School boards must allow local police to access campuses and school resource officer programs for nine prescribed activities

A new regulation under the Education Act sets out the specific circumstances in which school boards must permit local police services to access school premises and participate in school programs. Nine categories of activities are covered, including school resource officer programs, emergency preparedness drills, road safety programs, career days, and community events. Where a local police service offers a school resource officer program in the board's primary language of instruction, the board must enter into a memorandum of understanding with that service, inform students and families about the program, and engage the community in its implementation. Boards cannot condition police participation on prior approval of program materials, though they may request to review materials in advance. If a board makes good-faith efforts to collaborate with police but the police service does not reasonably participate, the board is deemed to have met its obligations.

New Highway Traffic Act offences added for CVOR certificate holders and motor vehicle registrar non-compliance

This amendment adds two sets of new ticketable offences to the certificate-of-offence proceedings regulation. A new Schedule 44.1 lists three offences under Ontario Regulation 424/97 for CVOR (Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration) certificate holders who fail to notify of a change in name, address, or officers and directors. Separately, Schedule 43 is updated to replace existing items with a single offence for failing to comply with a requirement of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. Both changes are staged to take effect on a future date tied to the Safer Streets, Stronger Communities Act, 2024. Commercial vehicle operators and their organizations should review their CVOR notification obligations and ensure compliance processes are in place.

Chiefs of police can now formally request temporary help from RCMP, other Canadian police services, Coast Guard, or Armed Forces

A new provision specifies which outside bodies an Ontario police chief may formally request temporary assistance from under the Community Safety and Policing Act. The approved sources are the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, any provincial, municipal, or First Nation police service from another Canadian jurisdiction, the Canadian Coast Guard, and the Canadian Armed Forces. This expands the regulatory framework governing how Ontario police services can bring in outside support during emergencies or situations requiring additional resources. Police chiefs, municipal police service boards, and First Nation police services should be aware that these external assistance arrangements now have an explicit regulatory basis.

Ontario police chiefs can now request out-of-province backup under defined conditions

The regulation now formally defines two terms used elsewhere in policing rules — 'active attacker' and 'extreme incident' — and spells out when and how a police chief may ask for temporary assistance from a police service in another Canadian province or territory. A chief may make that request when they believe their own service lacks sufficient resources for timely, adequate policing, but only after making reasonable efforts to get help from Ontario police services first. The 'Ontario first' requirement is waived entirely when the situation involves an active attacker, an extreme incident, or a declared emergency. Police services, chiefs of police, and their legal and operational teams should review how this fits into their existing mutual aid and contingency planning.

Ontario puts scholarship fund for public-safety officers' survivors on a statutory footing

Ontario has enacted a stand-alone law to continue and govern the Constable Joe MacDonald Public Safety Officers' Survivors Scholarship Fund, which previously existed only by Order in Council. The fund provides scholarships—covering tuition and living allowances—for post-secondary education to the surviving spouses and children of police officers, First Nation Officers, firefighters, correctional officers, probation officers, and parole officers who died in the line of duty or in other circumstances set by regulation. The Solicitor General is responsible for granting scholarships, with input from a volunteer advisory committee that reviews applications and makes recommendations. Applicants must apply in a form approved by the Minister and meet criteria set by regulation; recipients must also continue to meet eligibility requirements to keep receiving the scholarship. The existing fund balance—including the original $5 million principal and accrued interest—transfers automatically to the new statutory fund, and Treasury Board can top it up as needed.

Police record check providers must now meet prescribed service standards, with liability shields for non-compliance

The Act now requires police record check providers to comply with any service standards set by regulation, including potential timeframes for completing checks. A new section explicitly blocks most legal claims — including damages, injunctions, and arbitral awards — against the Crown or any other person if those standards are not met; judicial review, constitutional remedies, and proceedings under the Act itself remain available. The Minister gains new regulation-making powers to set those standards and require providers to report on their compliance publicly. Separately, the exemption that previously excluded children's aid society background checks from the Act's scope has been repealed, meaning those searches are no longer carved out. The language describing which summary convictions are withheld after five years has been clarified to cover offences prosecutable only by summary conviction proceedings.

