The Act enacts the Measures Respecting Premises with Illegal Drug Activity Act, 2025 and amends multiple statutes to give police and provincial authorities new instruments for disrupting drug production and organized vehicle theft, tighten bail and surety reporting, broaden who can apply for restraining orders in family and children matters, and alter how provincial judges are selected and where they must sit early in their careers.
For practitioners and organizations, the practical impacts are concrete: police gain explicit powers to seize evidence and close non‑residential premises immediately when a prescribed drug offence is alleged, recover enforcement costs from landlords who knowingly permit drug activity, and forfeit seized items; landlords become subject to strict liability-style penalties but retain a defence if they can show they took reasonable measures; and the Inspector General can impose urgent interim measures on police governance boards — including suspensions and administrative appointments — during ongoing inspections. Several regulatory delegations and thresholds (bonds, timelines, classification periods) create compliance and litigation vectors that property owners, police services, courts and counsel will need to manage.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Act makes it an offence for a landlord to knowingly permit premises to be used in production or trafficking of controlled substances (prescribed by regulation), authorizes immediate police closure of non‑residential premises on charge, permits seizure and forfeiture of evidence and proceeds, and allows recovery of enforcement costs. It also adds reporting obligations for bail sureties, creates new interim enforcement tools for the Inspector General over police boards, tightens special‑constable employment rules and changes judicial appointment procedures.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are landlords of residential and commercial properties, police services (including the OPP), police service boards and the Inspector General, the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee and judicial candidates, and businesses that make or sell vehicle security equipment. Criminal defence lawyers, property managers and municipalities will be directly involved in appeals, restorations and cost disputes.
Why It Matters
The package shifts enforcement emphasis from longer criminal processes to administrative closures, seizure and financial pressure on property owners — a tactical change that can remove premises from alleged criminal use quickly but raises new litigation, restitution and human‑rights issues. The Act also centralizes stronger provincial oversight of policing governance and narrows mobility expectations for newly appointed judges, altering recruitment and governance dynamics.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Measures Respecting Premises with Illegal Drug Activity Act creates a stand‑alone provincial regime that targets places used for drug production or trafficking. The Lieutenant Governor in Council will specify by regulation which federal offences count as “prescribed offences.” If police reasonably believe such an offence is occurring at non‑residential premises, they may immediately close and bar entry to the site once a charge is laid, seize items that are evidence or proceeds, and ultimately have those things forfeited to the Crown if no successful restoration application is made.
The Superior Court of Justice can order reopening but may require conditions, including a cash bond (the schedule gives $10,000 as the baseline), and courts can order relief from forfeiture only when the applicant neither participated in nor benefited from the offence.
The Act places clear obligations and exposure on landlords: knowingly permitting prescribed offences at premises is prohibited and carries heavy fines and possible imprisonment for individuals, and steeper fines for corporations. Police and prescribed entities can recover enforcement costs from convicted landlords; more broadly, costs incurred enforcing any provision of the Act may be recovered against landlords unless they can show they took reasonable measures to prevent the illicit activity.
The seizure and forfeiture process includes 30‑day windows for applications to restore seized items and longer judicial relief procedures for those with an interest in forfeited property.Beyond the drug‑premises regime, the Act tightens other parts of the justice system. The Bail Act now authorizes regulations requiring sureties (or former sureties who became Crown judgment debtors) to provide prescribed information at regulated times, and makes failure to comply an offence; Crown Attorneys may delegate some powers to ministry staff.
The Community Safety and Policing Act changes let chiefs request temporary assistance from entities governed by other Canadian jurisdictions (with prescribed restrictions), and give the Inspector General express power to impose interim measures — including suspensions, conditions, written directions or appointment of administrators — even without prior notice when urgent circumstances and inspections are active.The Courts of Justice Act amendments require new provincial‑judge appointees to undertake not to request a transfer during their first five years, expand how the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee advertises, classifies and reports candidates (including a three‑year classification period and mandatory “not recommended/recommended/highly recommended” classifications), and constrain the Attorney General to consider only Committee‑recommended candidates. The Highway Traffic Act addition defines “electronic motor vehicle theft devices,” prohibits possession with intent to use in motor‑vehicle theft, and authorizes warrantless stops and seizures by police, but the schedule limits the offence status under the provincial statutes, creating an unusual enforcement-focused provision rather than a standalone provincial criminal offence.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The new premises regime lets police close non‑residential premises immediately after laying a charge for a prescribed drug offence and bar entry until final disposition, subject to Superior Court review and possible bonding conditions (baseline $10,000).
