Summary#

Bill 100, the Keeping Ontario Open for Business Act, 2022, became Chapter 10 of Ontario’s 2022 statutes and came into force on Royal Assent. It created a new law and amended the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 and the Highway Traffic Act. Its stated goal is to protect access to certain transportation infrastructure.

• It prohibits impeding access to, exit from, or ordinary use of protected transportation infrastructure when the effect disrupts ordinary economic activity or interferes with public safety, health or well-being. It also prohibits knowingly helping someone do this.
• Protected infrastructure includes Ontario–U.S. border crossing points, certain prescribed international airports, and other prescribed transportation infrastructure significant to international trade.
• Police may order people to stop, disperse or remove objects, including vehicles. In specified circumstances, police may remove objects or vehicles and store them for up to 30 days.
• Police may seize number plates and suspend driving or vehicle-use privileges for 14 days. The Registrar of Motor Vehicles may also suspend or cancel permits or certificates for commercial vehicles or trailers.
• The Act creates offences and fines, and expands the Civil Remedies Act definition of “injury to the public” to include violations of this Act.

What it means for you#

• People near protected infrastructure: The prohibition applies only when the stated disruption or public-impact test is met. It does not apply to effects that are trivial, transient or minor, or can easily be avoided. Authorized or legally required activities are also exempt.
• People who help: Knowingly providing assistance, including supplies or fuel, to help someone commit a prohibited act is itself prohibited.
• Drivers and vehicle owners or operators: Police may require a driver to surrender their licence and suspend driving privileges in Ontario for 14 days. They may seize plates and suspend vehicle-use privileges for 14 days. Owners, operators and drivers may be jointly liable for removal and storage costs.
• Commercial vehicle and trailer owners or operators: The Registrar may suspend or cancel a permit or CVOR certificate (a commercial vehicle operator certificate) based on reasonable grounds, without a hearing beforehand. An owner or operator may ask the Registrar to review the order within 30 days.
• People and businesses convicted of offences: Individuals can face fines of up to $100,000 and up to one year in prison, or both. A director or officer who causes, authorizes, permits or participates in a corporation’s offence can face up to $500,000 and up to one year in prison, or both. Corporations can face fines of up to $10 million. Each day an offence continues can be a separate offence.
• The public: The Act does not create a new front-line service or a general ban on protests. An action is covered only if it meets the Act’s tests.

Money#

The available material gives no estimate of public costs or savings. No publicly available information.

• Police may use staff and other qualified people to remove or store objects; the Act does not estimate those costs.
• Removal and storage costs are debts owed by specified people and can be secured by a lien on the object.
• A fine may lead to driver’s-licence suspension if it is not paid, under the Highway Traffic Act amendment.

What is unclear#

• “Ordinary use,” “ordinary economic activity,” and “easily avoided” are not defined in the supplied Act text.
• The materials do not list which airports or other trade-related infrastructure have been prescribed.
• The Act does not set out a general process for deciding whether an activity meets the prohibition, or a hearing before the Registrar’s commercial-vehicle orders. Review requests must be considered, but the text does not set a decision deadline.
• The Act requires a public review report on its first 12 months of application. The supplied material does not say whether that report was published. No publicly available information.
• The parent texts of the Civil Remedies Act and Highway Traffic Act were not supplied, so the full effect of these amendments compared with the laws they changed could not be verified.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the Act is that blocking a border crossing, airport or other covered infrastructure can disrupt trade or affect public safety, health or well-being.
• Police directions and vehicle-removal powers could help clear access when the Act’s conditions are met.
• The Act’s exceptions limit the prohibition where effects are minor, easily avoided, authorized or legally required.

Case against#

• One concern is that terms such as “ordinary use” and “ordinary economic activity” are not defined, leaving room for disagreement about which actions are prohibited.
• Police can use significant powers, including removals and 14-day suspensions, based on reasonable grounds. The Act does not provide a hearing before a commercial-vehicle order takes effect.
• Removal and storage costs can fall on several people, who are jointly liable; the Act gives no cost estimate or cap.
• The changes to the Civil Remedies Act may widen the property-related consequences of unlawful activity, but the supplied materials do not include that Act’s procedures.