Bill 87 amends the Environmental Protection Act to force a focused, time-limited review of Ontario Regulation 103/94 (Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Source Separation Programs). The minister must begin the review within three months of the Act coming into force and table a report no later than nine months after the review starts; the review must consider a defined list of program elements, from designated materials and size thresholds to reporting, third‑party audits and potential complementary tools such as producer responsibility and disposal bans.
The measure does not itself change regulatory obligations; it creates a mandatory evidence-gathering and policy‑design step that could lead to outcomes‑based regulation (diversion targets, disposal caps, contamination thresholds) or other systemic changes. For regulated parties — ICI waste generators, waste haulers, recyclers, building owners and producers — the review is the signal that Ontario is preparing to move from prescriptive rules toward measurable performance standards and potentially new compliance and reporting duties.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the Minister to start a review of O. Reg. 103/94 within three months of the law coming into force and to report findings to the Legislature within nine months of starting the review. The review must evaluate how to set clear, enforceable outcomes-based requirements—examples include diversion targets, disposal caps and contamination thresholds—and consider nine specific implementation matters.
Who It Affects
Directly affected stakeholders include industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) waste generators; waste haulers and processors; multi‑residential building owners and managers; producers of designated materials; and firms that provide monitoring, certification and audit services. Municipalities and provincial compliance officers will also be involved because any regulatory redesign will interact with local collection and enforcement systems.
Why It Matters
The review is the preparatory step toward outcomes‑based regulation of ICI source separation. That represents a possible shift from prescriptive rules to measurable performance requirements, which can materially change compliance models, data/reporting expectations and the role of producers and third‑party certifiers in Ontario’s waste system.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 87 adds a single new provision to the Environmental Protection Act that compels the provincial Minister to undertake a short, targeted review of Ontario Regulation 103/94— the rule that governs source separation programs for industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) generators. The statute imposes two deadlines: the review must begin within three months of proclamation; the Minister must table a report no more than nine months after the review begins.
That report is the bill’s deliverable; the bill stops short of mandating any particular regulatory outcome.
The law supplies a checklist of substantive topics the Minister must examine: the scope of regulated sectors and subsectors; size thresholds for facilities and dwellings; which materials should be designated; public reporting and tracking regimes; the role of independent monitoring, certification and audits; education and promotion; performance measures to increase diversion; approaches for multi‑residential buildings; and whether complementary tools— including producer responsibility schemes or disposal bans—should be used. Those items read like an implementation playbook for outcomes-based regulation and will shape the evidence the Ministry gathers and presents to the Legislature.Because the bill is procedural, its immediate legal effect is limited: it creates a statutory duty to investigate and report, not to change O.
Reg. 103/94. Practically, however, the review is a necessary precursor to any future regulation-making that sets targets, caps or contamination limits.
That means stakeholders should expect data requests, consultations and potentially pilot programs that feed into recommended standards. The requirement to consider third‑party audits and public reporting signals an emphasis on verifiable performance and transparency, which in turn implies new compliance costs and market opportunities for certifiers and data platforms.Finally, the inclusion of producer responsibility and disposal bans in the checklist makes clear the review will not treat source separation in isolation: the Ministry must weigh upstream product stewardship and downstream disposal restrictions as complementary options.
That expands the scope of potential policy responses beyond collection rules to supply-chain obligations and market interventions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The minister must commence the review of O. Reg. 103/94 within three months after the section comes into force.
The Minister must table a report of the review’s findings no later than nine months after the review begins.
The review must assess size thresholds for facilities and dwellings, creating scope to exempt or capture operations based on scale.
The review requires examination of third‑party monitoring, certification and audits—opening the door to independent compliance verification as part of future enforcement.
The Minister must explore complementary tools such as producer responsibility regimes and disposal bans, meaning the review may recommend measures that shift costs upstream to product manufacturers or restrict disposal options.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Statutory trigger and purpose
This subsection creates the mandatory duty: within three months of the section coming into force the Minister must begin a review of O. Reg. 103/94 to determine how to frame outcomes‑based requirements. Practically, this converts political intent into a statutorily enforceable timeline and makes the Ministry’s fact‑finding an obligation rather than discretionary policy work.
