Bill 98 is an omnibus Ontario statute that stitches together changes to municipal planning and building law, a new provincial transit regime, and reworked rules for water and wastewater public corporations. Its largest single addition is the Fare Alignment and Seamless Transit Act, 2026 (Schedule 4), which gives the Minister of Transportation broad powers to set fares, require participation in a provincially approved unified fare payment system, create geographic fare‑apportionment zones, designate priority routes, and require specialty transit providers to join a unified trip booking system and to provide cross‑boundary service for people with disabilities.
Beyond transit, the bill narrows municipal discretion in several ways: it clarifies that “construction standards” include environmental protection standards, removes municipal authority to require electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) in many new parking facilities, exempts non‑profit retirement home developments from development charges, establishes a notification/reporting process between Metrolinx and chief building officials for provincial transit projects, and tightens governance and transfer rules for water and wastewater public corporations. Together these changes increase provincial control over fare, service and infrastructure rules while limiting some municipal tools and legal remedies — and they vest substantial regulation‑making and directive powers in the Minister and Lieutenant Governor in Council.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a new provincial transit statute that authorizes the Minister to prescribe fare structures, require participation in a minister‑approved unified fare payment system, mandate unified trip booking for specialized transit, set apportionment rules for fares collected across zones, and impose service integration standards on priority routes. It also amends planning, building and municipal statutes to (among other changes) clarify environmental construction standards, prevent municipalities from requiring EVSE in many contexts, exempt non‑profit retirement homes from development charges, and constrain share and asset transfers for water and wastewater public corporations.
Who It Affects
Prescribed municipal transit systems and municipal agencies (including the TTC and other municipal operators) must comply with unified fare and booking systems, data and reporting directives, and any apportionment rules. Municipal planners and building officials face new definitions and obligations; developers of non‑profit retirement homes face a development‑charge exemption; water and wastewater public corporations, municipalities and their employees are affected by new transfer, share‑transfer and employee‑continuity rules.
Why It Matters
The bill centralizes fare and service decisions at the provincial level and creates mandatory technical and commercial integrations (payment, booking, data) that will reshape revenue flows and operations across municipal boundaries. It also alters municipal regulatory tools — most notably curbing local EVSE mandates and changing planning content and timelines — while creating novel legal immunity provisions that narrow participants’ remedies for many decisions under the new transit statute.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 98 is a package of interlocking changes with three practical thrusts: provincial control over transit fares and technical systems; changes to municipal planning and building authorities that remove or limit some local tools; and tighter rules governing water and wastewater public corporations. The Fare Alignment and Seamless Transit Act at the bill’s core authorizes the Minister of Transportation to write regulations that set fare prices and categories, require transit providers to join an approved unified fare payment system, and require prescribed specialized transit systems to join an approved unified trip booking platform.
The Minister can also create geographic zones and require designated transit systems in a zone to apportion fare revenue according to regulatory rules, and can designate priority routes with service standards and cross‑agency integration requirements.
Operationally, the Act creates several compliance levers: mandatory timelines (the text refers repeatedly to “within the prescribed timeframe”), reporting duties for municipalities and agencies, the power to issue information or data directives to providers and Metrolinx, and regulatory authority to prescribe who qualifies as a “prescribed transit system.” There is also an extensive clause (section 13) that extinguishes many causes of action against provincial actors, municipalities, municipal agencies and Metrolinx related to enactment or implementation of the Act and its regulations — though judicial review and constitutional remedies remain available.On land use and building law, the bill clarifies that municipal construction by‑laws can include standards aimed at protecting or conserving the environment, while at the same time removing various municipal powers: it strips references to “sustainable design” in several sections, and it forbids municipalities and zoning by‑laws from requiring owners to install or maintain electric vehicle supply equipment in connection with off‑street vehicular parking facilities (with related limits in the City of Toronto Act and Planning Act). The Planning Act portion also replaces the content framework for official plans with a prescriptive schedule of chapters and sets staggered transition dates for municipalities to move to the new format.Other practical changes include an explicit exemption from development charges for qualifying non‑profit retirement home developments, a Metrolinx notification and report process that brings chief building officials into provincial transit projects (with limited immunities for officials acting in good faith), and amendments to the Water and Wastewater Public Corporations Act that restrict who may hold shares, limit transfers of assets unless the board resolves they’re no longer needed, and establish continuity rules for transferred employees.
Many of these changes are to be fleshed out by regulation, giving the Minister and Lieutenant Governor in Council broad discretion over definitions, exemptions, zones, and retroactive application in some instances.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Minister may, by regulation, set fare prices and require prescribed transit systems to join a minister‑approved unified fare payment system and comply within prescribed timeframes.
Prescribed specialized transit systems must participate in a minister‑approved unified trip booking system and, on request, provide cross‑boundary transport for a person with a disability for a prescribed distance, including transporting a support person fare‑free.
