Introduction

Ontario’s rapid-fire changes to land-use planning policy are creating a growing disconnect between provincial ambitions and municipal implementation. In the push to address a housing affordability crisis, the province has introduced sweeping legislation (like Bill 23 and Bill 97), set aggressive housing targets, and increasingly issued Minister’s Zoning Orders (MZOs) to override local zoning. These top-down moves are forcing municipalities to constantly revise planning documents and adapt on the fly, breeding local uncertainty and confusion. Critics warn that downloading more responsibilities to local governments in this manner “will lead to inefficiencies, delays and increased risk and costs” rvca.ca. In other words, the very measures intended to speed up homebuilding may be undermined by the turbulence they create on the ground.

In this post, we’ll break down the key policy shifts driving this provincial-municipal rift, explore real examples of conflicts between Ontario’s housing push and local planning goals, and examine how these changes are impacting developers and urban planners. The goal is a factual yet accessible look at why planning in Ontario feels caught between a rock and a hard place – and what it means for those trying to build communities amidst the uncertainty.

Provincial Policy Shifts Upending Local Plans

The Ontario government has fundamentally altered the province’s planning framework in a short time, leaving municipalities scrambling to keep up. Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act (2022), introduced omnibus changes to numerous statutes to accelerate housing development. This law curtailed several layers of local control and input in the planning process. For example, Bill 23 removed the ability of upper-tier (regional) municipalities to approve lower-tier official plans, effectively sidelining regional planning oversight lexology.comobserverxtra.com. It also eliminated public meetings and third-party appeals for certain planning applications, meaning residents and community groups lost avenues to voice concerns on subdivisions or minor variances lexology.comobserverxtra.com. Additionally, Bill 23 exempted small residential projects (10 units or less) from site plan control, and even for larger projects it stripped municipalities’ power to review architectural details or landscaping at the site-plan stage lexology.comobserverxtra.com.

These changes were designed to cut “red tape,” but for city planners they triggered immediate adjustments to local processes and policies. Municipal staff reports at the time flagged numerous concerns: the financial hit from development charge discounts (which threatened infrastructure funding), the limits to public input on developments, potential negative environmental effects, and an overall loss of municipal control over local planning decisions observerxtra.comobserverxtra.com. Planners warned that with fewer checks and balances “it may be much more difficult to ensure that we are developing responsibly with fulsome consultation” observerxtra.com. In practice, cities and towns have had to rewrite official plans and zoning bylaws to align with the new rules – a labor-intensive task when done once, let alone repeatedly.

Hot on the heels of Bill 23, the province passed Bill 97, the Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act (2023), which continued to recalibrate planning rules. This law introduced further Planning Act amendments and signaled a new Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) to consolidate Ontario’s planning policy framework. The draft 2024 PPS (now approved) replaced the former Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan with a single streamlined document focused on housing outcomes and “flexibility” for municipalitiesmcmillan.camcmillan.ca. While a unified policy aims to simplify things, it again forces municipalities to update their official plans to conform to a new direction. Notably, Bill 97 also tweaked some of Bill 23’s extremes after municipal feedback – for instance, it delayed the implementation of punitive fee-refund timelines for slow approvals and created a pathway to regulate site plan control for projects up to 10 units in specific casesero.ontario.ca (acknowledging that a blanket removal of site plan oversight might have gone too far).

The net effect of these rapid provincial policy swings has been a revolving door of local planning updates. Municipal planning departments have had to repeatedly revisit master plans, bylaws, and procedures. One year, cities were expediting programs for gentle density (e.g. allowing triplexes as-of-right) and rushing to remove thousands of properties from heritage registers to comply with Bill 23’s tight timelines; the next, they were digesting a new Provincial Planning Statement and adjusting to tweaks from Bill 97. Such frequent policy changes create a moving target for local planning. As the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario observed, “given the uncertainty presented by Bill 23 for municipalities and developers…will this Bill slow down housing development while all parties involved navigate the changes?”amcto.com. It’s a crucial question: policy objectives can be lofty, but constant rule changes make implementation a maze.