Public Inquiries Act updated to flag two pending expansions of inquiry scope for Toronto and Ontario municipalities

Two future amendments have been flagged in the consolidated text of the Public Inquiries Act, 2009, though neither is yet in force. When proclaimed, the first change will add a new City of Toronto Act provision (s. 160.0.2(3)) to the list of inquiries covered by the Act's procedural rules. The second will do the same for a new Municipal Act, 2001 provision (s. 223.4.0.2(3)). Until proclamation, the current list of covered inquiries remains unchanged. Organizations subject to integrity commissioner or similar municipal inquiry processes under either the City of Toronto Act or the Municipal Act should watch for the proclamation date, as it will bring additional inquiry types under the Act's procedural framework.

Coroner's inquests now ban unauthorized photos, recordings and dissemination — with fines up to $25,000

A new section of the Coroners Act prohibits anyone from taking photos, audio or video recordings at a coroner's inquest, of people entering or leaving the inquest room, or of people in the building who appear to be attending the inquest. It is also prohibited to publish, broadcast or otherwise share any material taken in violation of these rules. Limited exceptions exist: unobtrusive note-taking and sketching are still allowed, and audio recordings for note-supplementing purposes are permitted for parties with standing and journalists if the presiding coroner authorizes it. The coroner can also authorize recordings for presenting evidence, with consent of all parties, or for ceremonial proceedings. Anyone who contravenes these rules faces a fine of up to $25,000, up to six months imprisonment, or both. Separately, the Chief Forensic Pathologist's training responsibilities have been reorganized to distinguish postgraduate training of new pathologists from continuing education programs for those already providing services.

Bail Act certificate-of-lien references in the Execution Act will be updated when a future order is made

Two provisions in the Execution Act that refer to a 'certificate of lien under the Bail Act' are set to be amended to say 'continued under section 8.4 of the Bail Act' instead. This is a technical cross-reference correction tied to changes made to the Bail Act itself. The amendments are not yet in force — they will take effect on a date set by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. No action is required now, but sheriffs and those managing writs of execution or certificates of lien should be aware the wording of these provisions will change once that order is made.

Upcoming wording fix to how Bail Act liens bind registered land — not yet in force

A future amendment (not yet active) will update the language describing when a certificate of lien under the Bail Act can bind registered land. The current text refers broadly to 'any certificate of lien under the Bail Act'; once the new wording takes effect, it will narrow this to certificates of lien 'continued under section 8.4 of the Bail Act.' This is a technical clarification that aligns the Land Titles Act with changes made to the Bail Act. The amendment has no practical effect until proclaimed in force by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Parties involved in real estate transactions or execution proceedings where Bail Act liens are a factor should watch for the proclamation date.

Ontario Bail Act updated: new security deposit rules, lien changes, and debt collection powers added (pending proclamation)

A set of amendments to Ontario's Bail Act has been consolidated into the legislation, though most new provisions are not yet in force and will take effect on a date set by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. When proclaimed, the changes will shift how bail-related liens are registered — moving from delivery to sheriffs toward direct registration in land registry offices — and will add a new requirement for accused persons and sureties to pay specified amounts as a security deposit when a release order is made. A new debt collection mechanism will allow the Minister of Finance to pursue unpaid bail-related debts using Ministry of Revenue Act collection tools, subject to a memorandum of understanding. Existing liens delivered to sheriffs before the new rules come into force will expire two years after proclamation unless a writ of fieri facias is filed in time. A five-year limitation period for offences under the Act is also being introduced. Sureties named in release orders where a certificate of default has been endorsed will be added to the group required to provide information under the Act.