Individuals convicted for knowingly permitting drug production/trafficking face a first‑offence penalty of at least $10,000 and up to $250,000 or up to two years’ imprisonment; corporations face first‑offence fines from $25,000 to $1,000,000, with escalated daily fines for repeat violations.
Police and specified entities may seize items that are evidence or proceeds, forfeit them to the Crown after 30 days if no successful restoration application is made, and any interested person can seek relief against forfeiture in the Superior Court (but relief is barred if the applicant benefited from the offence).
The Inspector General may impose urgent interim measures on board members or policing bodies during inspections—suspensions, conditions, written directions or appointment of an administrator—even without prior notice; the IG must publish a report on such measures.
The Bail Act now permits regulations requiring sureties (and former sureties who became Crown judgment debtors) to provide prescribed information at regulated times, and creates an offence for non‑compliance; Crown Attorneys may delegate powers under specified sections to ministry employees.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New provincial regime to close, seize and forfeit premises linked to prescribed drug offences
This Schedule creates the Measures Respecting Premises with Illegal Drug Activity Act, 2025. It defines key terms, empowers police to seize evidence and proceeds, and authorizes immediate closure and barring of entry to non‑residential premises where a prescribed offence is charged. The Superior Court can lift closures subject to conditions, including requiring a cash bond (the schedule lists $10,000 as the baseline), and courts handle restoration and relief against forfeiture claims. The Schedule also sets out cost‑recovery mechanics so police services and prescribed entities can recover enforcement costs from convicted landlords or those who knowingly permitted the premises’ use. Practically, this converts police suspicions and charges into rapid administrative exclusion and financial pressure on property owners while preserving judicial avenues for restoration and relief.
Bail Act: regulatory reporting for sureties and delegation for Crown Attorneys
The Bail Act amendments require sureties and former sureties who became Crown judgment debtors to provide prescribed information at times set out in regulations; failure to comply is an offence. The Minister can make regulations specifying the information and reporting schedule. Separately, Crown Attorneys may delegate powers or duties under specified sections to Ministry employees, subject to limits set in the delegation. For practice, these changes create compliance obligations for sureties and expand the operational flexibility of Crown offices while raising record‑keeping and enforcement questions tied to forthcoming regulations.
Community Safety and Policing Act: cross‑jurisdictional temporary assistance and Inspector General interim powers
The amendments let chiefs request temporary policing assistance from entities governed by the law of another Canadian jurisdiction, subject to prescribed restrictions, and require reporting to the Inspector General after such assistance ceases. The Schedule adds explicit processes for the Inspector General to impose interim measures in response to Ministerial complaints—ranging from suspension of board members to written directions or appointment of administrators—and permits imposition without prior notice in urgent circumstances. It also requires the IG to publish reports on interim measures. These provisions strengthen provincial oversight of police governance and provide rapid administrative remedies during active inspections, but they also raise procedural fairness and quorum management issues for affected boards.
Courts of Justice Act: appointment and classification changes for provincial judges
Amendments add a new appointment criterion: newly appointed provincial judges must undertake not to request a transfer for the first five years, unless extenuating circumstances exist. The Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee must advertise, evaluate and classify candidates as “not recommended”, “recommended” or “highly recommended” within a three‑year classification period, provide lists with brief reasons to the Attorney General and operate by majority vote (chair with tie‑breaking vote). The Attorney General may only recommend candidates who the Committee classified as recommended or highly recommended and who meet location and bilingual requirements. Operationally, these changes centralize the Committee’s role in filtering candidates and constrain AG recommendations, while the five‑year transfer restraint alters incentives for applicants and judicial deployment planning.
