will stop accruing in the deferral periods.
In addition, new section 26.2, provides that in the event that the DC rate triggered by the "freeze" plus interest would exceed the current DC rate, the owner would benefit from the current DC rate. This appears to be intended to address the clearly unintentional world where some owners were paying development charges through the "freeze" that were greater than current DC rates. It is unknown whether certain municipalities will continue to attempt to circumvent this rule by forcing owners into s.27 agreements to agree to greater DC rates (this is typically done by leveraging the power of conditional building permits).
That said, legislative changes to 26.2 clearly indicate that developments are subject to the lower of two possible DC rates: the previously frozen rate (adjusted by interest, if applicable) or the prevailing current rate at the time of building permit issuance. In practice, by allowing developers to pay the lesser of the frozen or the then current rate, the amendment aligns more closely with the purpose of reducing unintended cost escalations.
Bill 17, pursuant to subsection 59(1.2), introduces a new regulation-making authority to empower the province to create regulations specifying what constitutes a "local service." Local services generally refer to infrastructure that is not subject to development charges (and therefore also cannot be the subject of development charge credits). In the absence of a clear definition, municipalities currently interpret and apply the concept differently, leading to inconsistent treatment across jurisdictions.
A definition has not been set; however, the definition chosen could have a wide range of impacts. For example, if the new definition is more restrictive, then while more infrastructure work could benefit from DC Credits, the municipality in question may increase the amount of its DCs to cover this additional infrastructure. Other changes have been proposed to attempt to limit DC increases, but past attempts to do so have generally proven not to be successful over an extended period of time where municipalities have been determined to drive up DC rates.
The Building Transit Faster Act, 2020 expedites the delivery of four transit projects of provincial significance by removing barriers and streamlining processes, which includes construction of the Ontario Line, the Scarborough Subway Extension, the Yonge Subway Extension and the Eglinton Crosstown West Extension.
Section 2 of the Act has been amended to strike out the definition of "priority transit project" and replace it with "provincial transit project." Section 2 defines a provincial transit project as a transit project that Metrolinx has authority to carry out and includes a project that, immediately before the day subsection 1 (2) of Schedule 2 to Bill 17 came into force, was a priority transit project. Practically speaking, the effect of this amendment is the expansion of the types of projects that may benefit from the Act.
Bill 17 amends subsection 31 of the Metrolinx Act, 2006 by adding new subsection 31.0.1, which states that the Minister of Transportation may direct a municipality (or its municipal agencies) to provide information and data that, in the Minister's opinion, may be required to support the development of a provincial transit project or transit-oriented community project. This could include data, contracts, reports, surveys, plans and other documents that the Minister of Transportation believes are necessary to support a provincial transit project or transit-oriented community project.
While making a number of administrative changes of importance to the province and its operations, Bill 17 also allows the Minister or a delegate to enter into agreements with landowners that are required to support a transit-oriented community project. Such agreements may be registered on title and enforced by the Minister of Infrastructure or the municipality against the landowner and all subsequent owners by virtue of subsection 4.1(4).
Bill 17 does not include any changes to the Ministry of Infrastructure Act that would be of particular interest to most private land use development.