Transit special constables given enforcement powers under Ontario's illegal-substance consumption ban

A new regulation under Ontario's law restricting public consumption of illegal substances designates certain special constables as "officers" with enforcement authority under that Act. Specifically, this applies to special constables employed by Metrolinx and those employed by operators of local transit systems, provided their employer qualifies as a "special constable employer" under provincial policing legislation. In practical terms, these transit special constables can now enforce the rules against public illegal-substance consumption on transit property and vehicles. Transit operators and their special constable workforces should confirm whether their organization meets the "special constable employer" definition and update training and policies accordingly.

New regulation names specific federal drug offence as trigger for Ontario's illegal drug premises law

A new Ontario regulation identifies one specific federal offence — contravening the provision of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that relates to certain drug-related activity — as a "prescribed offence" under Ontario's Measures Respecting Premises with Illegal Drug Activity Act, 2025. This designation is significant because that provincial Act allows authorities to take action against premises where prescribed offences have occurred. Property owners, landlords, and operators of commercial or residential spaces should be aware that a conviction or finding related to this federal offence can now trigger Ontario's premises-based enforcement tools. Businesses and property owners who lease or manage spaces should review their tenant screening and lease compliance practices in light of this connection between federal drug offences and provincial premises powers.

Use-of-force training rules split for police officers and Niagara Parks constables; 'PepperBalls' replaced with 'PAVA projectile launchers'; board member training clock clarified

The regulation separates what were combined training requirements for police officers and Niagara Parks constables into two distinct subsections. For police officers, the exemption from non-firearm weapon training now excludes conducted energy weapons only; the previous reference to 'PepperBalls' is removed. For Niagara Parks constables and police service special constables, the same exemption now references 'PAVA projectile launchers' instead of 'PepperBalls,' aligning the terminology used across both groups. Separately, the six-month window for police service board and committee members to complete required training is now measured from the day the person became a member, rather than from the day of their formal appointment — a distinction that could affect how the deadline is calculated in practice. Police services, constable employers, and board administrators should review how they track training deadlines and ensure their policies reflect the updated weapon terminology.

Police can now share photos of charged or convicted individuals when keeping the public informed

The regulation governing what personal information police may disclose to the public has been expanded to explicitly permit chiefs of police or their designates to release images of individuals who have been charged with, convicted of, or found guilty of an offence. Previously, the list of disclosable information covered personal identifiers, offence details, court outcomes, custody status, and release dates, but did not mention images. This change adds images as a permitted category alongside those existing items. Police services and their legal or compliance teams should review their disclosure practices and policies to reflect that images are now an expressly authorized category of public disclosure.

Police service board member conduct rules updated: criminal charge disclosure and membership language clarified

Two practical changes have been made to the code of conduct for police service board members. First, the trigger for the criminal-offence conduct rule and the criminal-charge disclosure obligation has been reworded from 'after they were appointed' to 'after they became a member,' which broadens the timing reference beyond formal appointment. Second, the rule on who must receive a member's disclosure of criminal charges or findings of guilt has been expanded: the head of a municipal council must now disclose to the full municipal council (rather than to 'the person or body that appointed them'), while Lieutenant Governor in Council appointees continue to disclose to the Minister, and all other members disclose to their appointing person or body. Police service board members — especially heads of municipal council — should review who they are required to notify if charges are laid against them.

Major case management rules updated: file co-ordinator data-entry duty narrowed, new manager review duty added for non-threshold investigations

Two substantive changes affect how police services manage major case investigations. First, the file co-ordinator's information management duties have been narrowed: the requirement to ensure all investigative information is *entered* in the approved software has been removed from the subsection covering information management duties (though a separate duty to ensure entry in accordance with the regulation remains). Second, the major case manager overseeing a non-threshold investigation now has an explicit additional duty to review all investigative information entered into the approved software to check its accuracy and completeness. Police services and their major case teams should review internal procedures and training materials to reflect both the adjusted file co-ordinator responsibilities and the new manager review obligation.

