Bill 23 (More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022) is a omnibus provincial statute that amends more than a half‑dozen Ontario Acts and creates a new, project‑specific statute for York and Durham. It changes how municipalities use development charges and parkland, restricts certain local planning tools (site plan control and demolition/conversion rules), narrows some appeal rights, reconfigures conservation authority roles, raises enforcement tools for the new‑home regulator, and creates a statutory framework to fast‑track large sewage and phosphorus‑capture projects.
Why it matters: the changes reallocate power and money toward provincially‑driven housing and infrastructure goals. Municipal revenue and design controls are constrained in favour of faster approvals and targeted exemptions for affordable, attainable and non‑profit housing; conservation authorities and local design review lose functions in prescribed circumstances; and a bespoke statute grants the Minister and delegates extraordinary project powers (permits, obstruction removal, modified expropriation and limits on remedies).
If you run municipal finance, development approvals, affordable‑housing programs, conservation authorities, or infrastructure projects, this Act alters your obligations, risks and cash flows.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Act amends the Planning Act, Development Charges Act and multiple municipal statutes to remove or limit local controls, create targeted development‑charge exemptions/discounts, and enable provincial regulation and ministerial orders; it also enacts a separate statute to fast‑track York/Durham sewage and Lake Simcoe phosphorus projects and to override certain environmental and legal processes.
Who It Affects
Local governments and municipal planners, residential and rental developers, non‑profit housing providers, conservation authorities, the Ontario Land Tribunal, utilities and the Ontario Clean Water Agency (as a possible delegate) are directly affected; homeowners and heritage stakeholders face new constraints on registers and site plan powers.
Why It Matters
It shifts authority and fiscal policy from municipalities to the province to accelerate housing supply and two major infrastructure projects, while introducing new exemptions from environmental assessment and narrowing avenues for legal challenge—changes with immediate budgetary, design and procedural implications for projects and appeals.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act repackages provincial housing‑acceleration tools into law by changing both the incentives (money) and the toolbox (planning powers). On the finance side it creates exemptions from development charges for specified affordable and attainable units, non‑profit housing and inclusionary‑zoning units; it also imposes phased caps on newly imposed development charges in the first four years of a by‑law and extends the lifespan of DC by‑laws to 10 years.
For rental projects it sets bedroom‑based discounts and establishes a maximum interest rate formula for staged payments and instalments. Municipal reserve funds for core services must now have at least 60% of certain monies spent or allocated annually, which alters capital budgeting timing.
On planning and approvals, the Act narrows what municipalities can regulate through site plan control (removing general “exterior design” except in limited circumstances), bars official plans and by‑laws from prohibiting up to three units in many house types on serviced urban parcels, and prescribes faster conformity rules to bring zoning into line with new official plan policies within one year. It redefines who can appeal certain committee or council decisions by introducing “specified person” categories and contains transitional rules that retroactively dismiss some pending appeals.Conservation authorities lose or see limited roles in reviewing prescribed provincial matters: land dispositions that received provincial grants trigger notice and public consultation requirements rather than mandatory ministerial approval; authorities are barred from offering certain review/comment services in their jurisdictions; and the Minister gains authority to direct fee changes.
The Ontario Land Tribunal receives stronger powers to dismiss proceedings for delay and to award costs, and the Lieutenant Governor in Council and Minister gain broader regulation‑making and timeline‑reporting authorities.Separately, the Supporting Growth and Housing in York and Durham Regions Act (enacted as Schedule 10) exempts two large projects from the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Bill of Rights, creates “project land” designations, requires permits for near‑project work, authorizes the Minister (or delegate, including the Ontario Clean Water Agency) to remove obstructions and to take steps that affect utility infrastructure and expropriation processes, and narrows remedies and causes of action related to project implementation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 4.1 of the Development Charges Act exempts residential units designated as “affordable” for at least 25 years from development charges, with the Minister publishing the average‑rent/price bulletin used to set the threshold.
For rental housing, section 26.2 sets a bedroom‑based development‑charge discount: 25% off for 3+‑bedroom units, 20% for two‑bedrooms and 15% for other rental units.
New rules phase in lower development charges for new DC by‑laws: first‑year charges capped at 80% of the calculated maximum, then 85%, 90% and 95% in years two to four; DC by‑laws now expire after 10 years instead of five.
