On June 5, 2025, the Ontario government gave royal assent to Bill 17, the Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025 (“Bill 17”). Bill 17 made amendments to a number of pieces of municipal and planning legislation, namely the Building Code Act, the Development Charges Act, and the Planning Act.

The preamble to Bill 17 sets out its stated goals. As its long name suggests, the changes introduced by Bill 17 emphasize “speeding up the construction of infrastructure and homes” and increasing housing supply, highlighting the simplification and standardization of “municipal development approval processes” as their chosen means to these ends.

As described below, these goals have manifested in amendments that reduce the permissible scope and effect of municipal by-laws, provide for many new matters to be governed by regulation or other provincial authority, introduce new economic advantages for residential developments, and reduce procedural requirements.

Changes to the Building Code Act, 1992

Changes to the Building Code Act, 1992 (the “BCA”) are set out in Schedule 1 to Bill 17. Generally, the changes appear to be geared towards a reduction or simplification of BCA rules. In broad terms, Bill 17 eliminates the need for “dual approval” of innovative building materials, systems and designs, and seeks to standardize construction rules across the province by prohibiting municipalities from enacting by-laws respecting the construction and demolition of buildings.

No More Dual Approvals for Innovative Materials

The Building Materials Evaluation Commission (the “Commission”) is the regulatory agency created under section 28 of the BCA. Ordinarily, the Commission has legislative powers and duties under subsection 28(4) to research and examine construction materials, systems and building designs, authorize the use of innovative materials, and advise the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (the “Minister”) on changes to the BCA or the building code. The BCA previously provided for an exception to the Commission’s authority to do in subsection 29(8), which prohibited the Commission from exercising its subsection 28(4) powers if “a materials evaluation body designated in the building code has examined or has expressed its intention to examine an innovative material, system or building design.” The building code designates the Canadian Construction Materials Centre of the National Research Council of Canada (the “CCMC”) as a materials evaluation body for this purpose in section 2.4.1.1(1) of Division 2, Part 2 of the Building Code, O. Reg. 332/12.

Bill 17 introduces a change whereby the subsection 29(8) prohibition against the Commission exercising its “innovative material” powers is repealed, and re-enacted as subsection 28(6). Instead of an open-ended reference to a “materials evaluation body” prescribed in the building code, the new subsection 28(6) references the CCMC explicitly. This effectively codifies the CCMC as the alternative public body examining innovative materials, rather than referencing a list in the building code, which may be subject to change. The Minister’s ability to designate materials evaluation bodies is also removed by Bill 17 from its regulation-making powers under section 34 of the BCA.

More importantly, clause 29(1)(a), which previously allowed the Minister to make a ruling approving the use of an innovative material once it had been examined by the CCMC, is also repealed by Bill 17. The result is the elimination of the need for “dual approvals.” Previously, while the Commission would not have needed and in fact would have been prohibited from examining an innovative material that had been examined by the CCMC, a ruling from the Minister approving the material would nonetheless have been necessary. Under the new scheme, innovative materials need to be examined and approved by either the CCMC or by the Commission in exercise of its subsection 28(4) powers, but not both.

Clarification of Municipal By-law Making Powers

Bill 17 introduces subsection 35(1.1), which purports to clarify sections 9-11 of the Municipal Act, 2001 and sections 7-8 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. These sections bestow broad powers upon municipalities generally and the City of Toronto, respectively, including the powers of a natural person and the power to enact by-laws. However, subsection 35(1.1) of the BCA now specifies that these provisions “do not authorize a municipality to pass by-laws respecting the construction or demolition of buildings.” The subsection states that it is made in pursuit of “greater certainty” relating to subsection 35(1) of the BCA, which proclaims the BCA and the building code to “supersede all municipal by-laws respecting the construction or demolition of buildings.” At least one municipality, in providing feedback on Bill 17, has raised concerns that this change may “render local green building standards obsolete.”

Although this new subsection, by its terms, simply clarifies existing law, its goal appears to be the requirement of further uniformity across the province in the rules regulating the construction or demolition of buildings and the avoidance of differences between municipalities. While the previous subsection established the BCA and building code’s primacy over municipal by-laws, the provincial government appears to have been concerned with the potential for interpretations it views as overly expansive, without more specific language. The clarification offered by Bill 17 more narrowly suggests that by-laws relating to construction matters are impermissible and thus have no effect in general.

Note that no court decision has yet been made on the interpretation of these subsections, neither under the previous nor current iterations of the legislation.

