Bill 98: Ontario’s Latest Push to Accelerate Housing and Transit Infrastructure

To listen to an audio recording of this article, click here.

Ontario’s Bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026 (“Bill 98”) received royal assent on June 2, 2026. Bill 98 represents the most recent omnibus legislation by the Province of Ontario (the “Province”) aimed at increasing the housing supply by speeding up planning approvals. Bill 98 also includes a specific focus on transit infrastructure and changes in how existing and planned transit service is delivered.

Bill 98 was introduced following the March 30, 2026, announcement of a new partnership between the federal government and the Province to create more affordable homes, infrastructure and transit. This partnership will provide funding for infrastructure investments across the Province; the goal is to incentivize certain municipalities to substantially reduce residential development charges, thereby cutting the costs of new homes by up to $200,000 while bridging the gap to fund needed infrastructure improvements.

Bill 98 consists of nine schedules corresponding to legislation amended by the bill. Our focus is on changes to the Planning Act, City of Toronto Act, 2006, Building Code Act, 1992 (“BCA”), Development Charges Act, 1997 (“DCA”) and Municipal Act, 2001. We also review related Environmental Registry of Ontario (“ERO”) postings associated with these changes that signal further legislative changes to come.

Planning Act

Standardizing Official Plans

Bill 98 introduces a standardized structure for the contents of an official plan, including a prescribed list of 12 land use designations. The stated goals of this exercise are to make official plans simpler and easier to understand, more consistent across municipalities, more permissive, shorter and machine-readable. The amendments are aligned with the overall goal of encouraging housing and reducing processes associated with delays in the approval process.

Existing official plans are developed by municipalities through a public process and are intended to set out long-term goals and objectives for how that specific municipality will grow and develop in accordance with provincial plans and policies, including the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024. In stark contrast, Bill 98 requires municipalities to implement the new standardized official plan framework through amendments to existing official plans or as part of a new official plan.

Bill 98 includes the following transition deadlines for municipalities to complete their standardization exercises:

• By January 1, 2028, for the 29 largest and fastest-growing municipalities: Ajax, Barrie, Brampton, Brantford, Burlington, Caledon, Cambridge, Clarington, Guelph, Hamilton, Kingston, Kitchener, London, Markham, Milton, Mississauga, Newmarket, Niagara Falls, Oakville, Oshawa, Ottawa, Pickering, Richmond Hill, St. Catharines, Toronto, Vaughan, Waterloo, Whitby and Windsor.
• By January 1, 2029, for all other municipalities.

Until a new standardized official plan framework is adopted, existing official plans will remain in effect.

The prescribed land use designations in Bill 98 include designations – such as Neighbourhoods, Parks and Open Spaces, and Mixed Use Commercial Areas – that would be common in most municipalities. Others, such as Resource Areas, Rural Lands and Prime Agricultural Areas may simply be “not applicable.” It is unclear how the inclusion of designations that are not applicable will achieve the stated goal of making official plans easier to navigate.

Additionally, the Province continues to consult, through the ERO posting, on proposed standardized chapters and sections for official plans. Notably, the proposed list does not include sections which are commonplace in many municipalities, including those related to urban design and heritage conservation. The distinction between Mixed Use Areas and Mixed Use Commercial Areas designations further separates land use considerations at an official plan level, whereas previously such distinctions could have been made through zoning by-laws, allowing for area-specific tailoring of regulations. The latter-proposed Mixed Use Commercial Areas designation should be understood as reinforcing the Province’s definition for Employment Areas, which is now more narrowly focused on traditional, industrial employment uses.

The Province has indicated in its consultation documents that the new standardized official plan framework will come into force following additional consultation on secondary plans and upper-tier official plans, and has suggested that there may be “final refinements” made to the framework. The related ERO posting on this topic (see below) is intended to inform this process and, in particular, the role of secondary plans or site- and area-specific policies (“SASPs”), which provide area- or issue-specific policies in certain instances.

The move to standardize official plans across the Province could have a significant impact on municipalities, which will need to allocate resources and staffing to the exercise of standardizing plans that, in many cases, have been the result of years or decades of studies, consultation and refinements through amendments, settlements with landowners and litigation. Beyond this, it remains to be seen whether, and to what degree, the requirement for municipalities to apply a standard set of designations will require substantive changes to the operative policies in an official plan. For example, will the standardization of the contents of an official plan simply be window dressing or will it require comprehensive reviews and updates to the policies themselves?

While standardized official plans may be easier to navigate in theory, the short-term process of streamlining and the standardization exercise will likely present challenges for all stakeholders.