Highway Traffic Act: electronic motor vehicle theft devices — definition, seizure and unusual offence framing
The Highway Traffic Act now defines “electronic motor vehicle theft device” (subject to regulation) and prohibits possession with the intent to use it in motor vehicle theft. Police with reasonable grounds may stop and inspect vehicles without a warrant and seize devices found; seized items are forfeited to the Crown after 30 days unless returned or successfully challenged. Curiously, the Schedule states that the prohibition does not create an offence under the Highway Traffic Act or the Provincial Offences Act, meaning the provision primarily supplies seizure and forfeiture tools rather than creating a standalone provincial offence—an enforcement design that intersects with federal criminal law and may require clarifying regulations and guidance for property return applications.
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
- Police services and the Ontario Provincial Police: gain explicit statutory powers to close premises, seize evidence and recover enforcement costs, enabling faster disruption of suspected drug operations and a pathway to recoup policing resources.
- Inspector General and provincial oversight bodies: receive authority to impose urgent interim measures (suspensions, conditions, administrators), which speeds remedial action during investigations into police governance and conduct.
- Communities and residents in high‑drug‑activity areas: can expect more rapid removal of premises alleged to be used for production or trafficking, reducing local exposure to organized drug‑related harms.
- Superior Court litigants seeking quick restoration: individuals or owners with a clear entitlement to seized items have a fast pathway (30‑day window) to seek restoration before items are forfeited.
- Provincial government and Solicitor General: the Act creates policy levers (regulatory prescriptions, cost recovery, cross‑jurisdictional assistance) to coordinate responses to drug production and policing capacity shortfalls.
Who Bears the Cost
- Landlords, property managers and corporate owners: face substantial fines, daily penalties for repeat conduct, potential forfeiture of property or proceeds, and civil exposure to recoverable policing costs if convicted or found to have knowingly permitted activity.
- Small landlords and tenants: risk losing access to premises through closure orders, bond requirements and forfeiture processes that may impose disproportional financial strain or displacement, particularly where causation and knowledge are contested.
- Police service boards and municipalities: may be liable for costs when they request temporary assistance but may also be the entities required to pay certified costs; boards must navigate new reporting, oversight and potential interim member suspensions that add governance and legal costs.
- Judicial candidates and court administration: the five‑year no‑transfer undertaking narrows candidate flexibility and may complicate assignment planning; the Committee/AG process increases administrative workload around classification and reclassification.
- Automotive and security retailers, locksmiths and repair shops: could be subject to seizures of equipment described as electronic motor vehicle theft devices and face operational disruption while returning property or litigating forfeiture.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is reconciling the need for rapid, preventive interventions to protect public safety with the legal protections owed to property owners, tenants and governance bodies: the Act prioritizes administrative disruption and financial pressure to remove criminal activity quickly, but those same instruments risk imposing severe interim consequences on individuals and institutions that may later be found innocent or only tangentially connected to the alleged conduct.
The Act trades speed and administrative power for procedural complexity and potential rights tensions. Closing premises on the basis of a laid charge and barring entry until final disposition puts significant interim consequences on owners and occupants before conviction; although the legislation builds in restoration and bonding mechanisms, the practical and financial burden falls on applicants to navigate Superior Court processes, and the $10,000 baseline bond can be material for small operators.
The ‘reasonable measures’ defence is crucial but will depend on forthcoming regulations and fact‑sensitive judicial interpretation — landlords who have taken formal precautions could still face lengthy closures and reputational damage during proceedings.
The broad ability of the Inspector General to impose interim measures without notice when inspections are ongoing fills a governance gap but raises questions about natural justice and institutional continuity: suspending members or appointing administrators can upend local oversight and create short‑term quorum or representation problems, especially for Indigenous policing boards or small municipal boards. Likewise, permitting temporary assistance from entities governed by other jurisdictions creates useful operational capacity but requires clear interjurisdictional agreements and liability rules.
Finally, the Highway Traffic Act provision criminalizes possession in intent but explicitly disclaims being an offence under the provincial statute framework, producing an enforcement design focused on seizure rather than criminal prosecution; that creates legal ambiguity about charging pathways, return standards and overlap with federal offences.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.