The Protecting Agricultural Land Act, 2022 adds a new section to Ontario’s Planning Act that prevents a change in zoning or permitted uses for qualifying agricultural land unless an Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) has been completed in line with regulations. The restriction applies both to local municipal zoning by-laws and to provincial Minister’s zoning orders.
For practitioners this creates a statutory precondition for converting or re-zoning certain farmland: whether you are a municipality reviewing an application, a developer seeking conversion, or a landowner considering sale or subdivision, the bill makes the conduct, review and outcome of AIAs a gatekeeper. The actual scope, standards and procedures for AIAs are left to regulation, so regulatory design will determine how onerous the new requirement becomes and how it interacts with existing planning and Ontario Land Tribunal processes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts section 33.1 into the Planning Act to block any municipal by‑law or Minister’s zoning order that would change the zoning or permitted uses of specified agricultural land unless an AIA is carried out according to regulations. It also amends the Act’s regulation‑making power to define the prescribed agricultural uses and to govern AIAs.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include owners of land zoned for prescribed agricultural uses as of the law’s commencement, municipalities that process zoning by‑laws, the provincial Minister when issuing zoning orders, developers and landowners seeking non‑agricultural conversions, and consultants who prepare AIAs.
Why It Matters
This creates a procedural lock around certain farmland that can materially slow or condition conversions and place technical assessment obligations on applicants. The bill hands significant detail to regulation, so the practical impact will hinge on rule‑making: what uses are 'prescribed', who can prepare/approve an AIA, timelines, and integration with existing planning and appeal mechanisms.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds a single, targeted mechanism to the Planning Act: a statutory bar on changing the zoning or permitted uses of certain agricultural parcels unless an Agricultural Impact Assessment has been completed in accordance with regulations. That bar applies both to municipal councils when they pass zoning by‑laws and to the provincial Minister when issuing zoning orders under specific Planning Act provisions.
The intention is to make an evidence‑based review a legal precondition to converting farmland.
Key to implementation is the bill’s delegation to regulation. The Act does not define which agricultural uses are covered or what an AIA must contain; instead it gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council the power to prescribe both the covered uses and governance rules for AIAs.
That means the real test—whether a parcel is locked in, what triggers an AIA, what data and methodologies are acceptable, who prepares the report, and how long the process takes—will arrive later as regulations.Operationally, the change creates a new screening step in the planning pipeline. Municipal planning staff will need to identify parcels subject to section 33.1, determine whether submitted applications are accompanied by a compliant AIA, and possibly refuse or defer by‑laws or approvals absent one.
At the provincial level, the Minister must also withhold MZOs that would alter zoning until a compliant AIA exists. For applicants this usually means commissioning a technical study, budgeting for consultant time and potential mitigation measures, and anticipating longer approval timelines.The bill is narrowly framed: it only reaches land that was zoned for the prescribed agricultural uses on the day the Act comes into force.
That creates a 'snapshot' approach—parcels zoned agricultural at commencement are protected under the new rule, while land zoned agricultural later (or areas that receive agricultural zoning because of subsequent planning changes) are outside the statute unless regulations say otherwise. Because the statute leaves standards and procedural detail to regulation, municipalities and proponents will need to track regulatory drafts closely to understand evidentiary requirements, who may author AIAs, how AIAs interact with environmental assessments or source‑water protections, and whether AIAs are subject to public disclosure or tribunal review.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts section 33.1 into the Planning Act creating a statutory requirement for an Agricultural Impact Assessment for qualifying farmland.
The protection applies only to land that was zoned for 'prescribed agricultural uses' on the day the Act comes into force—a snapshot rather than a rolling coverage.
Section 33.1 bars both municipal councils from passing zoning by‑laws and the Minister from issuing zoning orders under sections 34.1 or 47 that would change the land’s zoning or permitted uses unless an AIA is completed in accordance with regulations.
The Act amends section 70 to give the Lieutenant Governor in Council authority to prescribe which agricultural uses are covered and to 'govern' AIAs—leaving content, who can prepare AIAs, timelines and procedures to regulation.
The Act contains an immediate commencement clause: it comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Application: snapshot of covered land
Subsection (1) establishes the bill’s scope: it applies only to land that 'was zoned for prescribed agricultural uses' on the day the Act comes into force. Practically, the clause freezes coverage at commencement and delegates to forthcoming regulations to list or define the 'prescribed' uses. That snapshot approach creates a clear cut‑off—parcels that receive agricultural zoning after commencement are not automatically covered unless the regulations expand the list.