Scope and size thresholds
Items 1 and 2 direct the Minister to consider which sectors and subsectors should be regulated and whether to set size thresholds for facilities and dwellings. That is the mechanics for defining the rule’s universe: the Ministry will need to decide whether thresholds use employee counts, floor space, waste tonnage, or other metrics. The choice of metric matters because it determines who is newly regulated and where compliance costs concentrate; it also creates potential cliff effects at threshold cutoffs.
Designated materials, reporting and third‑party oversight
Items 3–5 require analysis of which materials to designate for source separation, what public reporting and tracking should look like, and whether third‑party monitoring, certification and audits are appropriate. These provisions push the review toward specifying measurable waste streams and data requirements, and toward verification models that rely on independent auditors—each of which has operational, commercial and privacy implications for generators and haulers.
Education, performance measures and multi‑residential approaches
Items 6–8 compel assessment of non‑regulatory levers (promotion and education), concrete performance metrics to increase diversion, and tailored approaches for multi‑residential properties. This portion signals the Ministry must weigh behaviour‑change strategies alongside regulatory sticks, and that multi‑residential buildings will need distinct operational solutions due to shared infrastructure and tenant turnover.
Complementary tools and reporting deadline
Item 9 explicitly instructs the Minister to explore producer responsibility models and disposal bans as complements to source separation, broadening the policy menu beyond collection rules. Subsection (3) then fixes the deliverable: no more than nine months after the review starts, the Minister must report findings to the Legislature. The tight report deadline concentrates work and narrows the window for extensive consultation or pilots before recommendations are presented.
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
- Resource‑recovery and recycling firms: clearer designated‑material lists and standardized contamination thresholds would improve feedstock quality and reduce processing costs, making recycling operations more predictable and bankable.
- Multi‑residential building managers and residents (if program design includes tailored solutions): focused methods for multi‑residential diversion could yield practical collection systems and higher diversion rates that reduce building‑level waste disposal costs over time.
- Independent auditors, certification bodies and waste‑data platforms: the statute’s emphasis on third‑party monitoring and public reporting creates demand for verification services, compliance audits and digital tracking solutions, opening new commercial opportunities.
Who Bears the Cost
- Industrial, commercial and institutional waste generators (especially mid‑sized operations): potential new reporting, compliance verification and contamination limits will generate administrative and operational costs to meet outcomes-based standards.
- Waste haulers and processors: new tracking, measurement and third‑party auditing requirements will increase operational complexity; haulers may need to invest in segregation systems and data collection infrastructure.
- Producers of designated materials (if producer responsibility is recommended): exploration of extended producer responsibility and disposal bans signals potential upstream cost-shifting to manufacturers through stewardship fees, redesign obligations or take‑back programs.
- Provincial Ministry of the Environment: the Ministry must resource a compressed review and follow-up rule‑making work, which could strain staff and require additional funding for consultations, data analysis and compliance design.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between setting ambitious, enforceable waste‑diversion outcomes (targets, caps, contamination limits) and keeping those requirements technically measurable, economically feasible and administrable across diverse ICI actors; the policy that best protects the environment may also impose disproportionate compliance costs or create perverse incentives unless paired with clear metrics, phased timelines and support for capacity building.
The bill is procedural: it mandates a review and reporting timetable but does not prescribe regulatory outcomes. That creates a two‑stage dynamic—first, rapid evidence‑gathering under a statutory clock; second, a separate rule‑making process that may follow.
The nine‑month reporting requirement pressures the Ministry to prioritize available data over long‑term pilots, which can lead to recommendations that rely on modelling and best practice rather than local trials. Stakeholders should expect targeted data requests and short consultation windows rather than protracted engagement.
Several implementation tensions are unresolved by the bill. Measuring and enforcing contamination thresholds is technically challenging—sampling regimes, chain-of-custody rules and tolerances will determine whether thresholds are achievable or simply shift costs.
Size thresholds and sector definitions risk creating administrative cliffs that encourage artificial restructuring to avoid obligations. Exploring producer responsibility and disposal bans raises legal, commercial and logistical questions (who pays, how fees are set, cross‑jurisdictional trade impacts) that the review must confront but cannot resolve on its own.
Finally, aligning any new provincial outcomes-based rules with municipal collection practices and existing federal/provincial stewardship programs will require careful coordination to avoid duplication or gaps.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.