Bill 98 Receives Royal Assent: Why Ontario's Latest Housing Legislation Matters To Residential Developers

On June 2, 2026, Ontario's Bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026, received Royal Assent, marking another notable development in the Province's ongoing effort to accelerate housing delivery, reduce development costs, and standardize planning requirements across Ontario.

For residential developers, homebuilders, landowners, and investors, Bill 98 represents more than another legislative update. It continues the Province's multi-year strategy of streamlining approvals, limiting municipal discretion in key areas, and removing requirements that the Province views as contributing to high costs and housing delays.

While many implementation details will depend on future regulations and transition provisions, the legislation signals a clear policy direction: greater consistency across municipalities and fewer local requirements that the Province considers to impede housing construction.

A continued focus on housing supply

Bill 98 builds on a series of recent housing-focused reforms introduced by the Province, including Bills 23, 17 and 60.¹ While each piece of legislation has approached the housing challenge from a different angle, the stated objective has remained the same: increasing housing supply by reducing what the Province has identified as barriers, streamlining approvals, and creating greater certainty for the development industry’s delivery of new homes.

Bill 23 (More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022) focused on reducing development costs and addressing barriers that industry stakeholders identified as affecting housing delivery. Among other measures, the legislation reduced and deferred certain development charges, limited parkland dedication requirements, restricted conservation authority jurisdiction in development approvals, facilitated the creation of additional residential units, and narrowed opportunities for third-party planning appeals.

Bill 17 (Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025) built on those reforms by focusing on the efficiency of the planning and approvals process. The legislation included measures intended to reduce procedural delays, expand the use of Minister's Zoning Orders in certain circumstances, facilitate transit-oriented development, limit opportunities for duplicative reviews, and provide greater consistency in the application of planning and infrastructure requirements across municipalities. The Province's objective was to create a more predictable approvals framework and accelerate the delivery of housing and supporting infrastructure.

Bill 60 (Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025) broadened the Province's housing agenda to include the infrastructure needed to support growth. The legislation introduced measures aimed at accelerating the delivery of major transit and transportation projects, including expanded powers for Metrolinx and reduced notice requirements for certain project-related activities. It also included planning and development reforms intended to reduce administrative delays, standardize development charge practices, expand opportunities for as-of-right planning relief, and streamline approval processes for provincially significant development and transit-oriented community projects. These measures reflected the Province's view that increasing housing supply requires not only faster approvals, but also the timely delivery of the infrastructure that supports new communities.

Bill 98 represents the next step in this legislative programme. Bill 98 continues a legislative trend that has emerged over several years: the Province's increasing willingness to curtail municipal discretion where requirements may impede housing delivery. While earlier reforms focused on development costs, approval timelines, and infrastructure delivery, Bill 98 targets municipal requirements and approval tools that both the Province and industry stakeholders have identified as contributing to increased housing costs and development delays.

In recent years, a number of municipalities have adopted policies and standards that go beyond provincial requirements, particularly in areas such as sustainable design, green development standards, and electric vehicle infrastructure. Municipalities have also relied on development charges and related growth-funding mechanisms to finance infrastructure required to support new development. While these approaches have often been advanced in support of broader environmental, planning, and fiscal objectives, the development industry has frequently raised concerns regarding the additional costs, complexity, and uncertainty associated with complying with varying requirements across multiple jurisdictions.

Bill 98 responds to those concerns by limiting municipal authority in several key areas. Among other measures, the legislation restricts municipalities' ability to impose green development standards that exceed provincial requirements, narrows the scope of sustainable design matters that may be addressed through site plan control, and limits municipal authority to require electric vehicle charging infrastructure through planning approvals. The legislation also introduces changes to the Development Charges Act, including exemptions for certain non-profit housing developments and additional restrictions on municipalities' ability to recover particular costs through development charges.

Taken together, these reforms reflect the Province's view that municipal requirements affecting project design, approval risk and development costs can influence whether housing projects proceed in the first place. Bill 98 continues the Province's broader policy shift toward limiting local discretion in areas affecting development costs and establishing a more uniform provincial standard to facilitate housing construction.

The development charge amendments are consistent with the Province's broader objective of reducing growth-related costs that may affect project feasibility, particularly at a time when many residential projects continue to face significant market, financing, and construction cost pressures.

Municipal green development standards face significant restrictions

Among the most impactful changes for residential developers are the limitations placed on municipal green development standards.