Housing Targets vs. Local Planning Goals

Another source of provincial-local tension is Ontario’s ambitious housing targets. The Province has declared a goal of facilitating 1.5 million new homes by 2031, and it has assigned specific targets to dozens of municipalities. Premier Doug Ford’s government has pushed cities to sign “housing pledges” committing to these targets, even tying financial incentives (or penalties) to performance. In August 2023, the province unveiled a $1.2 billion Building Faster Fund to reward municipalities that meet 80% of their annual housing target, while pointedly “threatening those who don’t comply.” thepointer.comthepointer.com The message is clear: grow quickly or risk losing out on provincial support.

The trouble is that provincial targets don’t always mesh with local realities or priorities. Several cities have official plans that emphasized phased growth, intensification, and preservation of farmland or green space – goals that could be upended by a sudden mandate to vastly increase unit counts. Nowhere was this clash more visible than in the Greater Golden Horseshoe’s urban boundary debates. In late 2022, Ontario’s Housing Minister used his powers to override municipal councils in Hamilton and Halton Region and impose urban boundary expansions to allow new subdivisions on farmland, directly contravening those councils’ adopted “no sprawl” policies thenarwhal.ca. Hamilton’s council, for instance, had wanted to accommodate growth through density and protect its rural lands, but provincial officials ordered an expansion, arguing it was needed for housing supply. This top-down intervention prompted public outcry – local residents protested what they saw as a loss of control and a threat to sustainable planning.

Tellingly, just a year later (amid political fallout from related Greenbelt land controversies), the province did an about-face and reversed many of these forced boundary expansions. In October 2023, new Housing Minister Paul Calandra admitted the earlier decisions to push outward sprawl “weren’t made in a manner that maintains and reinforces public trust,” and he rolled back expansion orders for Hamilton and nine other municipalities thenarwhal.cathenarwhal.ca. This reversal preserved 2,200 hectares of Hamilton’s farmland (and thousands more hectares across other communities) that had briefly been slated for development thenarwhal.ca. While local planners and citizens welcomed the reprieve, the whiplash nature of these moves illustrates the climate of uncertainty. Municipalities like Hamilton invested time and resources to amend plans per the province’s 2022 direction, only to pivot back in 2023.

Such volatility can spook developers and communities alike. Landowners and builders who banked on an expansion may suddenly find those lands off-limits again, while municipalities are left oscillating between conflicting mandates. The broader conflict remains: local planning goals – such as curbing sprawl, protecting farmland, or ensuring infrastructure keeps pace – have often collided with the province’s singular focus on maximizing housing units quickly. As one analysis noted, many cities are trying to reconcile the urgent need for more housing with the equally urgent need to manage climate impacts and conserve land thenarwhal.cathenarwhal.ca. When provincial policy tilts heavily to one side (e.g. favoring greenfield development for single-family homes, as the current government often has), local priorities like sustainable growth or complete community planning can get sidelined. The result is frequent friction and, as seen, policy zigzags that help no one in the long run.

The Rise of MZOs and Erosion of Local Control

A particularly controversial tool in Ontario’s recent housing push is the Minister’s Zoning Order, or MZO. An MZO is a mechanism by which the province – via the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing – can instantly override local zoning bylaws to permit a development, bypassing the normal planning process entirely environmentaldefence.ca. Under previous governments, MZOs were rarely used, reserved for truly urgent or exceptional projects. However, since 2019 the Ford government has relied on MZOs with unprecedented frequency, effectively making them a staple of provincial intervention. According to Ontario’s Auditor General, an average of 23 MZOs were issued per year from 2019–2023 – a 17-fold increase in usage compared to the previous 20 years globalnews.ca. In total, 114 MZOs were approved in that four-year span, covering everything from new housing subdivisions to warehouses and factories.

Proponents argue that MZOs can expedite important developments that are stuck in municipal red tape. Indeed, some orders have been used for commendable goals like fast-tracking long-term care homes or supportive housing. More often, however, MZOs under this government have been used “like candy” to force through projects that would not normally be approved under local planning rules, such as sprawl development on farmland or wetlands environmentaldefence.ca. By design, an MZO skips the usual technical reviews and public consultations that accompany rezoning. This has made it a blunt instrument – one that can green-light speculative proposals without community consensus or proper servicing plans in place.