Climate Change Policies, Sustainable Design and EV Charging

Bill 98 removes the requirement that official plans contain policies identifying goals, objectives and actions to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and to provide for adaptation to a changing climate. Official plans may continue to include policies related to mitigating climate change, but municipalities are no longer required to address climate change in their official plans. Companion amendments to the Planning Act, Municipal Act, 2001, City of Toronto Act, 2006, and the BCA further restrict the tools available to municipalities to regulate development from an environmental perspective.

For example, Bill 98 has amended section 34 of the Planning Act so that a zoning by-law can no longer require electric vehicle supply equipment to be provided or maintained in connection with parking facilities. A similar restriction now exists in the site plan approval process (through amendments to section 41 of the Planning Act and section 114 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006).

Bill 98 also amends section 41 of the Planning Act and section 114 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, to scope a municipality’s ability to impose green construction standards, by removing reference to “sustainable design.” Related amendments have been made to the Municipal Act, 2001, the City of Toronto Act, 2006, and the BCA to repeal municipal authority to pass by-laws prescribing construction standards for the protection or conservation of the environment.

These changes will affect municipalities such as Toronto, which mandates “green standards” as part of its site plan approval process. In the absence of specific municipal requirements in the approval process, it is likely that the implementation of environmentally friendly standards will be largely driven by market demand.

Minimum Lot Size

Building on previous amendments to the scope of zoning by-law authority under section 34 of the Planning Act, Bill 98 has removed the authority to impose zoning standards related to minimum lot areas, lot frontages or lot depth on urban residential land outside of the Greenbelt Area.

In its media briefings, the Province stated that the intent of this amendment is to allow for the creation of smaller lots over time, thereby increasing the number of lots available for housing and making those new lots more affordable.

The new minimum lot dimensions will be prescribed by regulation and will override any zoning standards in effect in a municipality with respect to those standards. Through its related ERO posting, the Province has proposed a minimum lot size of 175 square metres or 1,900 square feet on parcels of urban residential land outside of the Greenbelt Area. 

This amendment is likely to have the greatest impact in ex-urban and suburban areas, where the magnitude of change for the size of lots will be greatest. Pressures on availability of servicing and other infrastructure needs is already an issue in some municipalities and will be exacerbated by this change. In larger urban centres, the proposed minimum lot sizes are more likely to have an impact over the longer term through infill development as existing residential areas respond to other policy changes including housing for the “missing middle.”

Our review of sample lot areas in a range of municipalities suggests that the proposed lot area minimum of 175 square metres accords to the minimum lot area for a single-unit townhouse development, for example, but would not account for larger lot area minimums applicable to multi-unit forms (i.e., duplex, triplex or fourplex) nor single or demi-detached homes. The disparity between the proposed minimum lot area of 175 square metres and lot areas for the latter form of housing suggests a very real impact on area character if municipalities are not afforded flexibility in its application. The interplay between prescribed minimum lot areas and official plan policies that speak to area character will be an interesting space to watch.

Site Plan Process

Through the ERO, the Province is consulting on major standard reforms to the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006, promising “bold and transformative” reforms, which could include the removal of site plan control as a planning tool in its entirety.

Other less dramatic proposed changes to increase efficiency of the site plan approval process include:

• imposing a maximum of three circulations before moving to a mandatory meeting to resolve all outstanding issues;
• further scoping the site plan review process to a standard checklist of items (such as those relating to health and safety);
• establishing a municipal arbitration process for applications that exceed the 60-day timeline and specified number of circulations; and 
• requiring municipalities to create site plan approval streams based on the type of proposed development (e.g., requiring less-complex developments to be a triaged to an expedited stream or exempted from site plan control altogether).

The changes above align with the Province’s goal of expediting the development approvals process. While many of the proposed changes are likely to result in a shorter site plan process, we anticipate greater scrutiny and caution during the rezoning process as staff will be less willing to defer matters of detailed design to the site plan phase. Further, if reducing the scope and timeline for site plan results in matters moving to arbitrations and/or site plan referrals to the Ontario Land Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), it is unclear whether the stated goal of expediting approvals will, in fact, be achieved.

Parkland

Bill 98 reflects another iteration of the Province’s ongoing efforts to update the parkland dedication scheme. Parkland dedication was first reviewed and amended in Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022. Bill 23 expanded the scope of lands that could be conveyed as parkland, including encumbered or stratified lands, and provided a mechanism for landowners to appeal to the Tribunal if the municipality refused to accept the conveyance. Passed in 2022, these amendments were not proclaimed into force with the balance of Bill 23. As such, both landowners and municipalities were left with uncertainty as to the ultimate parkland dedication scheme, with predictable impacts on planning processes particularly for larger sites and secondary plan exercises.