Bill 98 significantly curtails municipal authority to impose green development requirements through planning approvals and municipal by-laws.² In particular, the legislation removes "sustainable design" as a matter that may be addressed through site plan control,³ prohibits municipalities from imposing certain prescribed development requirements,⁴ limits municipal authority to require electric vehicle supply equipment through planning approvals,⁵ and clarifies that municipalities no longer have any power to enact by-laws that prescribe construction standards for the protection or conservation of the environment.⁶

These changes reflect the Province's view that locally imposed development requirements can increase costs, duplicate provincial standards, and create additional costly obligations that may affect housing affordability and delivery.⁷

For the development industry, the practical effect may be a reduction in project-specific requirements that have become increasingly common in certain municipalities. Depending on how municipalities implement the new framework, developers may experience:

• Reduced obligations to satisfy municipal green development standards that exceed provincial requirements.
• Lower design, consulting, and compliance costs associated with municipality-specific sustainability measures.
• Fewer approval-related requirements tied to sustainable design matters.
• Greater reliance on province-wide standards when planning and designing residential projects.

Developers with projects in municipalities that have adopted enhanced green development standards should closely monitor municipal responses to Bill 98, including any amendments to official plans, zoning by-laws, site plan requirements, and related development approval processes.

Potential reduction in approval risk and delay

Bill 98 also removes "sustainable design" as a category of what municipalities can regulate through site plan approval.⁸

Historically, some municipalities have used site plan approval processes to negotiate or require additional design features and sustainability measures. By narrowing the scope of matters that may be addressed through site plan control, Bill 98 may reduce approval timelines and provide greater certainty regarding municipal review requirements.⁹

For residential projects already facing market pressures, financing challenges, and construction cost escalation, increased predictability within the approvals process can have a meaningful impact on project viability.

Changes to electric vehicle infrastructure requirements

Bill 98 also limits municipal authority to require electric vehicle charging infrastructure through zoning and site plan controls.¹⁰

Although many developers will continue to voluntarily incorporate EV charging capabilities into new projects to meet consumer demand, the removal of mandatory municipal requirements may provide greater flexibility in project design and budgeting.

Developers will need to balance the benefits of reduced regulatory requirements against evolving purchaser expectations and long-term market trends.

Official plan standardization could transform land use planning

Perhaps one of the most consequential long-term changes introduced by Bill 98 is the Province's authority to prescribe the structure and content of municipal official plans.¹¹

Historically, municipalities have enjoyed broad discretion in preparing official plans, resulting in significant variation in policy organization, land use designations, schedules, definitions, and mapping across Ontario. Bill 98 authorizes the Province to prescribe requirements for official plans, including prescribed chapters, schedules, land use designations, and other planning instruments.¹² In doing so, the legislation represents a significant shift away from municipality-specific planning frameworks and towards a provincially directed approach to land use planning.

For developers active in multiple jurisdictions, the implications could be substantial:

• Reduced reliance on municipality-specific planning terminology and policy frameworks.
• Lower due diligence costs associated with interpreting and comparing official plans.
• Greater certainty when assessing development potential across multiple municipalities.
• More efficient planning and approvals processes.

While implementation will occur over several years and will depend on future regulations, the initiative represents one of the most ambitious attempts to harmonize land use planning across Ontario.

While implementation will occur over several years and will depend on future regulations, the amendments signal the Province's intention to harmonize land use planning by reducing municipal discretion over the form and content of official plans. The initiative represents one of the most significant shifts toward provincially directed planning policy in Ontario in decades.¹³

Development charge relief for non-profit retirement homes

Bill 98 also amends the Development Charges Act, 1997 to exempt non-profit retirement home developments from development charges.¹⁴ The exemption applies to retirement homes developed by eligible not-for-profit corporations and, importantly, applies not only to development charges that become payable after Royal Assent, but also to future instalments that would otherwise become payable after the provision comes into force.¹⁵

While the exemption is narrowly targeted, it continues the Province's broader policy of limiting the circumstances in which municipalities may recover growth-related costs through development charges. For developers and organizations involved in the delivery of retirement housing, the amendment may improve project feasibility and reduce overall development costs. More broadly, the changes reflect the Province's ongoing efforts to encourage the construction of housing and housing-related accommodation by reducing certain municipal charges that may affect project viability.

