Protecting Ontario’s Workers and Economic Resilience Act, 2026 (Bill 105) is an omnibus statute that amends nine distinct Acts to combine new worker protections with regulatory and procedural changes intended to speed approvals and harmonize standards. Key labour measures: the Employment Standards Act prohibition on charging employees for required uniforms (with limited exceptions and wages‑enforceability), expanded complaint triage powers for the Director, and changes to how collected enforcement monies are apportioned.
The Workplace Safety and Insurance Act amendments raise loss‑of‑earnings replacement from 85% to 90% and allow the WSIB to determine whether and when a worker is likely to work past age 65.
The bill also overhauls administrative rules across several policy areas: it restructures parts of the Environmental Assessment Act to shorten review streams and remove a ministry review stage, creates the Strengthening Talent Agency Regulation Act (a stand‑alone regulatory framework that bans most agency fees, limits commissions and creates inspection, enforcement and director‑liability tools), expands occupational health and safety authorities (including a worker exposure registry and interjurisdictional standard recognition), and imposes bilingual and selection requirements for the Ombudsman appointment process. These changes create new compliance duties for employers, public‑sector decision makers, talent agencies and the WSIB, while shifting some decision powers to the Minister and the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Act amends multiple statutes to (1) prohibit employers from charging employees for uniforms or laundering except in narrow, prescribed circumstances and makes improperly charged amounts enforceable as wages; (2) rework EA decision pathways—removing a ministry review step, enabling LG‑in‑Council referrals and treating multi‑proponent projects differently; (3) create a new regulatory regime for talent agencies that bans fees, caps commissions, requires dedicated accounts for client funds and empowers compliance officers and the Labour Board to enforce orders.
Who It Affects
Frontline workers who must wear employer‑supplied uniforms, talent agencies and performers, proponents of Part II.3/II.4 environmental projects, employers subject to WSIB, and regulated health and safety actors (Chief Prevention Officer, constructors and employers). It also affects directors of talent‑agency corporations through potential personal liability and the Ministry apparatus that administers and enforces the new rules.
Why It Matters
The package simultaneously tightens individual worker financial protections and accelerates regulatory approvals; that mix changes compliance priorities for employers, shifts enforcement activity to provincially appointed compliance officers and the Board, and has budgetary and transparency implications for environmental approvals and WSIB financing.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 105 is an omnibus statute that bundles discrete but consequential reforms into a single Act. On the employment‑standards side, it adds s.13.1 to the Employment Standards Act to bar employers from requiring employees to pay for uniforms or prescribed work items, or for their repair or laundering, except where a narrowly prescribed exception applies (loss, damage beyond normal wear and tear, failure to return on termination, or other future regulations).
Amounts improperly charged are treated as wages under the Act, giving employees a route to recovery through the ministry’s enforcement tools; the text also preserves existing collective‑agreement provisions that conflict with the new rule until those agreements expire. The Director gains a complaint‑triage power (new s.96.1) to assign certain complaints to inspections rather than investigations and to refuse assignment in specified circumstances.
The Environmental Assessment Act amendments change decision flows for major projects. The Schedule re‑authorizes prescribed class environmental assessments, simplifies applications for projects with multiple proponents (one proponent’s application suffices), removes the statutory ministry review steps that previously allowed third‑party requests to refer files to the Tribunal, and creates an explicit mechanism for the Minister to refer approval decisions to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
The Minister retains power to reconsider approvals and the bill adds transition rules to preserve pre‑existing ministry review processes for projects already in flight.The bill creates the Strengthening Talent Agency Regulation Act, 2026 as a standalone regulatory framework for talent agencies and entertainment workers. That new Act prohibits talent agencies from charging most fees to performers (permitted charges are limited to prescribed commissions and fees), caps commissions, requires agencies to deposit client payments into a dedicated trust‑style bank account and to remit funds to workers within prescribed timelines (10 business days unless the regulations say otherwise).
The new regime gives the Minister the power to appoint a Director, authorizes compliance officers to inspect premises without warrants during business hours, compels documents and meetings, and allows officers to issue orders to repay fees, require payments, impose penalties and refer reviews to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. It also exposes directors to joint and several liability in specified insolvency or non‑payment scenarios and sets criminal and administrative penalties for contraventions.On occupational health and safety, the bill permits the Chief Prevention Officer to collect personal information directly from workers about exposures in order to maintain an occupational exposure registry, while limiting disclosure of that information except to the worker.
The Act adds authority for interjurisdictional recognition of standards and allows the Minister to reimburse prescribed employers and constructors for prescribed protective headwear. The Workplace Safety and Insurance Act amendments increase replacement rates for loss of earnings toward 90%, expand the Board’s power to review and adjust payments (including for older workers who may work past 65), and deem residential care facilities and group homes to be included under specified industry classes for coverage purposes.
