Bill 69 amends two main statutes. It adds a new section to the Ministry of Infrastructure Act, 2011 that prevents entities named in regulations from holding or acquiring land, buildings, structures or related fixtures; when an entity is prescribed, any such property it owned immediately vests in the Crown and becomes controlled by the Minister of Infrastructure.
The Bill also changes the Environmental Assessment Act to let the Minister order that a statutory waiting period after the public comment period no longer applies to a given undertaking (but only after the comment period ends) and repeals several spent transitional provisions.
These are practical, technical changes with clear policy effects: the Crown gains a mechanism to centralize title and manage infrastructure property and risks, and the Minister gains a tool to shorten pauses between public comment and project implementation. Both moves reshape who holds legal and practical control of infrastructure assets and the timing around certain environmental decisions—matters that affect procurement, financing, third-party interests, and regulatory risk assessments for projects across the province.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Act prohibits entities that are prescribed by regulation from holding or acquiring real property or fixtures; property those entities held when they become prescribed is deemed to vest in the Crown. It also allows the Minister to order that the statutory post-comment waiting period under section 15.1.1(5) of the Environmental Assessment Act cease to apply to an undertaking, provided the order is made after the comment period ends.
Who It Affects
Provincial agencies and other bodies that the Minister may prescribe (including Crown corporations and certain non-government entities), private counterparties with existing property interests or contractual rights involving those entities, infrastructure project proponents subject to the Environmental Assessment Act, and lawyers and lenders who structure title and security for public‑sector projects.
Why It Matters
The Bill centralizes title and administrative control of infrastructure property at the Minister’s office, which alters risk allocation, title clearance, and compensation exposure. The EA change shortens a procedural pause that can delay projects, shifting the balance between project speed and pause-for-review intended by the EA framework.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Bill makes two discrete but interlocking changes. First, it adds a targeted rule to the Ministry of Infrastructure Act that says: if the Minister prescribes an entity in regulation, that entity cannot own or acquire land, buildings, structures or the fixtures attached to them.
When the regulation naming the entity comes into force, any such property that the entity previously owned automatically becomes Crown property and falls under the Minister’s control. The statute expressly provides that these steps do not amount to an expropriation under the Expropriations Act and allows the Minister and the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make detailed regulations governing exceptions, transitional issues and agreements.
Second, the Bill adjusts the Environmental Assessment Act’s timing mechanics. Currently a statutory waiting period follows the public comment period for some undertakings before proponents can proceed; the Bill empowers the Minister to order that this waiting period stop applying to a specific undertaking, but only after the comment period has closed and subject to any prescribed limitations.
The Bill also removes several outdated transitional clauses related to notices issued in 2020.Mechanically, the property change leans heavily on regulation-making authority. The Minister’s regulations can prescribe who is covered, specify exceptions or limits, and set rules for dealing with agreements and title registration after vesting.
The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations that operate retroactively and that handle already‑executed agreements, including limiting Crown liability in certain circumstances. That regulatory flexibility is designed to make the vesting and transition administrable—but it also means many operational details will be determined after Royal Assent through subordinate instruments rather than the statute itself.For project teams and counterparties, the immediate practical consequences are title and contractual uncertainty where an entity gets prescribed.
Third parties occupying, financing, or holding rights against property owned by a prescribed entity will face a new legal regime for how those interests are recognized, preserved, or extinguished—matters the regulations and possible retroactive orders are intended to address. On the EA side, proponents could see shorter delays between comment close and construction start dates when the Minister issues an order; conversely, communities lose that built-in pause unless the Minister elects to leave it in place.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 11.0.1 (new) bars any entity prescribed by Ministerial regulation from holding or acquiring land, buildings, structures or related fixtures.
When a regulation prescribing an entity comes into force, any property that entity owned immediately before is deemed to vest in the Crown and be under the Minister’s control.
The Act expressly states that actions under the new property rule do not constitute an expropriation or cause injurious affection under the Expropriations Act.
The Minister may, by order and only after the public comment period ends, declare that the post-comment waiting period in s.15.1.1(5) of the Environmental Assessment Act ceases to apply to a particular undertaking; the order cannot be used while the comment period is still open.
Regulations under the new law can be retroactive (when made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council) and may govern agreements, transitional title registration, exceptions, and limits on Crown liability.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Minister can remove the statutory waiting period after comments close
The added subsections let the Minister issue an order that the waiting period in s.15.1.1(5) no longer applies to an undertaking, either immediately or on a date specified in the order, but only after the comment period has ended. The order does not apply to subsequent changes to the undertaking (those remain governed by the change provisions). Practically, this lets the Minister shorten a legislated pause between consultation and action while preserving the formal window for public input.