The surge in MZOs has raised alarms about transparency, fairness, and effectiveness. The Auditor General’s 2024 report found the MZO approval process to be ad hoc, lacking clear criteria or accountability, and noted instances that “give the appearance of preferential treatment” for certain landowners globalnews.caglobalnews.ca. In some cases, political staff imposed rushed timelines on civil servants to process MZO requests with little rationale, and expert recommendations or risk assessments were ignored by the Minister’s office globalnews.caglobalnews.ca. Perhaps most damning, the Auditor General observed that many MZOs touted as housing boosters “may not meaningfully speed up development” at all – for example, zoning orders were approved on lands with no access to municipal water or sewer services, meaning shovels couldn’t actually get in the ground for years or even decades globalnews.caglobalnews.ca. In one bizarre case, an MZO was justified by a planned GO Transit station that the government had no intention of building, essentially rezoning land based on a phantom infrastructure plan globalnews.ca.

For municipal planners, MZOs are a source of frustration and uncertainty. An MZO can drop into their jurisdiction without warning, potentially upending carefully crafted local plans. The local government is obligated to accommodate the order – for instance, by extending infrastructure or adjusting secondary plans – yet they had no say in its creation. This top-down override of local planning undermines the principle of “growth paying for growth” and coordinated land-use planning. Conservation authorities and city staff worry that developments approved via MZO might ignore environmental constraints or strain public services, leaving them to clean up the consequences. “If there is a conflict between an MZO and a municipal zoning bylaw, the MZO prevails,” Toronto’s city planning website explains, underscoring that local rules simply don’t apply once an order is issued toronto.ca. Recent legislative tweaks have even sought to insulate MZOs further – for example, Bill 97 granted the Minister power to exempt projects under an MZO from needing to conform with provincial policy statements or local official plans ero.ontario.ca. Essentially, an MZO creates a planning microcosm with its own rules, directed from Queen’s Park.

Real-world examples have highlighted the pitfalls. One notorious MZO in Pickering sought to rezone a protected wetland (Duffins Creek) for a warehouse development, sparking legal challenges and public protests; the developer ultimately backed off, and the MZO was revoked, but not before damaging public trust. In another instance, a rural township’s MZO for a supposed “medical supply facility” quietly turned into a plan for a non-specific industrial development, and the land was even listed for sale at a profit after receiving the favorable zoning environmentaldefence.caenvironmentaldefence.ca. The province had to threaten to revoke that order when the bait-and-switch came to light. Meanwhile, truly urgent projects haven’t always gotten the same MZO love – Toronto had to wait (and is still waiting) for an MZO on a desperately needed supportive housing project, raising questions about how priorities are set environmentaldefence.caenvironmentaldefence.ca. All of this reinforces a sense that Ontario’s freewheeling MZO era is injecting chaos into the planning system. As Environmental Defence Canada put it, many recent MZOs seem driven less by affordable housing goals and more by enabling “land speculators [to] develop specific bits of land in piecemeal fashion” environmentaldefence.ca. For communities and developers not in the Minister’s inner circle, this unpredictability adds another layer of risk – approvals can appear and disappear overnight, outside the normal rulebook.

Impact on Developers: Delays, Confusion, and Risk

One might assume that Ontario’s pro-development policy shifts are an unequivocal win for developers. Indeed, the provincial changes have reduced some costs and hurdles for builders – for example, certain projects now avoid development charges, parkland dedication fees, or lengthy public appeals, potentially improving project viability. However, the growing disconnect between province and municipality is also introducing new uncertainties and risks that savvy developers must navigate.