Changes to the Development Charges Act

Changes to the Development Charges Act (the “DCA”) are set out in Schedule 4 to Bill 17. Notably, Bill 17 introduces a new exemption for long-term care home developments. More complex, however, are changes:

• which expand the types of capital costs that can be excepted by regulation from inclusion in the amount of a development charge;
• which expand the types of development charge by-law amendments that can be made without appeal;
• which change and clarify the payment scheme for rental housing and institutional developments;
• which prescribe a new “on occupancy” payment scheme for non-rental residential developments;
• which change the date at which development charges may be determined;
• which carve out exceptions to a municipality’s ability to withhold a compliant building permit despite outstanding development charges; and,
• which allow for regulations to expand the scope of services to which credits can be used, and to define which services constitute “local services” for related conditions to be imposed by municipalities for site plan approval.

These changes introduce flexibility in the determination and timing of development charges, and improve advantages for “rental housing” and “institutional” developments. Municipalities’ discretion is largely reduced in the issuance of certain building permits, and with many matters being newly governed by regulation, though it is broadened respecting minor amendments to development charge by-laws.

Expansions to Capital Cost Exceptions

Bill 17 expands the Minister’s regulation-making powers. Subsection 5(3) sets out a number of expenses to be included as “capital costs” in determining a development charge. Previously, this subsection allowed for regulations to be enacted providing for exceptions to a specific type of capital cost—the costs of acquiring land or an interest in land. Exceptions could thus not be prescribed for the numerous other capital costs provided for by subsection 5(3). For example, the costs to improve land, or to acquire, construct or improve buildings on the land. Bill 17 expands the regulation-making power to allow the Minister to prescribe exceptions for all types of capital costs.

More Amendments to DC By-Laws Without Appeal

Bill 17 also impacts appeal rights under the DCA, and expands the types of by-laws a municipality can enact without being subject to such appeal rights. The DCA provides for a number of appeal rights and procedural requirements for the enactment of development charge by-laws. Subsection 19(1) extends the application of these requirements to development charge by-law amendments as well. Previously, subsection 19(1.1) only excepted such amendments from procedural requirements and appeal rights in certain circumstances—where the effect of the amendment was only to repeal or push back the date on which the by-law expires. However, Bill 17 expands these exceptions and provides that appeal rights and procedural requirements also do not apply to amendments that affect whether a development charge is or is not indexed, or that decrease the amount of a development charge for a type of development.

Changes to Payment Scheme for “Rental Housing” and “Institutional” Development Carve-Outs

While section 26 of the DCA requires that development charges for most developments are payable on the issuance of a building permit, section 26.1 sets out unique rules for select developments. Rental housing developments and institutional developments have historically been carved out as payable in six annual instalments, rather than being fully payable on the issuance of the related building permit.

Bill 17 sets out the following changes to the payment scheme, which, as of the date of writing this article, are not yet in force, and will only be effective on a date to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor in council.

In cases of annual instalments, Bill 17 appears to suspend and freeze their accrual of interest, providing that interest may be charged on such payments “only to the extent that the interest being charged had accrued before” the day Bill 17 came into force.

As well, previously a change in the type of development away from being one of the two carve-outs would cause the development charge, and interest accrued, to be due immediately rather than continue on the annual instalment scheme. Bill 17 repeals this subsection. Thus, a change in development type for a rental housing or institutional development will no longer accelerate such instalments.

Bill 17 also clarifies that development charges may be paid in advance. The previous verbiage in the DCA may have suggested advance payment to only be available where the payor and the municipality enter into an agreement under section 27 of the DCA providing for the same. The new subsection 26.1(12) clarifies that advance payment is permissible even in the absence of such an agreement.

New Payment Scheme for “Residential” Development Carve-Out

Bill 17 introduces new rules surrounding development charges for non-rental residential housing developments. Note that, as of the date of writing this article, these changes are not yet in force and will only be effective on a date to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The changes to section 26.1 under Bill 17 carve out a third type of development: “residential developments” which are not rental housing developments. However, Bill 17 explicitly states that such residential developments are not subject to the “six annual instalment” payment scheme. Rather, the new residential developments are payable “on occupancy”—that is, on the earlier of the date the permit for occupancy is issued by the municipality, or the date of actual occupancy of the residential development. Bill 17 also introduces the unique possibility that the municipality requires the person subject to the development charge to provide some form of financial security for its payment, subject to circumstances and limitations to be prescribed by regulation.

“Residential” development charges, being governed by section 26.1, would also presumably be subject to the provision allowing advance payment under subsection 26.1(12).

Changes to the Date of Calculation of Development Charges

Section 26.2 sets out rules governing the date as of which development charges ought to be determined under a development charge by-law. It provides for three scenarios for development charges to be determined: as of the date an application is made for site plan approval (the “SPA Date”), as of the day an application for a zoning by-law amendment is made (the “ZBA Date”), or as of the issuance of a building permit (the “BP Date”). Section 26.2 provides that development charges are to be determined as of the BP Date only if neither of the SPA Date or the ZBA Date applies. The DCA goes on to list some circumstances in which the SPA Date and ZBA Date do not apply.

