Bill 98: Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026
This blog constitutes Part 2 of the Davies Howe LLP Bill 98 and Related Proposals blog series and describes the following proposed changes:
- Standardizing Official Plans
- Complete Application Requirements
- Additional Prescribed Professions
- Site Plan Reform
While these proposed changes, if approved, will have significant impacts on the land use planning regime, none are currently set to take effect imminently.
Standardizing Official Plans
Bill 98 proposes changes to the Planning Act which, if passed, would require the official plans of lower-tier and single-tier municipalities to contain the chapters, sections and schedules as specified in the proposed new Schedule 1 to the Planning Act. Schedule 1 proposes to set out specified land use designations and permitted uses within each land use designation that would be required to be implemented in the municipalities’ official plans. These standardized requirements are proposed to make official plans simpler and easier to understand; more permissive and development-positive; shorter; and machine readable. They represent a significant shift toward provincially directed land use policy, reducing municipalities’ ability to tailor land use designations to local conditions. If implemented as proposed, this may result in more permissive baseline permissions, potentially reducing the need for site-specific official plan amendments in some contexts.
Some of the currently proposed land use designations and permitted uses include:
- Neighbourhoods – these would permit residential uses, small-scale commercial uses, institutional uses (including cemeteries) and other uses as prescribed.
- Mixed-Use Areas – residential uses, commercial uses, institutional uses (including cemeteries), industrial, manufacturing and small-scale warehousing uses that could be located adjacent to sensitive land uses without adverse effects and other uses as prescribed.
- Mixed-Use Commercial Areas – industrial, manufacturing and small-scale warehousing uses and other uses as prescribed. Commercial and institutional uses are permitted only if they are not sensitive land uses.
- Employment Areas – uses permitted in areas of employment as defined in the Planning Act.
- Natural Environment and Water Resource Areas – conservation uses and other uses as prescribed.
- Resource Areas – resource extraction uses and other uses as prescribed.
- Rural Lands – residential uses, small-scale commercial uses, small-scale industrial uses, agricultural and agriculture-related uses, on-farm diversified uses, resource management uses, resource-based recreational uses, cemetery uses and other uses as prescribed.
If a certain section or schedule is not applicable to a municipality, they may simply include the words “Not Applicable” in the new official plan. Further, under the proposed amendments, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (the “Minister”) may provide a municipality with written directions specifying how to comply with the creation of a standardized official plan. The Minister may also direct that a land use designation set out in Schedule 1 be implemented through the use of two or more sub-designations.
To implement the “new official plan framework”, Bill 98 proposes to add new section 16.0.1 to the Planning Act, which states that the former official plan framework will continue to apply until the day on which a new official plan or a revision of the official plan under section 26 is adopted after the applicable transition date: January 1, 2028 for the 29 “large and fast-growing municipalities”1 and January 1, 2029 for all other municipalities.
Notably, these portions of Bill 98 are set to come into effect on a day to be named by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, thus, the January 1, 2028 date may be changed at a later date if the Province thinks that municipalities require more time to implement the new official plan framework.
The Province has also indicated that these changes will not come into force until additional consultation on secondary plans and upper-tier official plans is complete, and final refinements are made to the framework. The Province’s consultation proposal is posted on the ERO here, where comments can be provided until April 29, 2026. Changes the Province is considering include creating specific land use designations that only apply to official plans of upper-tier municipalities with planning responsibilities, and to create clear parameters for secondary plans such as identifying the types of areas where they can be used, separating secondary plans from the primary official plan so they would exist as a standalone document while being subject to the same process requirements and exempting secondary plans from the Minister’s approval, meaning that they would likely be appealable to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
Other complimentary changes to the official plan framework are proposed to come into effect on the day Bill 98 receives royal assent, including removing the requirement to include climate change policies in official plans, providing that proposed amendments to approved protected major transit station area policies do not need the Minister’s approval unless the boundaries or the planned population and jobs are proposed to be changed, and providing the Minister with authority to exempt lower-tier municipalities from the requirement to conform with upper-tier official plans.
Complete Application Requirements
As part of Bill 17, which received royal assent on June 5, 2025, the Province amended various sections of the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to restrict a municipality’s ability to amend its official plan to add additional requirements for complete applications beyond those which are currently identified, unless the Minister approves the official plan amendment in writing. These changes apply to complete application requirements for official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, site plan control, plans of subdivision and consents.
The Province is now seeking feedback on a proposed standardized list of information that planning authorities can require for complete applications. The list is intended to be comprehensive enough so that proposals can be effectively evaluated to ensure that provincial interests in land use planning are upheld; however, it is not proposed to be a mandatory list that would be required for every application. The Province is proposing to divide the requirements into two categories:
1. Core Studies – studies that could be required for all planning applications, including (but not limited to):
- Environmental Impact Statement;
- Environmental Site Assessment;
- Functional Servicing Report;
- Geotechnical Report;
- Hydrogeological Report;
- Planning Justification Report; and
- Transportation Impact Study.
2. Contingent Studies – studies that could only be required when a specific on-site or surrounding condition exists, including (but not limited to):
- Aeronautical Report;
- Agricultural Impact Assessment;
- Air Quality/Odour Study;
- Arborist Report;
- Land Use Compatibility Study;
- Natural Hazard Impact Study;
- Noise/Vibration Study; and
- Wind Study.
The ERO posting is open for comment until May 14, 2025, and can be found here.
Prescribed Professions
In June 2025, Bill 17 also added new subsections to the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006 which deem the provision of information or material as having satisfied the complete application requirements if it was “prepared by a person authorized to practice a prescribed profession”.
On January 16, 2026, the Province prescribed “professional engineering” as a “prescribed profession” by amending four existing regulations and creating a new regulation for site plan control applications.
The Province is now seeking feedback on adding additional certified professionals and has currently put forward “registered landscape architects” as a potential inclusion in a future regulation. This would mean that municipalities would be required to accept technical studies and plans prepared by landscape architects in the first instance as satisfying complete application requirements resulting in faster filings.
Consultation on Site Plan Reform
While not proposed by Bill 98, as part of the Province’s sleuth of announcements, it has posted a proposal on the ERO seeking feedback on “bold and transformational changes” to site plan control (ERO No. 026-0310). The potential changes could be massive. In the proposal, the Province indicates that site plan control is not working as intended, and is seeking feedback with the goal of enabling a faster, more predictable, cost effective and coordinated municipal site plan process. The Province proposes the following reforms, to be discussed further with stakeholders:
- Remove site plan control altogether.
- Require municipalities to have a maximum of three circulations after which a mandatory meeting is triggered with all relevant municipal staff and the applicant to resolve all outstanding issues.
- Scope the site plan review process to a standard site plan approval checklist of functional aspects of a site (e.g., those related to health and safety), with use of certified professionals for acceptance and approval of reports and studies.
- Establish or require a municipal arbitration process / site plan review panel for site plan applications that have exceeded the government’s 60-day timeline and a specified number of circulations. This would be an alternative to a hearing at the Ontario Land Tribunal with a goal of speeding up approvals and cutting down on associated costs.
- Establish or require municipalities to establish different site plan approval streams for different kinds of proposed development, with corresponding scope of matters that may be controlled.
Conclusion
Collectively, these proposals signal a shift toward greater provincial control, increased reliance on standardized processes and a rebalancing of roles between municipalities, consultants and applicants. If implemented, they have the potential to materially alter how development applications are scoped, submitted, and advanced through the approvals process.
The Davies Howe LLP team will keep you updated as Bill 98 moves through the legislative process. Stay tuned for the next part of the Bill 98 blog series relating to encumbered parkland.