Regulatory uncertainty is a major concern. With rules being rewritten frequently, developers are finding it challenging to plan long-term. “We’re effectively designing to a moving target” is a common refrain. A project begun under one set of assumptions (e.g. what fees apply, what studies are needed, how long approvals take) may encounter new requirements or rollbacks mid-stream. For instance, after Bill 23 was enacted, some municipalities temporarily paused certain development applications to figure out how to implement the new rules and cope with revenue shortfalls, causing unexpected delays for projects in the pipeline. Likewise, when the province capped inclusionary zoning requirements at 5% of units for 25 years, cities like Toronto had to scale back their affordability mandates, altering the mix that developers had been planning to deliver socialplanningtoronto.org. Constant legislative tweaks demand constant vigilance and flexibility from builders – which can translate to higher holding costs and contingency buffers for the unknown.

Funding and infrastructure challenges are another ripple effect. By cutting or freezing municipal charges in the name of housing affordability, provincial policy left many cities worrying how to pay for the “housing-enabling infrastructure” (roads, sewers, transit, etc.) that new development requires observerxtra.comobserverxtra.com. Several municipalities warned that they might delay or cancel infrastructure projects due to the Bill 23 revenue shortfall, or else shift costs onto existing taxpayers observerxtra.comobserverxtra.com. From a developer’s perspective, if the necessary infrastructure to service new homes isn’t in place, projects can’t move forward – fee reductions are cold comfort to a builder facing a moratorium on new water hookups or a years-long wait for road upgrades. In the worst case, municipal budget strains could lead to either steep property tax hikes (making new communities less attractive to buyers) or simply an inability to approve new units because the capacity isn’t there. Ironically, municipal officials cautioned that Bill 23’s impacts “could even cause...fewer homes built” if towns are forced to scale back growth-related works observerxtra.com. Developers thus face a paradox: the province wants them to build faster, but its policies might inadvertently slow the provision of infrastructure or municipal services crucial for development.

Local opposition and legal complexities add to developer risk in this uncertain climate. With traditional public input channels curtailed, community frustrations can manifest in other ways – intense political pushback, negative media coverage, or pressure on future municipal elections. A developer who proceeds via an unpopular MZO, for example, might win a quicker approval but at the cost of community goodwill, potentially facing protests or reputational damage. There’s also the specter of policy reversals. The Greenbelt land removals and urban boundary expansions showed that today’s government edict might be tomorrow’s scandal, and a favourable zoning could be walked back after investments have been made. Developers who speculated on now-reversed Greenbelt parcels or who paid premiums for land brought inside an expanded boundary (only to see it re-frozen) learned this the hard way. While such extreme reversals are rare, the possibility introduces a new kind of political risk into Ontario’s development equation.

Finally, the economic backdrop cannot be ignored. Interest rates climbed rapidly in 2022–2023, dramatically increasing financing costs and cooling homebuyer demand. Even if approvals are easier to obtain, many builders hit the brakes on projects that no longer made financial sense in the short term. This external factor has intersected with the policy upheaval in tricky ways – for instance, some developers who would like to capitalize on upzoning (e.g. adding “as-of-right” triplexes under Bill 23) might wait for market conditions to improve, but if they delay too long they risk new rules coming in (or a new municipal council trying to impose new conditions) by the time they’re ready. In summary, developers are juggling more variables than ever: a provincial regime eager to speed them along, municipal partners struggling to adjust, and a market that isn’t always cooperating. Little wonder that both municipalities and developers have voiced concern that the current climate of uncertainty could “slow down housing development while all parties…navigate the changes.” amcto.com

Impact on Urban Planners: Workloads and Complexity

Urban planners – especially those working within municipal governments – have arguably felt the brunt of this provincial-municipal disconnect. These professionals are tasked with translating policy into practical planning outcomes, and right now that task is akin to hitting a moving target. Workloads have ballooned as planners must continuously update plans, policies, and procedures to comply with new provincial directives. In the past few years, planning departments have been forced to revise official plans multiple times: once to align with the previous provincial Growth Plan, then again after the province unilaterally modified those plans or expanded urban boundaries, and yet again with the advent of the new 2024 Provincial Planning Statement. Zoning bylaws, urban design guidelines, heritage registers, development charge bylaws – all are in flux. Preparing these changes, conducting required studies (often on shortened timelines), and re-consulting with stakeholders is a massive undertaking that has stretched staff thin.