Ontario's Extreme Incident Response Plan reference updated to September 2025 edition

The regulation's definition of "Extreme Incident Response Plan" has been updated to reference the September 2025 version of that document, replacing the previous November 2023 version. Police services across Ontario are required to follow this plan when responding to extreme incidents such as mass casualty events, critical infrastructure threats, or serious protests. The amendment also adds source citations to three existing subsections but makes no substantive changes to the rules those subsections contain. Police services and their boards should ensure they are consulting and planning against the current September 2025 version of the Extreme Incident Response Plan available on the Ontario government website.

New rules for PAVA projectile launchers: training required before issuance and tighter use restrictions

The regulation replaces all references to 'PepperBall launcher' with the broader term 'PAVA projectile launcher,' defined as a PepperBall launcher or closely similar device that fires projectiles containing PAVA or a similar irritant. A new section requires police chiefs to confirm that any member receiving a PAVA projectile launcher has met the Minister's training requirements and is competent with the device before it is issued — mirroring the existing pre-issuance duties for firearms. Use of the launcher is now explicitly limited to projectiles containing PAVA, OC, or a PAVA/OC combination. The device may only be carried or used by members of a tactical unit, hostage rescue team, or public order unit who are chief-authorized, and special constables employed by the Niagara Parks Commission are expressly prohibited from carrying or using it. The new pre-issuance duty is also excluded from the training-exercise and maintenance exemption that applies to other firearm rules.

Ontario coroner rules updated: mandatory tissue collection for genetic conditions, new 50-year retention, and family genetic testing requests

Amendments taking effect in early 2027 make significant changes to how pathologists and coroners handle tissue samples when a genetic condition is believed to have contributed to a death. Pathologists and coroners will be required—not just permitted—to collect and retain tissue samples (including a new category, extracted DNA samples) when they believe a genetic condition contributed to the death. Retained tissue samples collected for future genetic testing, and extracted DNA samples, must now be kept for at least 50 years, a major extension from previous maximum periods of two years or less. Accommodation policies for post mortem examinations are broadened to cover conscientious beliefs in addition to religious beliefs. A new formal process allows close genetic relatives (parents, siblings, children) or their substitute decision-makers to request genetic testing of a deceased person's retained tissue samples to inform their own health care decisions, with the Chief Coroner or Chief Forensic Pathologist deciding whether to proceed and sharing results in writing. Personal representatives may request disposal of tissue samples collected for future genetic testing, but extracted DNA samples are excluded from burial or cremation handover rights.

Two new Community Safety Zones added on Ontario highways in Dryden and McMurrich/Monteith

Two new community safety zones have been added to the provincial highway network. A stretch of Highway 601 in the City of Dryden — from its eastern junction with Highway 17 north to Ryczko Road — is now designated a community safety zone at all times, year-round. A section of Highway 518 in the Township of McMurrich/Monteith (Parry Sound District) — between points 20 metres east of West Bear Lake Road and 20 metres west of East Bear Lake Road — has also received the same around-the-clock designation. In community safety zones, fines for traffic violations (such as speeding) are doubled. Drivers regularly using these highway segments should be aware that increased penalties now apply at all times.

Family arbitration awards can now be filed with court and challenged by motion under Ontario's Family Law Rules

Ontario's Family Law Rules now formally incorporate family arbitration awards filed under section 59.9 of the Family Law Act into the court process. A party who wants to change a filed family arbitration award relating to support must do so by motion under rule 15, the same pathway used for final court orders and filed support agreements. The rule governing which motions to change fall under rule 15 now explicitly lists filed family arbitration awards as a third category alongside final orders and filed support agreements. A new court form (Form 26D) has been added for the affidavit required when filing a family arbitration award for support with the court, and Form 26B and Form 32.1 have been updated. Cases involving the filing of a family arbitration award are also now subject to the restricted-access provisions that protect privacy in sensitive family proceedings. Parties who have resolved support through arbitration and filed or intend to file that award with the court, and their legal representatives, should be aware of these procedural requirements.