The Act removes exterior design from standard site plan control (except where it affects health, safety, accessibility, sustainable design or protection of adjoining lands, or relates to exterior access for affordable housing) and prevents municipalities from adopting official‑plan policies that prohibit two or three residential units in many house types on serviced urban parcels.
Schedule 10 creates a project‑specific statute that exempts the York/Durham sewage works and a Lake Simcoe phosphorus project from the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Bill of Rights, authorizes project land designations, permits, Ministerial obstruction‑removal and modified expropriation procedures, and limits causes of action and remedies related to the projects.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Targeted DC exemptions, discounts, timing and reserve spending
This schedule adds precise exemptions (affordable units with 25‑year covenants, attainable units, non‑profit housing and inclusionary‑zoning units), creates the bulletin mechanism for calculating “average” rents and purchase prices, and defines arm’s‑length rules for eligibility. It also amends calculation and transitional rules: DC by‑laws now last 10 years; new by‑laws must phase in full charges over four years (80/85/90/95 percent); rental developments receive per‑unit discounts tied to bedroom counts; instalments and maximum interest rates are standardized by reference to a rolling average prime––the Act prescribes dates and formulas. Finally, for certain services municipalities must spend or allocate at least 60% of applicable reserve funds annually, shifting cash‑flow and potentially accelerating capital spend.
Authorization of more units, narrowed design controls and revised appeal rules
This schedule legalizes additional residential units across many house types on serviced urban parcels and prevents official plans and by‑laws from effectively banning those units; it bars municipalities from imposing more than one parking space or minimum unit sizes for those units. It curtails site plan control by excluding general exterior design from municipal control except for stated health/safety/accessibility/sustainable‑design protections and limits on exterior access tied to affordable housing. The Schedule also reworks appeal standing by creating a ‘specified person’ list (utilities, rail, major operators) and includes multiple transitional and retroactivity provisions that dismiss certain appeals not brought by the designated categories. It gives the Minister order powers to amend official plans where provincial interests are implicated and requires municipalities to align zoning with specified official plan policies within one year.
From approvals to notices and constraints on CA services
The Schedule replaces the prior ministerial approval requirement for dispositions of grant‑funded CA lands with a 90‑day notice and new public consultation duties when lands meet statutory criteria (ANSCI, wetlands, species habitat, forestry agreements, or natural‑hazard‑impacted lands). It prohibits conservation authorities from offering prescribed review/comment services within their jurisdictions for matters under prescribed Acts and permits the Minister to direct fee freezes. Permit/permission factors are refocused on unstable soil/bedrock and flooding‑related controls, and the Minister can limit conditions attached to permissions; regulations can require an agreement by a prescribed date or stop development. These mechanics materially narrow CA review and create ministerial levers over fees and conditions.
Provincial regulation‑making over municipal demolition/conversion powers and site plan carve‑outs
Both Acts are amended to give the Minister the authority to make regulations that impose limits or conditions on municipal powers to prohibit or regulate demolition and conversion of residential rental properties. Related Planning Act and site plan amendments narrow the municipal reach over exterior design; the City of Toronto schedule specifically clarifies that small residential parcels (≤10 units) are excluded from certain site plan definitions and that land‑lease community homes remain within development definitions. Practically, the province can set rules that reduce local demolition‑control measures and constrain site plan review scope.
Stronger compliance tools for regulator: orders, higher fines, admin penalties
The schedule shifts several regulator functions from regulation to ministerial order, increases maximum fines for repeat offences, and replaces section 76 with an administrative‑penalty regime allowing assessors to impose penalties up to $50,000 (plus uplift for monetary benefit). Orders can be made for contraventions (including code of ethics breaches), can be absolute liability, and may be imposed without a hearing subject to regulations; the Act clarifies fund‑use rules and requires a policy for payments to adversely affected persons. The combination raises enforcement risk and adds an administrative compliance path distinct from criminal or tribunal prosecution.