Complicating matters, the procedural toolkit available to planners has been altered. Bill 23 significantly limited mechanisms that planners use to manage development responsibly. For example, the removal of site plan control for smaller projects takes away a tool that planners used to ensure adequate grading, drainage, and landscaping on infill developments. As one township planning director noted, projects under 10 units make up a large share of their applications – losing site plan input on all of those means planners have to find new ways to address those details or risk subpar outcomes observerxtra.com. Likewise, the curtailment of public appeals and meetings shifts how planners engage the community. While fewer appeals might speed approvals, planners worry about diminished public trust and missing important local insights. They now must navigate a process where residents feel shut out (“local democracy” eroded, as many critics say observerxtra.com), leaving planners to field more complaints outside formal channels and perhaps face greater political pressure at council meetings.

Another challenge is the redistribution of responsibilities. With the province removing upper-tier municipalities from the planning approval hierarchy in many regions, lower-tier city planners have lost a partner that used to handle broader regional coordination. Upper-tier governments often provided expertise on big-picture issues like transportation networks, water and wastewater systems, and growth management across municipal boundaries. Now, local planners must directly coordinate with provincial ministries or adjacent municipalities on those matters, which can be unclear and time-consuming. In Eastern Ontario, small municipalities expressed concern about how they’ll manage long-range infrastructure planning (like sewage treatment capacity) that the region used to oversee observerxtra.com. This downloading of roles “without clarity” is leaving some planners in uncharted territory administratively.

The removal or weakening of Conservation Authorities’ role in development review adds further complexity. Traditionally, conservation authority staff (ecologists, hydrologists, engineers) would review planning applications for impacts on wetlands, floodplains, and other environmental considerations, providing valuable comments or conditions. Bill 23 drastically limited CAs’ commenting power to only “natural hazards” and is pulling them out of much of the planning process lexology.comobserverxtra.com. Planners who relied on CAs’ expertise now must either attempt to evaluate environmental impacts themselves or hire consultants to do so, adding cost and coordination headaches observerxtra.com. The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority pointed out that CAs actually saved municipalities and developers time and money by streamlining expert input and preventing costly mistakes rvca.carvca.ca. In their absence, that burden shifts onto municipal staff who may not have specialized training in, say, wetland hydrology. This not only increases workload but could also slow approvals – the opposite of the intended effect.

Morale and professional ethics are intangible but important factors here. Many urban planners went into the field to help shape sustainable, livable communities through balanced planning. With provincial interventions frequently overriding local planning principles, planners can feel sidelined or pressured to approve projects that conflict with good planning practices or community values. The term “planner as advocate” has surfaced, with calls for planners to speak up for sound planning amid the political push for expediency medium.com. It’s a delicate position: they must implement the law as it stands, but they are also the ones who see the on-the-ground implications when, for example, a development is approved without proper transit or school capacity because the province said housing trumps all. The current climate has made the planner’s job more about damage control and procedural navigation, and less about proactive city-building. This increased complexity and perceived loss of agency can lead to burnout and challenges in retaining experienced staff in the public sector.

On-the-Ground Implications and Case Studies

What do all these high-level policies and conflicts mean on the ground in Ontario’s cities and towns? In a word: uncertainty. Neighborhoods are caught between the province’s broad-brush promises and the nuanced reality that municipalities must manage.

Consider the example of a mid-sized Ontario city trying to update its official plan. Planners might originally propose moderate density increases and new housing in strategic areas, in line with local infrastructure plans. Then comes a provincial housing target far above past growth rates – requiring not just tweaks but a wholesale re-envisioning of how the city will accommodate perhaps 50% more homes than anticipated. The city might be directed to rezone large swathes of land for development or extend servicing into rural areas. This can spur local resistance (nobody likes feeling their community plan is being upended from afar), and it forces a round of official plan amendments. No sooner is that settled than a developer, unsatisfied with the remaining zoning restrictions, lobbies for an MZO, bypassing the plan altogether. If granted, suddenly the city has to react to a new development it didn’t plan for – maybe a high-rise in an area zoned for mid-rise, or an industrial facility on farmland – and ensure roads and utilities will be there. Meanwhile, conservation authority staff who would normally help assess the project’s flood risk are no longer authorized to participate, so the city scrambles to commission its own study.

