The bill amends the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016 to allow the government to create a province‑wide beverage container deposit‑return program by regulation. It adds a statutory definition for “grocery store” and directs Cabinet to require collection depots for blue box material.
Why this matters: the measure shifts consumer‑facing collection and refund obligations onto retailers and Brewers Retail Inc., embeds minimum deposit amounts in statute, and gives regulators broad discretion to design how containers are defined, collected, and refunded—changing how Ontario organizes residential beverage waste collection and who runs the front line of returns.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill expands the Act’s regulation‑making power so Cabinet can establish a beverage container deposit‑return program, require payment and refund of deposits, and designate required collection depots for blue box material. It creates a compliance obligation for grocery stores and stores operated by Brewers Retail Inc. and links noncompliance to enforcement provisions in the Act.
Who It Affects
The immediate targets are grocery stores that meet the new statutory size-and-inventory test and all stores operated by Brewers Retail Inc., plus consumers who return containers and operators of municipal blue box systems. Producers, recycling processors, and provincial compliance officers will also be affected by program design and enforcement rules.
Why It Matters
This is a structural change in collection policy: it moves refund operations into retail locations and codifies minimum deposit levels, which will drive operational, space, and staffing decisions at stores and alter the flow and quality of recyclable beverage containers across the province.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a concrete power into the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act authorizing Cabinet to create a deposit‑return program by regulation. That regulatory authority is broad: regulations will define which beverage containers count as blue box material, how deposits are levied and refunded, the program’s operational rules, and the role of collection depots.
The Act amendment also creates new, enforceable duties for specific retailers to accept returns and pay refunds.
A new statutory definition spells out what counts as a “grocery store” for these duties, using minimum floor‑space thresholds and a checklist of food categories to identify larger food retailers (and excluding stores primarily identified as pharmacies). The regulations, not the Act itself, will fill in the operational details: which container types are covered, how refunds are issued (cash, vouchers, or electronic credit), and whether the deposit amounts may exceed the statutory minima.Practically, the bill forces retail operators to integrate returns into store operations.
That can mean dedicating floor space or installing reverse‑vending machines, training staff to process and reconcile refunds, and handling storage and transfer of returned containers. The amendment that adds the grocery store definition and ties the new depot duties to enforcement provisions means noncompliance can be prosecuted or otherwise sanctioned under the Act’s enforcement framework.The Act sets a delayed start: its provisions come into force one year after Royal Assent, giving regulators and affected retailers a defined window to create systems, issue regulations, and adapt storefront operations.
Because the core program will be implemented by regulation, many of the detailed obligations, exemptions, and technical standards will be made after the Act comes into force rather than within the statute itself.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Act requires regulations to set and enforce a deposit‑return program—notably, the statutory text sets minimum deposit amounts but leaves the detailed design to regulation.
The bill specifies minimum deposit levels of at least 10 cents for containers ≤1 litre and at least 25 cents for containers >1 litre; regulations can define which container types qualify.
It creates a new statutory definition of “grocery store” (multiple square‑foot thresholds plus a ten‑category food offering test) to determine which food retailers must act as collection depots.
Every grocery store meeting that definition and every store operated by Brewers Retail Inc. must act as a collection depot and refund the applicable deposit; store owners are explicitly required to ensure compliance.
The Act’s amendments take effect one year after Royal Assent and add the new compliance subsection to the list of offences/enforceable provisions in section 98(2).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds a detailed definition of “grocery store”
This section inserts a multi‑part statutory definition to identify which food retailers will be required to accept returns and refund deposits. The test combines a retail floor space threshold (more than 4,000 sq ft) with either an absolute food‑area threshold (at least 10,000 sq ft) or a proportional test (at least half the retail floor space), plus a list of ten food categories that must be offered in person. Because the Act uses this statutory definition rather than a simple size cutoff, regulators and retailers will need to apply the checklist to borderline or mixed‑use stores.