Section 13 of the Fare Alignment and Seamless Transit Act extinguishes most private causes of action and bars proceedings (other than judicial review or constitutional claims) against the Crown, municipalities, municipal agencies and Metrolinx in respect of acts done under the Act, with limited carve‑outs for certain intra‑municipal and employee claims.
The Planning Act and City of Toronto Act amendments prevent municipalities and zoning by‑laws from requiring owners to provide or maintain electric vehicle supply equipment in connection with off‑street parking, and remove multiple references to “sustainable design.”, Schedule 3 adds a Development Charges Act exemption that makes qualifying non‑profit retirement home developments (as defined by the Retirement Homes Act) exempt from development charges, with transition rules for instalments already payable.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Fare Alignment and Seamless Transit Act — Ministerial control over fares, systems and reporting
This schedule creates a standalone provincial transit statute. Practically every operational detail — which systems are “prescribed,” the content of fare structures, participation deadlines, apportionment rules for multi‑jurisdictional zones, priority‑route standards, and the scope of unified booking and payment systems — is delegated to regulation. Municipal operators will therefore face a regulatory first: compliance is a matter of ministerial rule‑making rather than bilateral municipal negotiation. The schedule also creates data‑ and reporting obligations (reports in prescribed form and information or data directives), and authorizes the Minister to publish compliance information, which will affect transparency and public scrutiny of municipal performance.
Fare apportionment zones and priority routes — revenue sharing and service mandates
Section 6 lets the Minister create geographic zones and require designated transit systems within them to apportion fares according to regulations; section 7 lets the Minister declare priority routes and impose service standards and cross‑system integration obligations. Those two tools will be the practical levers that reallocate fare revenue and force cross‑boundary service provision. The regulations may authorize interim apportionment methods, require agreements, or provide arbitration — but they also permit interim payments and later reconciliation, which means operators may face cash‑flow and accounting complexity before final settlements are reached.
Specialized transit and data powers — unified booking, cross‑boundary service, and broad information directives
Prescribed specialized transit systems must join a minister‑approved unified trip booking platform and must transport persons with disabilities beyond their primary service area on request; support persons travel free where needed. Sections 10–12 create mandatory reporting, allow detailed information requests on services and fares, and give the Minister a written‑directive power to compel documents, contracts and raw data (including contracts and plans) from municipalities, municipal agencies and passenger transportation systems. The regulation clauses permit clarifications, exemptions and definitions; the Lieutenant Governor in Council can prescribe systems and even apply certain regulations retroactively.
Broad extinguishment of causes of action and limits on remedies
Section 13 bars most private remedies — tort, contract, equitable remedies and economic loss claims — against the Crown, municipalities, municipal agencies and Metrolinx for acts connected to the Act or its regulations, requests or directives. The provision preserves judicial review and constitutional remedies but removes ordinary access to court relief for many claimants and prevents costs awards in barred proceedings. Expect contested interpretations about the reach of this clause (for example in contract disputes, procurement or revenue disputes), and practical shifts toward arbitration or regulatory processes where judicial remedies are narrowed.
Building Code and City of Toronto Act changes — environmental standards clarified, sustainable design language removed
Schedule 1 amends the Building Code Act to state explicitly that municipal by‑laws respecting construction may include standards for protecting or conserving the environment; related amendments to the City of Toronto Act and the Planning Act mirror that clarification. Simultaneously, references to “sustainable design” are removed in multiple places, and the City of Toronto is explicitly barred from requiring owners to install EVSE in connection with off‑street parking under specified clauses. The upshot is a technical shift: municipalities retain the ability to regulate environmental construction standards but lose an identified lever for mandating EV charging infrastructure in many new developments.
Planning Act overhaul — prescriptive official plan content and multi‑year transition
The Planning Act changes replace the previous open‑ended official plan content with a prescriptive Schedule 1 that enumerates chapters, sections and maps an official plan must contain (e.g., settlement areas, housing, infrastructure, natural heritage). The Minister can issue written directions on compliance; transition provisions stagger adoption (major municipalities move by Jan 1, 2028; others by Jan 1, 2029). The changes also limit zoning powers around minimum parcel sizes and lot dimensions for urban residential land and establish rules for how conveyed lands count toward parkland requirements (including a 0.7 multiplier). Municipalities will need to reformat or revise official plans and work with the Ministry to interpret the new prescribed structure.
Development charges and Metrolinx building interactions — DC exemption and provincial building notifications
Schedule 3 adds a targeted exemption: qualifying non‑profit retirement home developments (as defined by the Retirement Homes Act and limited to not‑for‑profit corporations) are exempt from development charges, with the exemption not applying retroactively to instalments already payable. Schedule 5 adds a Metrolinx notification mechanism: Metrolinx may notify a chief building official about a provincial transit‑associated construction or demolition and chief building officials must report (in prescribed form) on code applicability, professional design requirements, qualifications/insurance of designers and other prescribed information; the schedule includes limited immunities for officials acting in good faith. These two changes intersect with housing, municipal finance and provincial transit project delivery.