Ontario's interjurisdictional support law now recognises family arbitration awards as support orders — amendment takes effect

An amendment to Ontario's Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act has been brought into force, formally adding family arbitration awards to the definition of "support order." This means that an arbitration award requiring support payments — if it is enforceable in the jurisdiction where it was made as though it were a court order — can now be treated as a support order under the Act. Practically, this allows such awards to be registered and enforced across jurisdictions using the Act's interjurisdictional processes. The change affects parties who have resolved support obligations through family arbitration rather than court litigation. Anyone relying on a family arbitration award for cross-border support enforcement should confirm whether the award meets the enforceability test in the originating jurisdiction.

Family arbitration awards now treated as enforceable support orders under Ontario's family support enforcement law

Amendments that were previously listed as "not yet in force" have now been given a force date, bringing family arbitration awards (those enforceable under section 59.9 of the Family Law Act) fully within the definition of "support order" under Ontario's family support enforcement legislation. This means such awards are now subject to the same income-deduction and enforcement machinery — including automatic support deduction orders — that applies to court-issued support orders and domestic contracts. The rules around which court is deemed to have made a related support deduction order, and which court has jurisdiction to vary such an order, have also been updated to address family arbitration awards specifically. Individuals who pay or receive support under a family arbitration award, and their legal advisors, should be aware that the Director of the Family Responsibility Office can now enforce and administer those awards in the same way as court orders. Payors subject to such awards should review their compliance obligations under the FRO enforcement framework.

Family Law Act updated: child definition clarified and family arbitration award enforcement rules now in force

Three previously pending amendments to Ontario's Family Law Act have now taken effect. The definition of "child" has been revised to read "a person in respect of whom a parent has demonstrated a settled intention" — a minor grammatical correction that does not change the practical scope of who qualifies as a child under the Act. The rule for enforcing family arbitration awards has been amended to make enforcement subject to a new section (59.9), which creates a separate filing process specifically for arbitration awards containing support or maintenance provisions. Under that new section, a party can file such an award directly with the court clerk — along with the arbitration agreement and supporting documents — rather than making a full court application, though the right to apply to set aside an award is preserved. Anyone relying on a family arbitration award for support should be aware of this new filing route and its documentation requirements.

Ontario's Freedom of Information Act overhauled: ministers' records excluded, new staged-access rules, longer response times, and data integration changes

Ontario has made sweeping changes to its Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Most significantly, records held by ministers of the Crown or their offices are now excluded from the Act entirely, with this exclusion applied retroactively — even existing access requests and prior orders are nullified to the extent they relate to such records. For large or complex information requests, institutions can now propose a staged access plan, pausing the response clock while the requester considers it; requesters who do not respond to a plan within 30 business days are deemed to have abandoned their request. The standard response window for access decisions changes from 30 calendar days to 45 business days, and most other time limits throughout the Act are converted from calendar days to business days. The personal information bank regime (the obligation to maintain and publish an index of personal information collections) is repealed. In the data integration sphere, responsibility for setting data standards shifts from the Privacy Commissioner to the Chief Digital and Data Officer, though the Commissioner gains a new formal power to comment and make recommendations on privacy implications. Institutions and requesters should review their internal processes for handling FOI requests, staged-access responses, appeal deadlines, and personal information cataloguing obligations.

Line Fences Act appeals division dissolved; notice address rule updated

The formal 'appeals division' covering all Ontario lands has been revoked — it no longer exists as a named body under the regulation. The rule about where to send notices to the referee has been updated: notices should now be addressed as directed on the website of the ministry of the responsible Minister, rather than the Ministry or Government of Ontario website generally. Property owners or neighbours involved in a line fence dispute who need to file a notice of appeal should check the current ministry website for the correct service address. The fee rules for initiating an appeal remain unchanged.