Bill 33 amends The Planning Act and The City of Winnipeg Charter to standardize when and how planning disputes go to The Municipal Board and to clarify what records the Board may use. The bill prescribes firm time limits for reviews and hearings, creates a duty to publish Board reports, and makes certain Board orders final and not subject to appeal.
The bill also rewrites the statutory regime for livestock operations: it defines “authorized changes,” creates a process for zoning memoranda, allows a limited (15%) increase in animal units for supply‑managed operations without a new conditional use approval, and adjusts thresholds and procedural rules for large‑scale operations (notably a 300 animal‑unit threshold). Other changes expand what counts as a minor subdivision and repeal several provisions that previously allowed costs or compensation for administrative delays.
The package shifts decision-making dynamics between councils, planning authorities and the Municipal Board and will reshape administrative workloads and judicial review exposure for affected stakeholders.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the Municipal Board to complete reviews of referred zoning and secondary plan matters within 120 days and to issue orders within 60 days after hearings conclude; it limits the Board to the planning authority's record (no new evidence), requires publication of reports, and makes certain Board orders final. It also creates a statutory process for "authorized changes" to livestock operations (including a 15% cap for supply‑managed operations) and raises or clarifies thresholds for large‑scale livestock and minor subdivisions.
Who It Affects
Municipal councils and planning authorities in Manitoba, The Municipal Board (and its casework processes), developers and applicants for zoning amendments and subdivisions, and livestock operators—especially those under supply‑management quota schemes and operations near the 300 animal‑unit threshold.
Why It Matters
Professionals should watch the bill because it redefines procedural timelines and finality for land‑use disputes, narrows the evidence scope at Board reviews, and creates a streamlined pathway for modest livestock expansions—changes that alter risk, litigation exposure and operational planning for municipalities, proponents and farm operators.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 33 reorganizes how planning disputes move between municipal decision‑makers and The Municipal Board. When a by‑law or proposed by‑law attracts “sufficient objections,” the local board or council must refer the planning authority record to The Municipal Board and notify everyone who participated in the local hearing.
The Board's new mandate is sharply procedural: it must review only the materials that are already in the record, publish its report quickly, and deliver recommendations or orders on a compressed timeline. Where a formal hearing is required, the Board must hold it within 120 days of receiving the objection and then make an order within 60 days after the hearing ends.
The bill closes the door on new evidence at the Board stage and, in several circumstances, removes appeal routes once the Board’s report or order has been considered.
On livestock, the bill establishes a clearer statutory definition for “authorized changes” to existing livestock buildings and creates a two‑track rule between operations subject to supply management quotas and those that are not. For both categories, an authorized change requires a zoning memorandum from the planning district or municipality that confirms conformity with the zoning by‑law and states permitted animal units before and after the change; supply‑managed operations may increase animal units up to 15% without applying for a new conditional use, provided they obtain the memo.
The bill also consolidates the treatment of large‑scale operations by using a 300 animal‑unit threshold to trigger more rigorous Division 2 procedures and adjusts what counts as a minor versus non‑minor change.The City of Winnipeg Charter is amended in parallel to align the city’s referral, notice and Board‑hearing rules with those in The Planning Act. The bill standardizes what counts as the “planning authority record,” requires the Board to publish its report to the Board’s website within seven days of submission, and prevents councils from passing a by‑law referred to the Board without having considered the Board’s recommendations or complied with any Board order.
Transitional provisions preserve the status of in‑flight applications so that matters started under the old rules finish under those rules.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Municipal Board must complete a review based on the planning authority record and submit a report within 120 days after a referral (77.2 and 236.1.7.2).
When the Board conducts a hearing, it must hold the hearing within 120 days after receiving an objection and issue an order within 60 days after the hearing concludes (78(3), 78(6), 270(2)–(3)).
The bill defines "authorized change" for livestock operations and allows up to a 15% increase in animal units for parts of operations subject to supply management, contingent on a zoning memorandum and other conditions (72.1(2.4)).
An operation involving 300 or more animal units is subject to Division 2 procedures and a narrower set of minor‑change exemptions (new section 110.1 and related amendments to sections 111 and 118.1).
The Municipal Board's decision in specified referral/hearing contexts is final and not subject to appeal; councils cannot give third reading to a by‑law until they have considered or complied with the Board's report or order (78(8)–(9), 270(5)–(6), 236.1(9)).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Sets timeframes, narrows evidence and formalizes referrals to the Municipal Board
This cluster of amendments rewrites how and when planning matters reach the Municipal Board. It prescribes deadlines (120‑day review windows and 60‑day decision windows after hearings), defines the planning authority record that the Board may use, bars the Board from taking new evidence in reviews that are record‑based, requires publication of Board reports, and links Board recommendations or orders to whether councils can proceed to third reading. Practically, this restricts the Board to the administrative record and forces quicker, more final outcomes.
