On May 20, 2026 the provincial government announced that it would be introducing amendments to the Planning Act which will allow municipalities to encourage compliance with zoning by-laws through an Administrative Monetary Penalty System (“AMPS”).

This will be aimed at preventing illegal land uses, especially illegal ‘truck yards’. Rob Flack, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing commented that, “several municipalities have asked the government for more tools to address illegal land uses, including trucks illegally parked on agricultural, rural, and residential lands.”

Benefits of AMPS By-laws

Municipalities that pass or amend an AMPS by-law to include all or part of their zoning by-law as a ‘designated by-law’ will be able to issue penalty notices with administrative fines that do not require a long court process. Municipalities may continue to charge and prosecute offenders who contravene by-laws if they choose and depending on how their by-laws are drafted. A person cannot be charged with an offence and given an AMPS penalty for the same contravention.

The biggest benefit to municipalities who implement an AMPS bylaw is reducing the cost of enforcement as penalties can be added to the tax roll and collected in the same manner as municipal taxes if not paid within 15 days of becoming due. The property must be located within that municipality and all of the owners must be responsible for paying the administrative penalty.

Location and ownership disqualifiers are unlikely to arise in a zoning compliance matter – this is usually only a limitation for unpaid fines related to parking infractions where the person receiving the infraction is from out of town, does not own property, or whose property is co-owned with a person or people who are not also responsible for paying the penalty. With zoning, building maintenance, or property standards matters, the infractions will be linked to a local property with (presumably) all owners being responsible for complying with the by-laws.   

Statutory Authority

Municipalities have authority to establish an administrative monetary penalty system requiring a person to pay a penalty for contravention of a designated by-law under:

• Sections 102.1 and 434.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25;
• Ontario Regulation 333/07 under the Municipal Act;
• Section 81 & 374.1 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A;
• Ontario Regulation 611/06 under the City of Toronto Act;
• Section 15.4.1 of the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23.

Sections 15.13.1, 18.1 & 34(2.4) of the Building Code Act have not yet received proclamation but were proposed to be added in 2017 to allow administrative penalties for additional Building Code matters; to allow inspectors to issue penalty notices; and authorizing the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations.

There are also other Acts that establish or propose future administrative penalties but are not applicable to municipal by-laws such as:

• Electricity Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 15, Sched. A & O. Reg. 12/23;
• Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19;
• Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, O. Reg 273/07 & O. Reg. 355/22;
• Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8;
• Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1 & O. Reg. 365/25;
• Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8 & O. Reg. 365/17;
• Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016, S.O. 2016, c. 12, Sched. 1; and
• Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 32.

Principles of AMPS

The purpose of the system of administrative penalties established by the municipality is to assist the municipality in promoting compliance with its designated by-laws.

The Municipal Act, the City of Toronto Act, and the Building Code Act set out that the amount of an administrative penalty shall not be punitive in nature and shall not exceed the amount reasonably required to promote compliance with a by-law of the municipality.

This does not mean that fines must be nominal. Fines may be high where that amount is reasonably justified to promote compliance. An example where a high fine may be warranted is for income generating activities where a person or business could otherwise be enriched from violating the by-law. This is because an AMPS fine is not effective if a person can factor it into ‘the cost of doing business’ while still turning a profit.

Fines may also get progressively higher for second, third, fourth... infractions. Progressive fines are likely to be found reasonable if challenged, as subsequent infractions show that the previous fine was not sufficient enough to encourage compliance.

Appeal Process

Where a penalty notice is issued, a person may request that the penalty be reviewed by a ‘Screening Officer’. The Screening Officer may affirm the penalty, reduce the penalty, cancel the penalty, or extend the time for payment.

A person may request a review of the Screening Decision by a “Hearing Officer”.  The Hearing Officer may affirm the screening decision, cancel the penalty, reduce the penalty, or extend the time for payment.

One of the grounds for cancelling or modifying the penalty notice is that the Screen Officer or Hearing Officer is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the cancellation, reduction or extension of the time for payment of the penalty is necessary to reduce any undue hardship.

Policies and Procedures

A municipality using AMPS under O. Reg. 333/07 for the parking, standing or stopping of vehicles is required to develop standards relating to specific administrative matters. These standards are not legislatively required outside of O. Reg. 333/07 infractions; however, principles of procedural fairness and natural justice favour a municipality having official policies for the implementation of all AMPS matters.

These standards must include:

• policies and procedures to prevent political interference in the administration of the system;
• guidelines to define what constitutes a conflict of interest in relation to the administration of the system, to prevent such conflicts of interest and to redress such conflicts should they occur;
• policies and procedures regarding financial management and reporting;
• procedures for the filing and processing of complaints made by the public with respect to the administration of the system;
• procedures to permit persons to obtain an extension of time for payment of the penalty on such conditions as may be specified in the administrative penalty by-law;
• procedural to provide for a suspension of the enforcement mechanisms if an extension of time has been granted;
• procedures to permit persons to be excused from paying all or part of the administrative penalty if requiring them to do so would cause undue hardship.

Undue Hardship

Procedures should include a definition or threshold of “undue hardship”, how it is to be assessed by Screening Officers and Hearing Officers, and what evidence or documentation is expected to support such a claim. The majority of municipalities canvassed define undue hardship as ‘financial hardship or other extenuating circumstances based on compassionate grounds.’

The Criminal Code of Canada notes in section 737(2.2) that for the purpose of reviewing the set victim surcharge fines for drug offences, "undue hardship" means the offender is unable to pay a victim surcharge on account of the offender's precarious financial circumstances, including because of their unemployment, homelessness, lack of assets or significant financial obligations towards their dependants.

Barriston is experienced with assisting municipalities in the drafting, interpreting and amending of AMPS by-laws, designated by-laws, as well as internal policies and procedures. Please reach out to our team for a consultation if you require advice or representation. Municipal Matters articles are not to be considered legal advice and should not be relied upon as such.