Summary#

Bill 6, the Safer Municipalities Act, 2025, is law: it enacts the Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act, 2025 and amends Ontario’s Trespass to Property Act. Its stated goal is to restrict public consumption of illegal substances; the law also adds factors courts must consider when setting penalties for trespassing.

• The new Act prohibits consuming a substance whose possession is prohibited under federal law in a public place, subject to exemptions.
• Police and prescribed provincial offences officers may direct someone they reasonably believe is breaking that prohibition to stop or leave. They may also seize and destroy substances they reasonably believe are illegal, if found in plain view and near the person.
• A person who does not promptly follow a direction, or does not provide required identifying information after a direction, commits an offence. Conviction can bring a fine of up to $10,000, up to six months in jail, or both.
• The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make rules about locations, directions, seizures and other matters. Rules may also authorize officers, in prescribed circumstances, to take someone to a place offering services such as health care, shelter or addiction services instead of starting a court proceeding.
• The Trespass to Property Act now requires courts to consider two aggravating factors when setting a trespassing penalty: remaining after the notice period to leave has passed, and a finding at sentencing that the defendant is likely to trespass again.

What it means for you#

• People consuming illegal substances in public: The prohibition does not ban possession by itself. It applies to consumption in a public place. Exemptions include use at a supervised consumption site, possession authorized by provincial or federal law, and any prescribed exemption. A public place can include a tent or other dwelling structure used there without legal permission.
• People seeking or providing emergency help: The Act provides protection from being charged or convicted when evidence of the offence was obtained because the person sought emergency services or stayed at the scene. The exemption also applies to someone who stays to help a person in an emergency or receive emergency services.
• People who receive an officer’s direction: They must promptly comply. If an officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person committed an offence by not complying, the officer may direct them to provide their full name, birth date and address. The Act also allows arrest without a warrant on reasonable grounds to believe a person committed an offence.
• People involved in trespass cases: The new aggravating factors must be considered by the court when setting a penalty. They do not automatically determine the penalty. The existing maximum fine stated in the supplied material is $10,000.
• Municipalities and the public: The law gives officers powers and sets rules for conduct; it does not itself create a new service, require people to apply for help, or require officers to take people to a service location. That option depends on regulations.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The Act does not state a budget or cost estimate for enforcement, testing substances, or destroying them.
• It gives the government power to make regulations, including rules that could authorize escorting people to service locations, but does not specify the staffing or cost of such arrangements.

What is unclear#

• Regulations may change which locations count as public places and set conditions for directions, seizures and other powers. The supplied material does not give those rules.
• The Act does not set out how officers decide whether to direct someone to stop or leave, or how a person can challenge a direction.
• The Act does not explain when, or at which locations, regulations might allow an escort to services instead of a court proceeding.
• The supplied material does not explain how enforcement will be overseen or reported.
• The Act defines an illegal substance by reference to federal law, but the supplied material does not list the substances covered.

Case for#

• The prohibition and direction powers could give officers a direct way to respond when they reasonably believe someone is consuming an illegal substance in a public place.
• The power to direct someone to leave may help address public consumption without requiring a conviction first.
• The emergency-services protection may help ensure that seeking or providing emergency help does not itself lead to a charge based on evidence obtained for that reason.
• The regulation-making power could allow the government to provide for service locations as an alternative to court proceedings in prescribed circumstances.

Case against#

• The prohibition can lead to arrest, a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment, while the Act does not set out detailed rules for how officers use the direction and seizure powers.
• Officers may seize and destroy substances found in plain view near a person, regardless of the amount. The Act does not require testing before destruction.
• The service-location option is not guaranteed by the Act: it depends on future regulations, and the Act does not require an officer to use it.
• The trespass factor about likely future trespassing relies on a court’s prediction about future conduct. The Act does not specify how that prediction is to be assessed.