Summary#

Bill 10, the Protect Ontario Through Safer Streets and Stronger Communities Act, 2025, was enacted as Chapter 6 of Ontario’s 2025 statutes. It creates the Measures Respecting Premises with Illegal Drug Activity Act, 2025 and amends seven existing Acts. Its stated goals include improving tools to fight crime, protecting people from violence and strengthening the justice system; these are goals, not guaranteed results.

• Landlords would be prohibited from knowingly allowing their premises to be used for drug or cannabis offences specified by regulation. The new Act also gives police powers to seize things and close some premises.
• Police chiefs could request temporary policing help from certain entities governed by another Canadian jurisdiction. The chief remains responsible for ensuring the assistance meets policing standards, and costs may be payable by the requesting police service board or, for the Commissioner’s request, the Minister.
• The Inspector General could impose certain interim measures while investigating complaints made by the Minister, including suspending some police-board members or directing policing bodies.
• The provincial judge appointment process would change, including a five-year commitment not to request a move to another court location, except in extenuating circumstances.
• Some people would gain new ways to apply for restraining orders on behalf of people who fear for their safety. Other changes affect bail sureties, sex-offender registration, police appointments and vehicle-theft devices.
• The Act does not make possession of an electronic motor vehicle theft device an offence under the Highway Traffic Act, but allows police to seize such a device in specified circumstances, with a process to seek its return.

What it means for you#

• Landlords and tenants: The new illegal-drug-premises Act prohibits a landlord from knowingly permitting a premises to be used for offences that regulations will specify. A landlord has a defence if they took reasonable measures to prevent the activity. Police may remove people from premises where they believe a specified offence is happening, but that power does not apply to people residing there. Police may close a non-residential premises after a charge is laid if they have reasonable grounds to believe it was used in the alleged offence. The Act does not itself require landlords to report suspected activity.
• People seeking protection from violence: Under changes to the Children’s Law Reform Act and Family Law Act, prescribed people may apply for a restraining order on someone’s behalf with that person’s consent. Anyone may apply with the court’s permission, subject to any prescribed conditions. The court decides whether to make an order; the changes do not make an order automatic.
• Police services and boards: Chiefs may request temporary help from prescribed entities in other Canadian jurisdictions, in prescribed circumstances and subject to restrictions. O.P.P. detachment boards must participate in the Commissioner’s selection of permanent detachment commanders. Special constables must fit one of the listed employment categories.
• Police-board members and policing bodies: For a Minister’s complaint, the Inspector General may impose interim measures if the legal conditions are met. Some measures can be imposed without prior notice or a chance to respond. Depending on the complaint, measures may include suspending a board member, giving written directions or appointing an administrator.
• Bail sureties: Sureties, and former sureties who became judgment debtors to Ontario, must provide information required by future regulations. A person who fails to comply commits an offence. The bill does not specify the information or when it must be provided.
• People applying to be provincial judges: An appointee must undertake not to request a transfer to another court location during the first five years, unless extenuating circumstances apply. The appointments committee must classify candidates and provide recommendations and information to the Attorney General.
• People carrying a suspected vehicle-theft device: Police may seize a device in the circumstances set out in the Highway Traffic Act. It is generally forfeited to the Crown after 30 days, but the owner or person it was taken from may apply to court for its return within that period.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The bill requires no stated amount of new public spending, but some measures involve staff, inspections, policing assistance or enforcement. No cost estimate or staffing estimate is given.
• If there is no agreement on the cost of temporary policing assistance, the requesting police service board must pay; if the Commissioner requested it, the Minister must pay.
• Under the new illegal-drug-premises Act, certain enforcement costs may be recovered from landlords who knowingly permitted premises to be used for a specified offence. Reasonable measures to prevent the activity are an exception.
• A person convicted of knowingly permitting premises to be used for a specified offence faces a fine of $10,000 to $250,000 for a first conviction; a corporation faces $25,000 to $1 million. Further convictions can carry daily fines. Other offences under the Act have fines of up to $100,000 for an individual or $250,000 for a corporation.

What is unclear#

• The new drug-premises Act depends on regulations to define which offences are covered and, for some police powers and cost recovery, which entities and costs are included.
• The bill does not set out how police will decide that a landlord knowingly permitted activity, beyond the reasonable-measures defence, or how enforcement costs will be calculated before recovery.
• The rules and timing for information required from bail sureties depend on future regulations.
• Several provisions start only on a date to be set by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, including the new drug-premises Act and some restraining-order, sex-registry and vehicle-device changes. The supplied material does not give those dates.
• The appointments committee must apply criteria set by it and any additional criteria specified by the Attorney General. The bill does not provide those additional criteria.
• The supplied material does not include the full parent Acts, so I could not verify every change against the complete current law.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to give police and oversight officials more tools to respond to specified drug activity, policing concerns and suspected vehicle-theft devices.
• Requiring reasonable measures to prevent illegal activity gives landlords a defence, while allowing cost recovery when a landlord knowingly permitted the activity.
• Allowing temporary help from other Canadian jurisdictions could help a police chief address a need for adequate and effective policing; the chief remains responsible for standards.
• The new restraining-order application routes could let someone seek court protection on behalf of a person who fears for their safety.
• Publishing reports on interim measures and requiring written reasons when the Inspector General declines a requested measure provide some record of decisions.

Case against#

• The drug-premises Act leaves key matters—especially which offences are covered—to future regulations. Its closure and seizure powers could affect people who are not charged, even though some court processes for restoration or relief are available.
• Some interim measures can be imposed without notice or a chance to respond first. The bill does not itself spell out all procedures; some depend on regulations.
• Landlords could face large fines and recoverable enforcement costs. The bill leaves important details, including covered costs and offences, to regulations.
• New policing powers, assistance and enforcement duties may require public resources, but the available material gives no cost estimate.
• The judge-selection changes give the Attorney General a role in setting additional candidate criteria, while the bill does not state what those criteria will be.