Bill 17 introduces a new circumstance in which the SPA Date and the ZBA Date do not apply. Under subsection 26.2(5.2), if the total amount of development charges due, determined as at the SPA Date or ZBA Date, exceeds the amount that would be determined as at the BP Date, then the SPA Date or ZBA Date provisions do not apply. In other words, where the amount determined as at the BP Date is the lesser amount, the SPA Date and ZBA Date do not apply, and thus the BP Date would be the applicable determination date.

Requirement to Issue Building Permit

Under section 8 of the BCA, municipalities are required to issue building permits provided the proposed development complies with applicable law. Previously, the DCA has provided for a circumstance to the contrary, in section 28: that a municipality is not required to issue a building permit unless all development charges have been paid.

Bill 17 amends section 28 to provide exceptions to this. Note that, as of the date of writing of this article, the following changes are not yet in effect, and will only be effective on a date to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Following Bill 17, a municipality will still not be required to issue a building permit until all development charges have been paid, except for development charges in relation to developments under section 26.1 or under a section 27 agreement. Thus, a municipality may be required to issue a building permit related to rental housing developments, institutional developments, or (now) other residential developments despite the applicable development charges not having been fully paid.

No exceptions are provided for development charges in regard to any other permits under the BCA, however, in which case the municipality is not required to issue the permit if the development charges have not been paid in full.

Credits and Local Services

Section 38 of the DCA provides for a municipality to enter into an agreement for a person subject to a development charge to perform work towards a service in relation thereto. The municipality must then give the person a credit towards the related development charge. Section 41 of the DCA specifies that a credit may be used only with respect to that part of a development charge that relates to the service in question.

Bill 17 expands the services for which a credit may be used. It provides for regulations to be enacted deeming two or more services to be one service. A credit for related work can then be used with respect to that part of a development charge that relates to any one of those services. As of the date of writing this article, it does not appear that any such regulation has yet been enacted.

Subsection 59(1) also prohibits municipalities from directly or indirectly imposing a development charge or a condition to construct a service related to a development as conditions to approval of a plan of subdivision or a consent application under the Planning Act. Subsection 59(2) provides exceptions to this, allowing municipalities to impose such conditions or agreements for the installation of or payment for “local services.”

Bill 17 newly provides for regulations to be enacted specifying what constitutes a “local service” for this purpose. Once such regulations are enacted, this change will reduce ambiguity and introduce uniformity in this previously undefined term.

Changes to the Planning Act

Changes to the Planning Act (the “PA”) are set out in Schedule 7 to Bill 17. In brief, the changes:

• preserve the ability to develop urban residential land for school uses;
• restrict municipalities’ abilities to change their information requirements for planning applications and to refuse to consider such applications in certain circumstances;
• introduce a new “minimum setback” to reduce setback distances and thus reduce minor variance applications;
• except portable classroom placements on school sites from requiring site plan approval; and,
• expand the Minister’s power to issue orders relating to the use of land and construction of buildings with related conditions.

These changes largely reduce municipalities’ discretion in planning matters, specifically relating to school uses and setback distances, and increase the Minister’s power to exercise municipal authority.

Protections for School Uses

Bill 17 introduces protections for elementary and secondary schools and similar institutional uses. Under the new subsection 16(3.2.1), municipalities cannot include a policy in their official plan that prohibits the use of a parcel of urban residential land for an elementary school, a secondary school, or any ancillary uses. To the extent a municipality’s official plan contains such prohibitions, it is of no effect. Similar restrictions are imposed on municipalities’ by-law-making powers under section 34—section 35.1.1, introduced by Bill 17, specifies that municipal authority under section 34 does not include the authority to enact by-laws prohibiting the use of a parcel of urban residential land for elementary or secondary schools or ancillary uses. To the extent municipal by-laws contravene this prohibition, they are of no effect.

Changes Relating to the Provision of Information

Many changes introduced by Bill 17 relate to the provision of information in support of an application to amend, e.g., an official plan, a zoning by-law, etc.

Firstly, Bill 17 introduces a temporary restriction on municipalities’ amendments to certain provisions of an official plan. A number of provisions throughout the PA require applicants seeking an amendment to or approval of certain planning instruments to provide to the municipality “any other information or material” the municipality considers necessary. In order for this information to be mandatory, however, municipalities must include provisions relating to such requirements in their official plan. For instance, subsection 22(5) provides for potential “other information” to be required by a municipality, subject to its official plan, for an amendment to the official plan. Subsection 34(10.2) provides similarly for an application to amend a by-law passed under section 34, and subsection 41(3.4) provides similarly for approval of a site plan application.