Links the new compliance duty to enforcement provisions
By adding a paragraph to subsection 98(2), the bill brings the new compliance obligation under the Act’s existing enforcement regime. That means penalties, inspections, or other compliance tools available under section 98 can be applied to breaches of the new depot/refund requirements once regulations are in place. For compliance teams, this creates a clear statutory pathway for enforcement rather than relying solely on administrative policy.
Expands regulation‑making powers to cover deposit‑return systems
Amendments to subsection 107.1(1) explicitly empower Cabinet to establish and govern a beverage container deposit program and to require collection depots for blue box materials. The provision is intentionally broad, giving regulators latitude to set program architecture, eligible container types, deposit mechanics, and reporting requirements in subordinate regulations rather than embedding them in the statute.
Subsections 107.1(5.1)–(5.3): minimum deposits and mandatory depots
The new subsections create three linked rules: (1) regulations must require payment and refund of a deposit and set minimum deposit amounts (statutory floors of 10¢ and 25¢ depending on size); (2) grocery stores and stores run by Brewers Retail Inc. must act as collection depots and ensure refunds to returning consumers; and (3) grocery store owners and Brewers Retail Inc. must ensure their stores comply with the depot duties. The text leaves implementation details—timing of refunds, possible exemptions, reconciliation with producers—to the forthcoming regulations.
Commencement and short title
The Act comes into force one year after Royal Assent and is given a short title. The one‑year delayed commencement creates a finite implementation window for regulations and operational planning by affected retailers and the ministry responsible for environmental compliance.
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
- Consumers who return containers: they receive a refundable deposit at point of return, creating a direct financial incentive to recycle and reclaim value from beverage packaging.
- Recycling processors and material recovery facilities: expected higher‑quality, source‑separated beverage streams (fewer contaminants) can reduce sorting costs and improve commodity value for beverage containers delivered through retail depots.
- Municipalities and existing blue‑box administrators: if the deposit system diverts beverage containers from curbside collection, municipalities may see lower contamination and reduced program costs for processing beverage packaging.
Who Bears the Cost
- Grocery stores meeting the statutory test: they must accept returns and pay refunds, which creates staffing, space, equipment, and inventory reconciliation costs and could require capital expenditures (reverse‑vending machines or added back‑room storage).
- Brewers Retail Inc. stores: the statute imposes the same depot and refund duties and a duty to ensure compliance, creating operational and compliance costs for that retail network.
- Provincial regulators and the ministry: designing, consulting on, and enforcing the regulations will require administrative resources and rule‑making capacity; enforcement actions under section 98 may expand compliance workloads and inspection needs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between regulatory flexibility and operational certainty: the bill gives regulators broad latitude to design a deposit‑return scheme (speeding implementation and allowing technical tailoring) but also forces retailers into binding, potentially costly depot duties without embedding the technical standards, funding arrangements, or transition rules in the statute—so it solves collection gaps while creating implementation and distributional pain points with no clear compensating mechanism.
The bill centralizes program design in regulation, which gives the government speed and flexibility but leaves significant implementation detail undecided at the time of enactment. Key operational questions—whether refunds must be in cash, how returned containers are transported and reconciled with producers, how deposits interact with existing producer responsibility obligations, and which container types are included—depend on subordinate regulations.
That delegation creates uncertainty for retailers planning capital investments: a store may have only one year before commencement but no guaranteed technical specifications to follow.
The mandatory‑depot approach allocates collection duties to certain retailers rather than to municipal systems or producer‑run depots. That raises a distributional challenge: large grocery chains will bear direct operational costs and may pass some costs to suppliers, consumers, or shrink margins, while small grocers below the statutory threshold avoid the duty.
The Act does not provide funding or compensation for depots, nor does it specify transition arrangements for municipalities or current blue‑box service providers, leaving potential disputes over stranded assets, lost revenue streams, or double‑counting of diversion rates unresolved.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.