This hypothetical chain of events isn’t far-fetched; it’s a composite of scenarios playing out in various forms across Ontario. The tension between speed and process can lead to piecemeal outcomes. Developments approved in isolation (via MZOs or hurried provincial plan changes) may overlook cumulative impacts, like how traffic from a new subdivision will flow on county roads, or how piecemeal wetland losses add up to a regional flood problem. Residents, for their part, often find it confusing – one minute they’re told a local plan is in place, the next minute a developer is proceeding under completely different rules. This fuels a sense of distrust in both the province (for steamrolling) and the municipality (for seemingly flip-flopping, even if it’s not by choice).

Community pushback: Residents in Hamilton protest the province’s decision (later reversed) to expand the city’s urban boundary onto farmland. Such conflicts highlight the gap between local priorities and provincial plans thenarwhal.cathenarwhal.ca.

There have been some high-profile clashes that serve as cautionary tales. We discussed Hamilton’s urban boundary saga – a clear instance where provincial and local visions for growth diverged dramatically. Another case unfolded in Toronto around a development in the Leslie Street Spit area: the city had a framework for mid-rise, transit-oriented growth, but a proposed 16-storey tower sought provincial intervention (an MZO) to bypass local planning, igniting debate over who should have the final say on skyline and density. In many fast-growing suburbs, city councils have been caught between satisfying provincial housing demands and addressing residents’ concerns about infrastructure strain. Mississauga and Ottawa, for example, initially balked at signing the province’s housing pledge without assurances of infrastructure funding – their mayors argued that simply approving thousands more units on paper wouldn’t create livable communities if sewers, transit, and community centres lagged far behind. The province’s response was the carrot-and-stick approach: extra funding if you meet targets, and the implicit threat of provincial override or loss of powers if you drag your feet thepointer.comthepointer.com.

From a data perspective, it’s still early to measure the full impact of these policy changes on housing production. So far, the housing starts in Ontario have not skyrocketed as one might expect from the policy push – in fact, due to economic conditions, new construction has slowed in 2023 despite the legislative changes. This has led some analysts to predict that Ontario will likely miss its 2031 housing goal at the current pace storeys.com. If true, that could prompt yet more provincial intervention, further tightening the screws on municipalities (the government has already mused about imposing new rules on how cities approve projects if targets aren’t met globalnews.ca). It’s a feedback loop of pressure that might keep intensifying.

What is clear is that uncertainty itself has become a key issue. Development industry players and city planners thrive on predictability – stable rules, clear timelines, known costs. When every few months brings a new bill, a new provincial policy, or a sudden ministerial order, it’s hard to establish that predictability. As one planning report noted, all parties are effectively trying to deliver housing “during a time of increasing interest rates and inflation” while also grappling with the unknowns introduced by Bill 23 and its ilk amcto.com. This cocktail of financial and policy uncertainty can lead to a cautious approach: developments delayed “until things settle,” plans kept at a low risk setting, innovation stifled by fear of rule changes. None of those outcomes help Ontario meet its housing needs – nor do they help communities get the right kind of growth.

Conclusion: Navigating the Uncertainty Ahead

Ontario’s recent experience underscores that planning is a delicate balancing act between provincial vision and local execution. The province’s aggressive moves – sweeping laws, mandated targets, zoning overrides – have certainly shaken things up. They’ve exposed long-standing frictions in our system: slow processes, NIMBY resistance, and the challenge of accommodating growth without sacrificing community input or environmental safeguards. In some ways, this turbulence was intended by design, to disrupt the status quo and “build homes faster.” But as we’ve seen, disruption cuts both ways. The disconnect between Queen’s Park and city halls has led to confusion, legal battles, and policy zigzags that threaten to undermine the very goals of faster, more affordable housing.