Municipal consent for water utilities and water/wastewater public corporation rules
Schedule 6 remakes section 93 of the Municipal Act to require municipal consent for construction/operation of water or sewage public utilities and authorizes the Lieutenant Governor in Council to prescribe criteria, financial assurance requirements and enforceable conditions, including registered agreements. Schedule 9 tightens the Water and Wastewater Public Corporations Act: share issuance and transfers are restricted to municipalities, the Province, the Government of Canada or their agents; asset transfers require a board resolution that the asset is no longer needed; transfer by‑laws cannot transfer certain municipal debt instruments (debentures) and include detailed continuity rules for employees. The Minister is given regulatory authority to specify the legal effect of transfers and to require or modify agreements, including retroactively in some cases.
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
- Transit riders traveling across municipal boundaries — will see a provincially driven move toward unified payment and transfer rules that promise simpler fares and potentially smoother cross‑municipal trips.
- Persons with disabilities who use specialized transit — the bill requires unified trip booking and, on request, cross‑boundary travel and free transportation for required support persons within prescribed distances, improving door‑to‑door continuity in theory.
- Non‑profit retirement home developers and operators that meet the definition — they are exempted from development charges, lowering upfront costs for eligible projects.
- Provincial agencies and Metrolinx — gain clearer mechanisms to coordinate building‑related review on provincial transit projects and enhanced regulatory levers over municipal transit systems.
- Water and wastewater public corporations and municipal owners — the share‑transfer and asset rules limit outsider ownership and create clearer continuity rules for transferred employees, reducing some transaction uncertainty.
Who Bears the Cost
- Municipal transit operators and municipal agencies — must implement unified fare and trip‑booking technology, comply with reporting and data directives, and accept potential apportionment rules that change local revenue flows.
- Municipalities and local planners — lose specific regulatory levers (notably the ability in many cases to require EVSE for parking) and must rework official plans to fit a prescriptive provincial template within transition timelines.
- Municipal finance departments — face the fiscal implications of exempts (non‑profit retirement homes) and the administrative burden of consenting to water/sewage public utilities under newly prescribable criteria and potential financial assurance requirements.
- Private vendors and payment/booking providers — must meet ministerial approvals and interoperable standards, and may face procurement pressure and data‑sharing demands that affect commercial terms and IP.
- Municipal employees and municipalities involved in transfers to water/wastewater corporations — must absorb new transfer‑related administration, and municipalities could face constraints if regulations retroactively alter agreement rights or debt allocation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is provincial standardization and speed versus municipal autonomy and local accountability: the bill pushes integration of fares, booking, reporting and service standards under ministerial control to achieve seamless cross‑jurisdiction travel and faster project delivery, but it does so by curtailing municipal regulatory tools, expanding regulatory discretion and narrowing private legal remedies — a trade‑off between system‑level consistency and local control with real consequences for revenue allocation, enforcement and recourse.
The bill concentrates a great deal of discretionary power in the Minister and in regulations. Most of the operational architecture — who qualifies as a prescribed transit system, the technical standards for unified payment or booking systems, fare apportionment formulas, geographic zones, and exemptions — is delegated.
That means the practical impact will depend heavily on regulatory details and on the Minister’s approach to phased implementation, timelines and cost recovery. Regulations may permit interim apportionment and later reconciliation, which creates short‑term cash‑flow and accounting complexity for operators and raises questions about who carries interim financial risk.
The extinguishment clause (section 13) is the most consequential legal design choice. It removes ordinary routes to damages and injunctions for a wide array of acts taken under the Act while preserving judicial review and constitutional claims.
That reduces litigation risk for the Crown and municipal actors but also limits remedies for private parties and municipalities that believe they have suffered economic loss, contractual breach or regulatory overreach. It raises predictable implementation tensions: disputing parties may be steered toward arbitration, regulatory complaints or political channels, while some disputes involving transferred debts, procurement or intergovernmental cost shifts may lack clear remedies.
Other tensions are operational. Prohibiting local EVSE requirements addresses a provincial policy choice to limit municipal mandates, but runs counter to municipal electrification and climate‑oriented planning in some jurisdictions.
Water and wastewater transfer provisions increase protections for continuity and public ownership but create complicated rule‑making potential around debt treatment and the legal effect of transfers — including regulations that can modify or retroactively affect agreements. Finally, the bill assumes substantial IT, procurement and data‑sharing work (unified fare and trip booking systems plus reporting mandates) without specifying funding or procurement models, which could delay or complicate rollout and raise third‑party confidentiality and privacy issues.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.