What's still to come

While Bill 98 introduces significant changes to Ontario's planning and development framework, it is important to recognize that the legislation forms only part of the Province's broader reform agenda. Concurrently with Bill 98, the Province released a series of Environmental Registry of Ontario ("ERO") proposals aimed at further reducing municipal discretion and streamlining the development approvals process. Although the consultation periods for these proposals have now closed, the proposed reforms have not yet been implemented through legislation or regulation.¹⁶

Several of the proposals would have a significant impact on planning approvals if adopted. For example, the Province has consulted on standardizing complete application requirements and limiting the information and materials that municipalities may require in support of planning applications.¹⁷ The Province has also proposed further reforms to site plan control, including measures intended to reduce procedural requirements and constrain municipal authority over the site plan approval process.¹⁸

Additional consultations have examined the standardization of parkland dedication requirements, minimum residential lot sizes, and other planning tools that have historically been administered at the municipal level. Collectively, these proposals suggest that the Province may continue to shift planning authority away from municipalities and toward a more provincially directed framework for land use planning and development approvals.

Although the timing and final form of these reforms remain uncertain, industry stakeholders should closely monitor future legislative and regulatory developments. Given the Province's continued emphasis on reducing development costs, limiting municipal discretion, and accelerating housing delivery, many of the proposals released alongside Bill 98 may ultimately be implemented through future regulations or additional legislative amendments.

What developers should do now

Although many industry stakeholders will welcome the Province's efforts to reduce complexity and accelerate housing delivery, Bill 98 should not be viewed as the end of the conversation.

Numerous provisions will require supporting regulations, transition rules, and municipal implementation measures before their full impact becomes clear.

Residential developers should:

1. Review active applications to determine whether their projects and approvals may benefit from the changes brought about by Bill 98.
2. Monitor forthcoming regulations and implementation guidance.
3. Assess how municipalities intend to respond to the changes.
4. Revisit development assumptions tied to green standards and EV infrastructure requirements.
5. Consider opportunities created by increased planning standardization and streamlined approvals.

Looking ahead

Bill 98 reinforces the Province's continued commitment to reducing barriers to housing development and creating a more predictable provincial planning environment. While municipalities, environmental organizations, and other stakeholders may debate the merits of certain reforms, the direction from Queen's Park is increasingly clear: housing supply and development efficiency remain top provincial priorities.

For residential developers, the legislation presents both opportunities and areas requiring careful monitoring. Those who understand the evolving framework and adapt early will be best positioned to navigate Ontario's rapidly changing development landscape.

Read the original article on GowlingWLG.com

Footnotes

1. Bill 23 More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, S.O. 2022, c. 21; Bill 17 Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025, S.O. 2025, c. 9; Bill 60 Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025, S.O. 2025, c. 14.

2. Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026, S.O. 2026, c. 8 [Bill 98].

3. Bill 98, Sch. 2, s. 2(2), Sch. 7, s. 8(2).

4. Bill 98, Sch. 7, s. 8(5), Sch. 2, s. 2(4).

5. Bill 98, Sch. 2, s. 2(4), Sch. 7, s. 7(2).

6. Bill 98, Sch. 1, ss, 2, 4, 7 & 8.

7. [7] Bill 98, Technical Briefing; Environmental Registry of Ontario, ERO No. 026-0300, Proposed Planning Act, City of Toronto Act, 2006, Building Code Act, 1992 and Municipal Act, 2001 Changes (Schedules 1, 2 and 7 of Bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026) | Environmental Registry of Ontario.

8. Bill 98, Sch. 2, s. 2(2), Sch. 7, s. 8(2).

9. Bill 98, Sch. 7, s. 8, Sch. 2.

10. Bill 98, Sch. 2, s. 2(4), Sch. 7, s. 8(5).

11. Bill 98, Sch. 7, ss. 2-7.

12. Bill 98, Sch. 7, ss. 2-7.

13. Ontario, Environmental Registry of Ontario, ERO No. 025-0877, Proposed Provincial Official Plan Framework.

14. Bill 98, Sch. 3, s 1.

15. Bill 98, Sch. 3, s 1.

16. Environmental Registry of Ontario, ERO Nos. 026-0310, 026-0311, 026-0312, 026-0313, 026-0314 and 026-0315 (consultation periods closed May 14, 2026).

17. Environmental Registry of Ontario, ERO No. 026-0313, Streamlining the Information and Material that Planning Authorities Can Require as Part of a Complete Application.

18. Environmental Registry of Ontario, ERO No. 026-0310, Proposal to Reform Site Plan Control under the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.