Bill 17 (2025) and Bill 98 (2026) are two consecutive Ontario planning reforms that stack rather than replace each other. Bill 17 hits the earliest pre-development costs: it defers development charges to occupancy, lets the province cap required studies, and expands provincial as-of-right and setback powers. Bill 98 refines the later stages: it narrows site plan control scope and lets developers propose encumbered parkland. A project files under both, so a developer needs to apply the relevant parts of each at the stage they bite.
Ontario passed two significant planning statutes back to back. Bill 17, the Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, received Royal Assent in June 2025. Bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, followed in June 2026. Developers keep asking which one governs a given issue. The answer is usually both, at different stages of the same project.
The clean way to hold the two apart: Bill 17 changed what it costs and what you must submit to get in the door. Bill 98 changed what the municipality can demand once you are in the site plan and parkland stage. Neither Act abolished the core application types, and both depend in part on regulations that phase in over time.
| Issue | Bill 17 (2025) | Bill 98 (2026) |
|---|---|---|
| Development charges | Deferred to occupancy for many residential projects | No DC change |
| Required studies | Province can prescribe and cap the study list | No direct change |
| As-of-right / setbacks | Province can set uniform as-of-right and setback rules | No direct change |
| Site plan control | Tighter timelines, further scope limits | EV/green mandates removed from scope |
| Parkland dedication | No change | Encumbered parkland allowed; 90-day clock |
| Official plans | No change | Standardized structure, 12 designations |
| Primary stage affected | Feasibility and submission | Site plan and parkland |
Two Acts, one project. PreBuildIQ applies the current rules to your specific address so you do not have to reconcile them by hand.
Run my site report →Site plan is the one area both Acts touch. Bill 98 removed EV charging mandates and expanded green construction requirements from the scope of site plan control. Bill 17 layers on tighter decision timelines and further limits on conditions. Read together, they narrow the site plan negotiation and reduce the municipality's ability to hold an application open on conditions outside massing, access, and servicing. If a project is stalled on a site plan condition, both Acts may give grounds to remove it.
Development charges, required-study standardization, and as-of-right permissions are Bill 17 territory; Bill 98 does not touch them. Parkland dedication and standardized official plans are Bill 98 territory; Bill 17 does not touch them. A developer trying to find a parkland answer in Bill 17, or a development charge answer in Bill 98, is reading the wrong statute.
Test whether the site is now as-of-right, model development charges at occupancy, and confirm the current required-study list.
Check whether a provincial study standard has been prescribed that caps what the municipality can require.
Strip out-of-scope conditions using Bill 98, and hold the municipality to the tightened timelines under Bill 17.
Consider proposing encumbered parkland (over structures, POPS) and time the 90-day municipal clock against permit readiness.
Both Acts phase in through regulation. Confirm each provision is in force before relying on it.
Bill 17 (2025) changes the earliest pre-development costs: it defers development charges to occupancy, lets the province cap required studies, and expands provincial as-of-right and setback powers. Bill 98 (2026) refines later stages: it narrows site plan control scope and allows encumbered parkland dedication. A project files under both Acts at different stages.
Bill 17 does. It allows development charges for many residential projects to be paid at occupancy instead of at building permit, deferring the cost. Bill 98 does not amend the Development Charges Act. Recent cuts to headline DC rates came through separate federal-provincial programs, not from either Bill directly.
Both. Bill 98 removed EV charging mandates and expanded green requirements from the scope of site plan control. Bill 17 added tighter decision timelines and further limits on the conditions a municipality can attach. Read together they narrow the site plan process and reduce room for out-of-scope conditions.
No. Neither Act abolishes official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, site plan approval, plans of subdivision, or minor variances. They accelerate and standardize parts of the existing framework and depend on regulations that phase in over time. The core application types and conservation authority permitting remain.
PreBuildIQ tracks Ontario planning reform so you do not have to reconcile two Acts by hand. Enter any Ontario address and get the approval bodies, required studies, and applicable rules in 60 seconds.
Run a site report →