Bill 98 has brought forward a new subsection 42(4.35.1), which adds a ground for appeal to the Tribunal, requiring municipalities to respond to a landowner’s proposed conveyance in 90 days. If no response is received within the 90-day period, landowners are empowered to appeal the municipality’s non-decision to the Tribunal. The Tribunal now has the authority to deem the lands to count as 70% of the required parkland dedication (or greater, as determined by the municipality).

The Province is consulting through the ERO posting on prescribed criteria for lands that would be ineligible for parkland dedication. Ineligible lands could include contaminated lands, natural and human-made hazard lands or lands within and adjacent to natural heritage feature and areas. Requirements for land accessibility and comfort of use are also proposed, such as minimum frontage, accessibility and visibility, shadow and wind standards.

Many municipalities have historically accepted encumbered lands as parkland and have developed their own criteria for accepting such lands. Most municipalities have existing standards for acquiring parkland, and many have long-term plans to strategically deploy parkland reserves with targeted acquisitions.

The new parkland dedication amendments in Bill 98 are not currently in effect and will come into force on a date to be named by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The continued lack of certainty with respect to the overall parkland dedication scheme in the Planning Act remains a material factor in development applications and municipally led planning processes, and should be prioritized by the Province for resolution.

Simcoe County Becomes An Upper-Tier Municipality Without Planning Responsibilities

Bill 98 amends the Planning Act to provide that the County of Simcoe can become an “upper-tier municipality without planning responsibilities,” as defined in the Planning Act, in relation to lands in different lower-tier municipalities at different times. In this regard, the County of Simcoe is now an upper-tier municipality without planning responsibilities in relation to lands in the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury, the Town of Innisfil and the Town of New Tecumseth. As a result, these lower-tier municipalities inherit the County of Simcoe’s Official Plan (as an official plan of the lower-tier municipality), though each will be at liberty to amend and/or revoke the county’s plan/its policies. Further, these lower-tier municipalities are now their own approval authorities for all local amendments and approvals that previously would have required approval by Simcoe County Council.

Development Charges Act, 1997

Bill 98 amends the DCA by expanding the types of development exempted from development charges to include non-profit retirement home developments. This additional exemption specifically addresses the form of housing regulations under the Retirement Homes Act, 2010, and should not be confused with residential development geared to seniors, which may include enhanced supports and community features for aging in place.

Existing development exempted from development charges (“DCs”) includes affordable residential units (rental/ownership) and attainable residential units, non-profit housing development, inclusionary zoning residential units and long-term care homes.

The Bill 98 amendments to the DCA appear to be relatively minor in scope. However, with the federal and provincial announcements on infrastructure spending tied to significant DC reductions (which could be 30-50% over the next three years), we anticipate shifts in the way at least some municipalities approach the use of DCs as a funding tool to serve new development.

Stay Tuned: Further Changes to Come

Upper‑Tier Official Plans, Secondary Plans and SASPs (ERO 026‑0315)

This ERO posting suggests that the Province does not intend to eliminate these planning tools outright but rather scope and refine the application of each.

The consultation points to a clearer separation of policy by scale: regional matters at the upper‑tier level, secondary plans limited to defined areas or priority issues and SASPs confined to narrowly site‑specific circumstances. What remains unresolved – and worth close attention – is how prescriptive these distinctions become through regulation, guidance or ministerial oversight. Given the standardization of general official plan policies now prescribed by the Planning Act, it is reasonable to anticipate a similar regularization of secondary plans and SASPS, though how that will be applied given the varied nature of such tools remains to be seen.

Key Issues to Watch

Upper‑Tier Official Plans

The consultation correctly identifies a structural challenge for lower‑tier municipalities that rely on an upper‑tier official plan as their primary policy document. In these cases, a strict separation between “regional” and “local” policy would not be appropriate or helpful. Rather, a hybrid approach that ensures local land use designations and priorities continue to have a clear planning foundation should be the result.

Secondary Plans

The consultation suggests that future rules may materially constrain what secondary plans can address. Even modest limits may leave certain policy objectives without a clear landing place where they do not align with prescribed categories in official plans, increasing the risk that important local or context‑specific issues will be without policy guidance.

Site‑ and Area‑Specific Policies (SASPs)

Some municipalities use SASPs as an expedient way to implement policy initiatives that apply to a larger area but are not applicable across the municipality. It remains unclear how these existing policy frameworks would be reconciled within a standardized approach to official plan designations or how policy conflicts would be managed during transition.