Creates 'authorized change' process and 15% cap for supply‑managed units
Section 72.1 introduces definitions and a stepwise approval mechanism: to qualify as an authorized change, an operator must obtain a zoning memorandum confirming conformity and the permitted animal‑unit counts before and after the change; the change cannot increase animal units by more than 15%. The rule distinguishes between supply‑managed and non‑supply‑managed operations and permits intensification within supply‑managed portions under the capped increase.
Establishes 300 animal‑unit threshold and clarifies when Division 2 applies
The bill makes a 300 animal‑unit threshold the dividing line for stricter conditional‑use processing (Division 2). Minor changes for operations at or above that threshold are limited, and certain applications to change conditional uses for large‑scale operations must follow the Division 2 process unless they concern a narrowly defined list of conditions. Several timelines and appeal notice windows for these matters are extended to 120 or 60 days where previously shorter periods applied.
Expands the definition of "minor subdivision" and adjusts administrative timing
Minor subdivision is redefined to include single‑parcel splits that create one new parcel, consolidations that don't add titles, and some multi‑unit developments subject to party wall agreements, provided they conform to plans and create no new public roads or provincial access changes. The change streamlines low‑impact lot adjustments but keeps conformity and access constraints as gating conditions.
Aligns Winnipeg’s referral, notice and hearing process with provincial rules
The City of Winnipeg Charter is amended to mirror the Planning Act changes: the city must refer sufficiently objected‑to proposed by‑laws to The Municipal Board with the relevant planning records; the Board must conduct record‑based reviews within 120 days; hearings have the same 120/60‑day structure; Board reports must be published; and council cannot pass a referred by‑law until it has considered or complied with the Board's recommendations or orders.
Preserves in‑flight applications and removes certain cost/delay remedies
Transitional clauses keep applications started before proclamation governed by the old rules. The bill also repeals several provisions that previously allowed compensation for delays or costs when matters were before the Municipal Board, and removes provisions tied to delayed permits, narrowing grounds for monetary remedy related to administrative lag.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Supply‑managed livestock operators — They can increase animal units up to 15% for parts of their operation subject to quota without seeking a new conditional use, lowering permit friction for modest expansions provided they obtain a zoning memorandum.
- Applicants for certain minor subdivisions and low‑impact consolidations — The expanded definition of "minor subdivision" creates a clearer, faster pathway for single‑parcel splits, title consolidations and some multi‑unit parceling that do not create new public roads or change provincial access.
- Developers and proponents seeking predictable timelines — The statutory 120‑ and 60‑day windows and the prohibition on new evidence at record reviews reduce uncertainty and the opportunity for protracted evidentiary fights, potentially speeding project timelines.
Who Bears the Cost
- Municipal councils and planning departments — They must compile and transfer comprehensive planning authority records for referrals, respond to Board timelines, and may lose some local decision autonomy where the Board’s report or order is binding.
- The Municipal Board — The Board faces increased caseload pressure and compressed deadlines; meeting the 120/60‑day targets may require more resources, stricter triage of files and greater reliance on record quality.
- Nearby landowners and objectors — The restriction on new evidence at the Board stage and the finality of some Board decisions limit opportunities to introduce late‑breaking information or to pursue appeals, which reduces procedural levers for neighbours concerned about incremental changes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill confronts a classic trade‑off: it prioritizes predictable, fast, administratively final outcomes by tightening timelines and limiting evidentiary reopening, but in doing so it reduces local decision‑maker discretion and curtails appeal and remedy pathways—improving certainty for proponents while constraining neighbours and potentially straining administrative capacity.
The bill trades procedural certainty and speed for reduced local flexibility and curtailed review options. By confining the Board to the planning authority record and making some Board outputs final, the statute narrows post‑decision review paths; that aids predictability but raises fairness questions where new, material evidence emerges after the local hearing.
The statutory timelines (120 days for reviews, 60 days for orders) will compress administrative workflows for councils and the Board alike and may produce decision quality risks if record‑building at the municipal level is uneven.
Key implementation questions remain. The bill requires “sufficient objections” to trigger referral but does not define that term in the text included, so municipalities will need clear procedural guidance or regulations to avoid inconsistent referrals.
The zoning memorandum requirement for authorized livestock changes centralizes a critical gatekeeping step but leaves open how municipalities verify projected animal‑unit counts, how enforcement will occur, and how overlapping provincial agricultural regulation intersects with municipal zoning for supply‑managed commodities. Finally, repeals of cost and delay compensation narrow remedies for stalled applicants but shift pressure onto administrative capacity—if the Board or municipalities miss deadlines, affected parties have fewer statutory options.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.