Municipal zoning by‑laws: mandatory AIA precondition
Subsection (2) prohibits a local council from passing any zoning by‑law that would change the zoning or permitted uses of covered land unless an AIA has been carried out in accordance with the regulations. This is a procedural precondition: councils must refuse or withhold by‑laws changing covered parcels absent an AIA. The provision shifts initial compliance costs and timing onto applicants and forces municipalities to develop a screening and verification step for AIA conformity.
Minister’s zoning orders: same AIA requirement
Subsection (3) imposes the same AIA requirement on the provincial Minister when making zoning orders under sections 34.1 or 47 of the Planning Act. That limits the Minister’s ability to use MZOs to effect immediate zoning changes on covered farmland without the technical assessment in hand, although the Minister still retains discretion to issue orders if an AIA is completed and the regulations permit it.
Regulatory power to define uses and govern AIAs
The bill adds a clause to section 70 giving the Lieutenant Governor in Council explicit authority to prescribe 'agricultural uses' for the purposes of section 33.1 and to set rules 'governing Agricultural Impact Assessments.' Because the statute does not itself define AIA content, thresholds, who may prepare or certify assessments, timelines, or exemptions, the regulation‑making power effectively determines the operational scope and burden of compliance.
Immediate commencement and short title
The Act states it comes into force on Royal Assent and sets its short title. Immediate commencement means the snapshot in section 33.1(1) uses the zoning map on the day the law becomes operative as the baseline for coverage; stakeholders should treat Royal Assent as the key trigger for which parcels will be subject to the new AIA precondition.
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
- Owners and operators of farmland zoned agricultural at commencement — they gain stronger statutory protection against rezoning and conversion absent an AIA, which can help preserve long‑term agricultural uses and land values tied to farming.
- Agricultural supply chain participants and local food systems — by raising the procedural bar to conversion, the bill reduces the short‑term risk of farmland loss in covered areas and supports stability for businesses that rely on proximate farmland.
- Conservation and farmland‑protection advocates — the requirement institutionalizes an evidence review before conversions, giving these stakeholders a clearer administrative hook to argue for mitigation or preservation measures.
- Municipal planners seeking clearer criteria — planners gain a statutory tool to demand standardized technical assessments when dealing with rezoning proposals affecting protected parcels, which can streamline internal decision‑making once regulations and templates are established.
Who Bears the Cost
- Developers and landowners seeking non‑agricultural conversions on covered parcels — they will need to commission AIAs, absorb consultant fees, and face longer approval timelines and potential mitigation obligations.
- Local municipal planning departments — municipalities must implement screening systems, verify AIA compliance, and potentially litigate or defend decisions where AIA adequacy is contested, creating staffing and budget pressures.
- The provincial government — ministries will need to draft, consult on and implement regulations, potentially defend their regulation design, and manage coordination when MZOs intersect with AIA rules.
- Housing sector and infrastructure proponents — projects that require farmland conversion may face additional procedural hurdles that increase costs and schedule risk, affecting project viability and timelines.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits a desire for durable farmland protection—requiring evidence before conversion—against the need for planning flexibility to meet housing, infrastructure, and economic development goals; empowering technical assessments protects agriculture but also imposes cost, delay and delegated decision‑making that could constrain legitimate land‑use changes.
Two implementation gaps determine whether this bill is a light procedural hurdle or a heavy regulatory choke point. First, the statute defers entirely to regulation for what counts as a 'prescribed agricultural use' and for the content, format and governance of AIAs.
Regulations could be narrowly technical (e.g., crop yield and soil classification) or broad (including cumulative social‑economic factors and mitigation requirements). Until regulations appear, affected parties cannot reliably estimate cost, method, or how an AIA outcome will be judged.
Second, the snapshot scope—applying only to land zoned agricultural at commencement—creates planning edge cases. Municipalities that rezone areas to agriculture after commencement, or parcels that change ownership or municipal boundaries, may escape the Act’s reach.
That design choice raises questions about fairness and strategic behaviour: developers might seek rezoning before commencement to avoid future restrictions, or municipalities might manipulate zoning patterns. The bill also leaves unanswered how AIAs will interact with established processes such as environmental assessments, source‑water protection, municipal official plan conformity, and appeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal, which could spawn litigation over procedural primacy and evidentiary standards.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.