a. Limiting complete application requirements
Municipalities may require developers to provide specific information and materials, including technical studies and reports, before deciding on certain planning applications (i.e. official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, site plan approvals, plan of subdivisions and consents). Without this information being submitted, an application is not deemed “complete” and the timelines for when a municipality must decide on the application or risk facing an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) do not run.
Bill 17 proposes to significantly restrict this authority by freezing a municipality’s ability to require information to that already identified in the municipality’s official plan, unless the municipality obtains written approval from the MMAH. Bill 17 further proposes to introduce regulation-making authority to limit the information that a municipality may require as part of a complete application. The proposed regulation, ERO No. 025-0462, identifies sun/shadow, wind, urban design and lighting studies among the list of prohibited topics, and also proposes to require a municipality to accept certain information and materials if they are prepared by prescribed professionals, such as professional engineers.
The Province’s stated purpose is to help create “more consistent and predictable requirements” across municipalities. This is likely a response to increased litigation at the OLT and courts on whether an application is deemed complete or not. While increasing predictability likely benefits both municipalities and developers, the issues that urban municipalities may face on planning applications (and thus the information requested) may vary widely from issues faced by rural municipalities. Likewise, a “blanket approach” to qualifying professionals as part of the complete application process (e.g. professional engineers may be qualified to address a wide variety of engineering disciplines) may simply defer the issue to further litigation at the OLT.
b. Permitting conditional Minister’s Zoning Orders
Minister’s Zoning Orders (MZOs) allow the MMAH to step into the shoes of a local municipality in passing zoning by-laws to regulate development of land in Ontario. As noted in our bulletin from 2020, the MMAH has increased the use of MZOs since the COVID-19 pandemic, with some MZOs being used to approve LTC homes and save local businesses, while others have been used to facilitate mixed-use developments, sometimes in the face of political and public controversy.
Bill 17 proposes to expand the MMAH’s authority by allowing MZOs to be approved, but suspended, until certain conditions have been met to the satisfaction of the MMAH. The MMAH may require the owner of lands affected by the MZO to enter into agreements relating to the conditions, which agreement may be registered on title and enforced against the owner and all subsequent landowners. If the MMAH determines that the conditions have been satisfied, the clerk of the local municipality will provide public notice within 15 days after being notified by the MMAH. Interestingly, the MMAH may also lift the suspension, and thus bring the permissions granted by the MZO in force, so long as he or she is of the opinion that the condition “has been or will be fulfilled”.
Given the concerns and 19 recommendations identified by the Auditor General of Ontario in her Performance Audit on MZOs, it will be interesting to see how the new MMAH will direct the use of MZOs, including conditional MZOs. For example, the Performance Audit noted how some municipalities requested specific conditions, such as ensuring a minimum number of affordable housing units or addressing environmental risks, as part of their support for the MZO but that this mechanism was not available to the MMAH to implement at that time.
c. Permitting minor variances “as-of-right” to setback requirements
Bill 17 will enable the MMAH to make regulations that permit certain minor variances to minimum setback distances set out in zoning by-laws “as-of-right”. To qualify for the “as-of-right” minor variance, the lands must be (1) outside of the Greenbelt area, (2) within a parcel of urban residential land (i.e. serviced lands zoned for residential use) and (3) not within 300 metres of a railway line or 120 metres of a wetland, shoreline, inland lake, or river or stream valley.
Bill 17 also introduces transition rules for the “as-of-right” zoning deviations established by regulation. The transition rules establish the minimum setback distance (1) as of the day a building permit is issued in respect of the building or structure, or (2) on the day the lawful use of the building use of the building or structure was established, in the case of a building or structure for which no building permit was required.
The Province is seeking public comment on the proposed regulation (ERO No. 025-0463) to permit variations from setback requirements, which are currently set at 10% (i.e. if the current minimum setback distance for a given property is 5m, the effective setback distance would be 4.5m). Although the intention of the change is to reduce delays to development, it is noted that minor variance applications often seek variances to not only minimum setback distances, but also to lot coverage, height and minimum landscaping. This may explain why the MMAH inviting feedback on expanding the “as-of-right” variations to other performance standards typically regulated in zoning by-laws.
d. Limiting affordable housing units required through inclusionary zoning
Concurrent with the introduction of Bill 17, the Province announced its decision regarding proposed amendments to O. Reg. 232/18, which came into effect on May 12, 2025 and were implemented by O. Reg. 54/25. O. Reg. 232/18 sets out the framework for municipal implementation of inclusionary zoning in Ontario.
Originally posted for public comment on October 25, 2022, the amendments to O. Reg. 232/18 introduce:
- a maximum 25-year period during which affordable housing units within a protected major transit station area must be maintained as affordable; and
- an upper limit on the number of units that can be required to be set aside as affordable within a protected major transit station area, set at either (1) 5% of the total number of units, or (2) 5% of the total gross floor area of the total residential units, not including common areas.
These changes apply to both rental and ownership affordable housing units.
The Province did not adopt a market-based definition of “affordable residential unit” in O. Reg. 232/18 as initially proposed in 2022. The regulation continues to require official plan policies to specify how affordable unit prices or rents are to be determined. Both the DCA, through the Affordable Residential Units for the Purposes of the Development Charges Act, 1997 Bulletin, and the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 define “affordable residential unit” with reference to both market-based and income-based approaches.
e. Permitting schools “as-of-right” in urban residential areas
Bill 17 would restrict municipal official plans and zoning by-laws from effectively prohibiting the use of a parcel of urban residential land for elementary and secondary schools or “any ancillary uses to such schools”, which specifically include child care centres. The Province has also exempted the placement of school portables on a school site from site plan control, which was previously limited only for school sites in existence on January 1, 2007.
f. Other potential planning changes
Although not identified in Bill 17, the Technical Briefing notes that the Province is looking into future changes that may affect the Planning Act, including consulting on opportunities for making provincial policy tests inapplicable to all of the MMAH’s decisions and updating the provincial growth planning guidance, which was last updated in 1995, to better align municipal growth with provincial forecasting.