Other schedules make appointment and governance changes to the Ombudsman and to the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority and add regulatory authority for the Ministry of Health to prioritize Ontario‑connected international medical graduates for residency slots.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The new ESA provision (s.13.1) takes effect January 1, 2027 and makes sums improperly charged for uniforms or laundering enforceable as wages.
The Director under the ESA may assign certain complaints to inspection (s.96.1) and refuse assignment where complaints are frivolous, lack information, or meet prescribed criteria.
The Strengthening Talent Agency Regulation Act requires agencies to deposit client payments into a dedicated account and, unless regulations say otherwise, to remit funds to performers within 10 business days.
WSIA amendments raise loss‑of‑earnings replacement from 85% to 90% for affected workers and let the WSIB determine, on request, whether a worker is likely to work past age 65 and the day they will cease working.
Under the EA amendments, a Part II.3 or II.4 project with multiple proponents need only have one proponent satisfy application or commencement requirements; the Ministry review step (ss.17.11–17.13) is repealed.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Ban on uniform charges; complaint triage; apportionment of enforcement recoveries
Section 13.1 erects a near‑absolute prohibition on employers passing uniform, laundering or repair costs to employees, with narrow statutory exceptions and a delegated‑regulation hook for further circumstances. If an employer contravenes the rule, amounts improperly charged are treated as wages, which triggers the Act’s enforcement machinery. The Director’s new s.96.1 gives the ministry discretion to handle some complaints as inspections (a lower‑formality, compliance‑focused tool) and to refuse assignment where a complaint lacks merit or information; this changes frontline complaints management and will likely speed handling of routine compliance matters. Finally, s.128 is rewritten so collected money pays employees first and any surplus is proportionally split among the collector, the Director and the Minister of Finance — a practical change that alters incentive structures for third‑party collectors.
Streamlining EA decision paths and removing ministry review
The Schedule re‑frames Part II.3/II.4 processes by enabling class EAs to be prescribed, treating multi‑proponent projects so one application suffices, and abolishing statutory ministry review steps that allowed third‑party referrals to the Tribunal. It inserts a new mechanism for the Minister to refer approvals to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and tightens timelines and notice obligations for decisions and reconsiderations. Practically, proponents face fewer duplicative procedural stages and potentially faster decisions, while the removal of the ministry review step narrows an avenue for public escalation and third‑party intervention; transition provisions preserve the prior regime for projects already advanced.
Shortening application windows in construction and transitional regulation power
The amendments reduce windows for rival union certification applications and termination‑declaration applications from two months to one month or move them to the 'second last month' timing structure depending on which subsection comes into force. The Schedule also adds a regulation‑making head for transitional matters and permits regulations to override conflicts during implementation. Those timing shifts compress the period for union‑challenge strategies in construction and related sectors and require unions and employers to adjust organizing and renewal calendars.
Worker exposure registry, interjurisdictional standard recognition and headwear reimbursements
The Chief Prevention Officer may collect personal information directly from workers about exposure to physical, chemical or biological agents for an occupational exposure registry; disclosure is limited except to the worker unless otherwise required by law. The Minister may recognize standards from other Canadian jurisdictions (or under interprovincial agreements) as meeting Ontario requirements and may reimburse prescribed employers/constructors for prescribed protective headwear, subject to regulation. These changes aim to centralize exposure data and reduce technical duplication of standards, but they raise practical privacy controls and reimbursement administration questions.
New standalone regime for talent agencies — fee ban, trust accounting, enforcement
This new Act (a full, stand‑alone statute) forbids talent agencies from charging most fees, limits commissions, requires written statements and three‑year record retention, mandates deposit of performer payments into a dedicated account and prescribes prompt remittance. It creates a Director and compliance officers with inspection, meeting and document‑compulsion powers (limited entry to dwellings), authorizes orders to repay fees and to require payments, permits notices of contravention and administrative penalties, and provides for Board review procedures and collector authorization. The law also creates director liability triggers, criminal and administrative penalties and detailed collection mechanics — a compliance‑intensive regime that borrows enforcement architecture from other labour statutes.
Higher benefit replacement, review flexibility and coverage expansions
Amendments boost the loss‑of‑earnings replacement rate toward 90% for affected workers and extend similar increases for survivor benefits. The Board can now determine whether certain workers are likely to work past age 65 (or past two years after injury for older injured workers) and set the day benefits cease accordingly. The Schedule also widens review powers (allowing reviews after the previous 72‑month limit in specified cases), introduces rules to offset other prescribed payments so totals do not exceed 100% of pre‑injury earnings, and deems residential care facilities and group homes to be included in specified industry classes — expanding coverage and creating actuarial and administrative consequences for premiums and benefit funding.