Project‑specific statute: exemptions, permits, project land and delegated powers
This Schedule enacts a standalone Act to expedite the York Region sewage works and the Lake Simcoe phosphorus reduction project. It revokes certain prior EA approvals, exempts the projects from the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Bill of Rights, allows designation of project land (which triggers permits for nearby work), authorizes the Minister to issue obstruction‑removal notices and to cause work to be done, creates preview/stop‑work rules, alters expropriation steps (removing hearings of necessity), enables delegation to the Ontario Clean Water Agency and permits regulations to govern cost‑sharing, timelines, and limited causes of action. The Schedule also narrows judicial and statutory remedies for actions tied to project implementation.
Tribunal powers and ministerial oversight of priorities/timelines
Amendments expand the Tribunal’s authority to dismiss proceedings for undue delay or non‑compliance with orders, authorize awards of costs against unsuccessful parties, and allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to require prioritization of classes of proceedings. The Minister may prescribe timelines for Tribunal steps and require reporting on compliance; failure to meet timelines is not, by itself, a ground to set aside Tribunal decisions. These mechanics aim to accelerate adjudication but add reporting and administrative oversight obligations.
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
- Developers of affordable/attainable and non‑profit housing — they receive explicit development‑charge exemptions (affordable units subject to 25‑year covenants; inclusionary‑zoning and non‑profit projects are exempt), discounted DCs for rental units by bedroom, and reduced early‑by‑law DC burdens through phased caps, improving feasibility models.
- Provincial infrastructure delivery (York/Durham projects and proponents) — Schedule 10 exempts the two major projects from the EA and EBR, grants permits and obstruction‑removal tools, and allows delegation to the Ontario Clean Water Agency to accelerate timelines and reduce procedural uncertainty.
- Municipalities that need faster approvals — zoning conformity timelines and tighter Provincial control over official‑plan impacts reduce local procedural delays for projects and can accelerate approvals in targeted growth areas.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local municipalities — lost or deferred DC revenue from exemptions and phased‑in caps, stricter reserve‑fund spending rules (60% allocation requirement) that can accelerate capital needs, and reduced discretion over site plan design and demolition/conversion controls.
- Conservation authorities — their review, notice and fee‑setting roles are constrained; public‑consultation and notice obligations change their disposition processes and reduce certain advisory functions, potentially shrinking revenue and influence.
- Owners and operators of heritage or private property — register/designation rules and expedited removal/permit authorities for project land can lead to permit requirements, removal orders and constrained compensation remedies; utility companies may be required to relocate infrastructure on short timelines under notice with potential cost consequences.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The Act’s central dilemma is speed versus local control and fiscal balance: the province accelerates housing and two major infrastructure projects by pulling levers that reduce municipal revenue, constrain local design and environmental review, and limit legal remedies—solving bottlenecks for supply and delivery but increasing fiscal and governance burdens on municipalities, reducing local discretion over built form and raising questions about environmental and Indigenous safeguards.
Fiscal realignment is the clearest operational implication and the toughest implementation puzzle. The DC exemptions, bedroom‑based discounts for rental units, mandatory annual reserve‑fund spend/allocation rules, and phased‑in DC caps materially alter municipal capital funding assumptions.
Municipalities will need to reconcile longer by‑law terms and earlier reserve drawdowns with planned multi‑year capital programs; absent explicit provincial funding offsets or transitional support, local governments face either accelerated borrowing, cuts or postponed projects.
Procedurally, the Act replaces several local checks with provincial levers. Narrowing site plan control over exterior design and shifting demolition/conversion rule limits to ministerial regulation reduces local design review and heritage influence; coupled with more restrictive CA roles and exemptions from EA/EBR for major projects, these changes create trade‑offs between speed and local environmental/heritage scrutiny.
The York/Durham schedule’s curtailed causes of action and tighter compensation regimes raise legal and Indigenous‑consultation risks: the statute requires specified consultations and reports, but exempting projects from the EBR and traditional EA pathways means courts and tribunals may be asked to resolve novel procedural and charter‑adjacent challenges.
Operationally, delegation choices and new administrative penalties create governance questions. The Agency may be ordered to deliver work and can be made to bear costs recoverable from municipalities; assessors may issue administrative penalties without hearings (subject to regulations), and the Tribunal gains powers to dismiss for delay and to award costs—each of which changes the enforcement and dispute landscape.
Implementation therefore requires clear regulation design, funded transitional arrangements for municipal capital plans, robust Indigenous engagement plans that anticipate litigation risk, and administrative protocols to preserve due process while meeting acceleration objectives.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.