The new subsection 17(21.1) provides that municipalities may not, without written approval from the Minister, amend such official plan provisions relating to “other information” that may be needed for such applications. Note that this requirement for written approval from the Minister is temporary, and that subsection 17(21.1) shall be repealed on a date to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Bill 17 also provides regulating authority to the Minister relating to a municipality’s ability to the requirements for such “other information,” enabling the Minister to specify which information is or is not required, despite provisions in a municipality’s official plan to the contrary.

In a regulation proposal, the provincial government stated its goal with such changes to be the creation of “more consistent and predictable requirements across municipalities, and suggested potential regulations reducing the number of studies that make up a “complete application” for municipal development proposals. Specifically, it was proposed to not require studies on the following topics:

• Sun/Shadow (impact of shadows cast by a proposed development);
• Wind (impact of proposed development on wind conditions in surrounding areas);
• Urban Design (including how proposed development aligns with municipal urban design guidelines or policies); and,
• Lighting (lighting and lighting levels on-site, including lighting fixtures proposed on the exterior of the building).

Note that as of the date of writing this article, no regulation has been enacted specifying the need or lack thereof for the above (or any other) studies, information or materials.

As well, Bill 17 introduces presumptions that, if such “other information” is prepared by certain persons “authorized to practise a prescribed profession,” the applicable requirements are deemed to have been met. Thus, while municipalities may refuse to further consider an application or request for amendment until the required information has been provided, such requirements will be deemed to have been met if the information supplied has been prepared by prescribed professionals. Note that as of the date of writing this article, a regulation listing the relevant “prescribed professionals” has not been enacted.

Minimum Setback

Bill 17 makes changes to the minimum setback of developments on urban residential parcels. The new additions define a “setback” to mean 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 [section 34 of the PA].”

The new subsection 34(1.4) states that the “minimum setback” is deemed to be the “prescribed percentage of the setback distance.” Thus, while municipalities define the applicable minimum setback in their by-laws, the changes introduced by Bill 17 allow for the Minister to reduce, by regulation, the required minimum setback to some percentage of the by-law setback distance.

Note that, as of the date of writing this article, it does not appear that a regulation has been enacted specifying the prescribed percentage. The provincial government did engage in a regulation proposal for “as-of-right variations from setback requirements” in accordance with Bill 17. The public consultation proposed a 10% prescribed percentage. Under such a regulation, minimum setback distances for urban residential parcels outside of the Greenbelt Area would thus be 90% of the distance specified in the applicable municipal by-law, and developers could build up to such distances “as-of-right.”

The province stated in its proposal that this reduction would permit “as-of-right” variations to setback requirements, meaning “that there would be fewer applications submitted and fewer hearings for minor variances before a municipal committee of adjustment for these proposals.”

The changes in Bill 17 also specify that the applicable minimum setback distance would be determined on the issuance of a building permit or, if no building permit is required, on the establishment of the lawful use of the building or structure. Thus, any subsequent changes to the prescribed percentage for the minimum setback distance would not apply retroactively to developments.

Site Plan Approval for School Site Developments

A small but impactful change introduced by Bill 17 is the removal of previous verbiage that specified that the placement of portable classrooms did not require site plan approval for school sites “in existence as of January 1, 2007.” This “in existence” language has been removed, meaning the site plan exemption is no longer restricted to older school sites only. Under the new changes, portable classrooms may be placed on any school site of a district school board without the need for site plan approval.

Ministerial Conditions on Land Use and Building Construction

Paragraph 47(1)(a) of the PA provides authority for the Minister to exercise any of the municipal by-law-making powers in the PA with respect to any land by issuing an order to that effect.

Bill 17 expands these powers, providing in subsection 47(1.0.1) that the Minister can, in such an order, impose such conditions on the use of land or the construction or buildings or structures as in its opinion are reasonable. In doing so, the Minister can require the landowner to enter into an agreement relating to the imposed conditions, which can be registered against and run with the land, to be enforceable against the landowner and subsequent purchasers of the land.

If conditions are imposed on the land use under subsection 47(1.0.1), use of or construction on the land is suspended until the imposed conditions have been complied with. If the Minister is satisfied the conditions have been complied with, the Minister must provide notice to the clerk of the municipality, who must then provide public notice within 15 days of such compliance.

The provincial government explained the impact of these changes succinctly in a public proposal as providing the Minister “with authority to impose conditions (i.e., on municipalities or proponents) that must be met before a use permitted by a Minister’s zoning order comes into effect.”

Kitchener-Waterloo Lawyers for Municipal and Planning Matters

Bill 17 introduces complex and impactful new considerations for municipalities and developers alike in navigating land development issues. At Duncan, Linton LLP, our team of skilled municipal lawyers are knowledgeable about these changes and can provide helpful guidance to any client seeking to learn more about the new amendments to Ontario’s legislative planning scheme. To speak with a lawyer, please contact us online at [email protected] or by phone at 519-886-3340 to make an appointment.