Repeal of spent transitional provisions
The Bill removes subsections that were transitional and tied to notices issued in 2020. Those provisions were time‑limited and no longer operative; repealing them cleans up the statute without changing current EA policy beyond the new ministerial ordering power.
Prescribed entities may not hold or acquire real property or fixtures; deemed vesting
Section 11.0.1 makes the central policy move: entities the Minister prescribes by regulation lose the statutory authority to hold or acquire real property and fixtures. When an entity is prescribed, its existing property is automatically deemed to vest in the Crown on the regulation’s effective date. The provision reallocates legal ownership to the Crown immediately on regulation, rather than through purchase or expropriation procedures.
Broad regulation-making authority; retroactivity and agreement governance
The Bill replaces s.22 to grant the Minister and the Lieutenant Governor in Council detailed regulatory powers: prescribing entities; setting exceptions and limits; clarifying terms; governing agreements (including what terms are deemed included or excluded); and handling transitional registration and vesting mechanics. Notably, the LGC may make retroactive regulations that deal with already‑entered agreements and can limit Crown liability in respect of such agreements—tools intended to manage pre-existing contractual relationships but which raise legal and administrative complexity.
Non-expropriation clause and acquisition routes for the Crown
The statute declares that actions under s.11.0.1 or related regulations do not constitute expropriation or injurious affection, insulating the Crown against claims under the Expropriations Act. It also clarifies that where the Minister acquires property for use by a prescribed entity that is not part of the government, that acquisition is treated as for government purposes under existing authority—ensuring legal continuity for Crown acquisitions performed to support prescribed entities’ operations.
Cross-references and phased commencement
The Bill adds cross-references to section 11.0.1 in multiple Acts (AgriCorp Act, Arts Council Act, Ontario Financing Authority provisions, Human Rights Code, FSRA Act, and others) so those statutes’ property powers are expressly subject to the new limits. Schedule 2 comes into force on a day named by proclamation, allowing the government to phase in prescribing entities and the accompanying regulations rather than triggering immediate, province‑wide vesting.
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
- Minister of Infrastructure / provincial Treasury — gains centralized title and administrative control over prescribed entities’ real property, simplifying asset management, consolidation, and liability containment.
- Project proponents seeking faster starts — may benefit when the Minister issues orders to remove the post-comment waiting period, shortening procedural delay between public consultation and work start.
- Government negotiators and transaction teams — benefit from clearer statutory mechanics for vesting and title transfer, enabling streamlined negotiations and potentially reducing transaction steps for taking property into Crown control.
Who Bears the Cost
- Prescribed entities (Crown corporations, agencies, or other bodies) — will lose the ability to hold or acquire property and will have operational control and asset management transferred to the Minister, reducing autonomy.
- Private counterparties (tenants, lenders, contractors) with pre-existing rights on prescribed-entity land — face legal uncertainty about how their interests will be recognized, enforced, registered or compensated under forthcoming regulations.
- Regulatory and legal teams — provincial ministries, land registries, and courts may bear increased administrative load and contested litigation as retroactive regulations, title changes, and limits on liability are implemented and litigated.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between speeding and centralizing infrastructure delivery—by giving the Minister control over property and the ability to remove statutory pauses—and preserving legal certainty, contractual rights and public procedural safeguards; the Bill favors administrative flexibility and project tempo at the cost of shifting risk and many technical decisions into regulations and orders that are harder for third parties to predict.
The Bill hands substantial discretion to the executive through regulations and Ministerial orders while leaving many consequential details to subordinate instruments. That design can promote administrative efficiency but also pushes hard questions—about compensation, the treatment of secured creditors, and the mechanics of title registration—out of the primary statute and into regulations that may be made retroactively.
Retroactive LGC regulations that govern already‑entered agreements or limit Crown liability are administratively useful but raise predictability and fairness concerns for private parties who relied on prior law when contracting or financing.
On the Environmental Assessment side, the Minister’s power to remove the post-comment waiting period reduces a statutory buffer intended to give proponents, regulators and the public time to consider written comments; the statute preserves the comment window itself but allows the procedural pause to be removed without express statutory criteria. That creates a classic trade‑off: faster starts versus perceived or real constriction of procedural breathing room.
Because the order may be made after the comment period ends, the timing and rationale for orders will be decisive to whether affected communities feel the process remains legitimate.
Operationally, the deemed‑vesting clause plus a non‑expropriation declaration will shift many disputes into the regulatory and contractual realm rather than expropriation law, but it will not eliminate litigation risk. Parties affected by automatic vesting may challenge the Crown’s treatment of their interests, assertions of immunity from expropriation liability, or retroactive regulatory adjustments; those disputes will test how the government uses its regulatory powers and how courts interpret retroactivity and limits on statutory compensation.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.