While the Province’s stated objective is simplification, the ERO appropriately highlights transition as an important consideration. Moving away from layered and established policy regimes to a streamlined framework may create material gaps where municipal priorities are not fully captured. From a development applications perspective, policy realignment or uncertainty risks exacerbating, rather than alleviating, friction in the approvals process.

In summary, we will be watching where the policy lines are drawn – and whether a simplified framework can still respond effectively to complex local contexts and planning issues.

Complete Applications (ERO 026‑0313)

Through this ERO, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (“MMAH”) is exploring standardizing what planning authorities can require at the “complete application” stage, with requirements to be prescribed through regulation. The stated objective is predictability for applicants, while maintaining access to information municipalities need to evaluate applications. The proposal reflects an effort to narrow and streamline the front‑end of the approvals process by separating the issue of “completeness” from substantive review.

The proposed framework distinguishes between “core studies” – expected for most planning applications – and “contingent studies,” triggered by contextual factors such as proximity to airports, infrastructure or sensitive uses. This distinction will be central to how far municipalities can shape application requirements in practice.

Scope and Composition of the Prescribed List

A key issue is whether the prescribed list of studies is ultimately comprehensive or whether important categories of information are excluded or removed. Where studies fall outside the regulatory list, municipalities may lose the ability to require them at the completeness stage, even where they are considered essential to informed review. This could ultimately lead to negative reports, refusals or deferrals if municipalities do not have full information.

Alignment of Study Objectives

The consultation raises the question of whether the stated objectives for each prescribed study are appropriately framed to deliver the information municipalities typically rely on. If objectives are defined narrowly, there is a risk that materials may technically satisfy completeness requirements while falling short of supporting robust planning analysis.

Application‑Specific Requirements

Another issue is whether the regulations will clearly identify the studies required for different types of applications, or whether a single list will apply to all applications (official plan amendments, zoning by‑law amendments, site plan approval, draft plans of subdivision and consents). Without this clarity, disputes may simply shift from whether a study is required generally to when it can be required for a specific application.

Terms of Reference and Technical Standards

Perhaps the most consequential issue is whether terms of reference will continue to be set by municipalities or whether prescribing study types and objectives effectively introduces province‑wide technical standards. This would represent a significant shift, constraining municipalities’ ability to tailor scope, methodology or assumptions to local conditions and concerns.

Where future regulations ultimately land may not differ materially from current practice. For example, current practice would typically require an aeronautical report as a contingent study near airports, while a planning justification report would not be required for site plan approval.

We will be watching where future regulations land and if they differ materially from current practice, including whether standardization meaningfully limits what can be required for a “complete” application and if technical and contextual issues can be meaningfully addressed.

Prescribed Professionals (ERO 026‑0314)

As a companion to the Province’s complete application reforms, MMAH has introduced “prescribed professions” as a further limit on municipal intake discretion. As of January 22, 2026, professional engineers became the first prescribed profession, meaning studies and materials prepared and signed by a professional engineer must be accepted at intake and an application cannot be deemed incomplete on that basis, even where substantive concerns remain. While municipalities may still review and comment, disputes over quality are pushed to the application review stage.

The Province has indicated that the list of prescribed professions is expected to expand, reinforcing a broader shift away from the negotiated intake of development applications and toward a more rigid, regulation‑driven entry point. Unlike professional engineers, not all consultants engaged in the planning process have prescribed professional standards and governing legislation, which may ultimately limit how many “prescribed professionals” are identified.

Enhanced Development Standards (ERO 026-0309)

The Enhanced Development Standards proposal mirrors Bill 98’s broader approach of limiting municipalities’ ability to require sustainability and performance measures through land division conditions, instead confining such requirements to narrowly defined, provincially sanctioned circumstances.

Conclusion

As has been the case with much of the omnibus planning legislation forthcoming from the Province in recent years, many of the key amendments in Bill 98 await regulations to come into full force and effect, including but not limited to clarity on the parkland dedication scheme in the Planning Act. Further, the expansive list of consultation matters on the ERO posting associated with Bill 98 suggests that critical details – such as the content of standardized official plans and minimum zoning standards for lot area, frontage and depth – are yet unknown. 

Bill 98 has now received royal assent, but crucial aspects of its implementation remain undetermined.

The Municipal, Land Use Planning & Development Group at Aird & Berlis LLP will continue to monitor the implementation of Bill 98, including forthcoming regulations and related ERO consultations. If you have questions about how these changes may affect development approvals, municipal planning or infrastructure projects, please contact the authors or a member of the group.