For developers, the current landscape is a mixed bag – fewer upfront costs and hurdles, perhaps, but more uncertainty about downstream infrastructure and ever-shifting goalposts. For urban planners and municipal leaders, it’s been a trial by fire: doing more with less (authority, resources, support), and constantly recalibrating local plans to stay compliant and relevant. There is also a democratic question at play: planning has always been about engaging communities in shaping their cities, and finding the sweet spot between local desires and broader needs. When provincial policy swings too far toward top-down control, it risks sidelining the nuanced, on-the-ground knowledge that local planners and residents bring to the table.

Moving forward, a few things seem prudent. First, better coordination and communication between the province and municipalities is essential. Instead of surprise announcements and rushed legislation, a collaborative approach (through working groups, consultations, and phased implementation) could achieve housing objectives with less collateral confusion. The outcry over Bill 23’s initial form did lead to some improvements in Bill 97 – a sign that municipal feedback was finally heard. Building on that by engaging planners and municipal officials early in policy design could prevent unintended consequences. Second, restoring a sense of predictability and stability in the planning regime will benefit everyone. This doesn’t mean halting all reform, but changes should come with clear transition measures and realistic timelines for municipalities to adjust. The new Provincial Planning Statement’s lack of transition period (immediate effect in late 2024) is a case in point – it may streamline policy on paper, but without giving cities time to catch up, it could delay decisions as everyone sorts out which policies apply. A stable planning environment, even if ambitious, allows developers to invest with confidence and planners to manage growth proactively rather than reactively.

Finally, it’s worth remembering that provincial and local goals need not be zero-sum. All levels of government in Ontario ultimately want to see vibrant, livable communities with enough housing for everyone. The friction comes from how to get there. The province brings the urgency and wider perspective of a housing crisis that must be tackled; municipalities bring on-the-ground practical know-how and accountability to local residents. Bridging the gap will require patience, good faith, and likely some compromises on both ends. If not, the pattern of policy lurches and local uncertainty we’re seeing now will continue, to the detriment of housing outcomes and community wellbeing. In the end, aligning big-picture vision with local reality is the only sustainable path to build the homes Ontario needs – faster, but also smarter. For developers and planners alike, a more synchronized approach would replace today’s confusion with a clearer road ahead, which is exactly what’s needed to transform bold housing targets into bricks-and-mortar results on the ground.

Sources:

1. https://www.amo.on.ca/sites/default/files/assets/DOCUMENTS/Reports/2023/Bill23MoreHomesBuiltFasterActAMOResponse2023-01-09.pdf

2. https://www.ombudsman.on.ca/resources/reports,-cases-and-submissions/reports-on-investigations/2023/greenbelt

3. https://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arreports/en24/2023AR_v1_en_web.pdf

4. https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/fallstatement/2023/fes2023-en.pdf

5. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-housing-pledges-penalty/

6. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-bill-97-planning-housing-greenbelt-1.6835577

7. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/hamilton-urban-boundary-expansion-1.6991936

8. https://environmentaldefence.ca/report/undoing-the-damage/

9. https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/9687-City-Planning-Bill-23-Implementation-Memo-Jan2023.pdf

10. https://www.ontario.ca/page/more-homes-built-faster

11. https://www.ontario.ca/page/helping-homebuyers-protecting-tenants-act

12. https://www.thespec.com/news/hamilton-region/2023/10/23/ontario-government-urban-boundary-hamilton.html

13. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/hamilton-boundary-expansion-province-mzo-1.6872741

14. https://www.amo.on.ca/advocacy/legislative-updates/bill-97-helping-homebuyers-protecting-tenants-act

15. https://www.ontario.ca/document/provincial-planning-statement-2023

16. https://www.halifax.ca/sites/default/files/documents/city-hall/regional-council/230110rc171.pdf

17. https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/mzostatus/

18. https://www.acelaw.ca/publications/bill-23-overview-of-changes-to-the-ontario-heritage-act/

19. https://www.ontarioconstructconnect.com/news/government/2023/10/bill-97-planning-policy-changes-a-double-edged-sword-urban-experts-say

20. https://www.ontarioplanners.ca/Shared_Content/News/2023/New-Provincial-Planning-Statement---OPA-Response.aspx