Bilingual Ombudsman requirement and ministerial appointment powers
Schedule 6 requires the Ombudsman appointee to be proficient in English and French and to be selected by unanimous agreement of a cross‑party panel chaired by the Speaker unless the Assembly agrees otherwise. Schedule 7 transfers authority to appoint directors of the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority from the Lieutenant Governor in Council to the Minister, requires terms to be specified in appointments and provides that ministerial appointees hold office at the Minister’s pleasure, while ensuring ministerial appointees do not form a majority of the board. These governance changes shift accountability and politicize appointment mechanics.
Regulatory head for international medical graduate residency admissions
Section 12 is amended to authorize regulations governing admission of graduates of medical schools outside Canada into Ontario residency programs, including processes to prioritize graduates with a defined 'connection to Ontario' and definitions for key terms. That gives the Minister regulatory tools to prioritize local candidates and structure residency access but leaves the substantive prioritization criteria to future regulations.
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
- Uniformed frontline employees (retail, hospitality, healthcare support): They are protected from being charged for employer‑required uniforms and laundering; improperly collected sums are recoverable as wages.
- Entertainment workers and performers: The new talent‑agency Act restricts agency fees, caps commissions, requires agency trust‑style accounting and faster remittance of payments — collectively increasing the likelihood that performers receive timely, full payment.
- Injured workers covered by WSIB: The increase in loss‑of‑earnings replacement (toward 90%) and broader review mechanisms benefit claimants by raising replacement income and allowing reviews tied to continued employment prospects past typical retirement ages.
- Francophone Ontarians and bilingual services users: Requiring the Ombudsman to be proficient in both official languages aims to strengthen capacity for French‑language oversight and complaints handling.
- Workers exposed to hazardous agents: Creation of a worker occupational exposure registry centralizes exposure information that can inform prevention and compensation policy and support worker claims.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers who supply uniforms and small businesses: Employers must absorb the cost of uniforms, laundering or repairs in most cases (or codify recovery under narrow exceptions), increasing operating costs for sectors that historically passed those costs to staff.
- Talent agencies and small entertainment businesses: Compliance duties (dedicated accounts, record‑keeping, prompt remittance), inspections, possible orders to repay fees, administrative penalties and director liability will increase administrative and legal costs, and could squeeze margins for small agencies.
- WSIB employers/premium payers: The increase in replacement rates and expanded review/benefit rules may raise long‑term WSIB liabilities and upward pressure on employer premiums unless offset by other measures.
- Ministry resources and compliance officers: New triage, inspection and enforcement roles for multiple Acts (ESA, new Talent Agency Act, OHS registry) will require administrative resources and policy development to implement disclosure, collections and privacy safeguards.
- Project proponents and municipalities: The EA changes reduce some procedural stages and third‑party referrals but create new decision routes (LG‑in‑Council referrals) and tighter timelines, changing risk profiles for proponents and potentially shifting legal and public consultation costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is a trade‑off between speeding approvals and harmonizing standards for business (and expanding regulatory enforcement) and preserving procedural safeguards, public participation and fiscal prudence: the bill accelerates decision paths and increases administrative enforcement while expanding worker protections and benefits — an outcome that improves some protections but concentrates discretionary power and creates budgetary and transparency stresses with no single, clear compensation mechanism.
The bill stitches together reforms with different policy logics: worker‑facing protections, streamlined approvals, and new administrative enforcement regimes. That design raises standard implementation risks.
For the ESA uniform ban, the core regulatory details — what items are 'prescribed', how 'normal wear and tear' is defined, and implementation guidance for multi‑jurisdictional employers — are left to regulations, which will determine how disruptive the rule is in practice and whether employers will change procurement and payroll practices.
On environmental assessments, removing the ministry review and narrowing statutory referral paths accelerates approvals but concentrates substantive decision authority with the Minister and potentially the Lieutenant Governor in Council. That raises transparency and judicial‑review risk and shifts the locus of controversy from administrative review to political decision makers; transition provisions soften immediate disruption but do not eliminate questions about public participation and the Tribunal’s residual role.
Similarly, the new Talent Agency Act centralizes enforcement around compliance officers and the Labour Board, but it relies heavily on administrative collection and Board review processes that may produce protracted serial enforcement actions, particularly where director liability and insolvency overlap.
Finally, the WSIB benefit increases and flexibility to review payments beyond prior temporal limits create actuarial pressures. The Act includes offset mechanisms to cap combined payments at pre‑injury earnings, but neither the bill nor the schedules set out funding offsets; absent actuarial adjustments, employers and the Board may face higher costs and complex premium or benefit design choices.
Collectively, the statute leaves many consequential rules to regulation and administrative policy, meaning the practical shape of these reforms will depend significantly on subordinate instruments and resource allocation decisions.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.