Landlords May Soon Need To Be On (Top Of) Drugs: Unpacking Ontario’s Bill 10

By: John Fox and Alex Caputo

On May 1, 2025, the Ontario Attorney General introduced Bill 10, titled the "Protect Ontario Through Safer Streets and Stronger Communities Act, 2025,". The Bill is intended to enhance public safety. For Landlords – both residential and commercial, whether subletting or not,  the Bill’s proposed new Measures Respecting Premises with Illegal Drug Activity Act, 2025 (the “Proposed Act”) makes them directly responsible for preventing drug related activity in the units they rent. That responsibility also extends to directors and officers, begging the question – just how hard on drugs does a Landlord have to be?

I. Legislative Context

Framed within a broader legislative agenda to combat drug-related crime and bolster public safety, the Proposed Act is designed to hold landlords accountable for illegal drug activities occurring on their premises. The Act intersects with federal statutes, such as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) and the Cannabis Act, but would establish independent provincial enforcement tools. These include administrative penalties, cost recovery mechanisms, and granting of powers to police to close and seize property. The Proposed Act would apply to all premises—residential or commercial—and significantly expand the role of landlords in monitoring and controlling criminal activity by tenants and others.

The Bill is in its first reading. There remains opportunity to speak to the Bill as it makes its way through the committee.

II. Core Provisions of the Proposed Act

          a. Prohibitions

The Proposed Act contains two central prohibitions:

Prohibition on Permitting Misuse of Premises: Under section 2(1), that no person could knowingly permit their premises to be used in relation to a “prescribed offence,” a category that would include offences under federal law relating to drug production and trafficking. A statutory defence would be provided under section 2(2), which would allow a landlord to avoid liability if they could demonstrate that they took reasonable measures to prevent the activity from occurring.

Prohibition on Possession of Proceeds: Under Section 3, no person could knowingly possess the proceeds of an offence under the Proposed Act. There is no similar “reasonable measures” defence.

Together, the prohibitions would broaden the legal responsibilities of landlords and others in control of tenanted premises, emphasizing both the importance of preventive oversight and the avoidance of any entanglement with criminal conduct.

           b. Police Powers

The Proposed Act would grant law enforcement officers a broad range of powers to address and prevent prescribed offences. Among the key powers would be the ability to remove individuals from premises (Section 6(1)), close commercial properties (Section 7(1), seize items linked to criminal activity (Section 5), and restrict access to certain locations (Section 6(2)). The Proposed Act would also empower police to arrest individuals without a warrant under specific circumstances (Section 8), and it would impose penalties for obstruction of law enforcement officers acting under the Proposed Act (Section 10). 

Red Flags and Areas of Concern

                  a. What is a Reasonable Measure?

Since most leases already require tenants to comply with the law, it remains unclear what further actions would be necessary to establish a “reasonable measures” defence. Neither that, nor “knowingly permit” are defined in the Proposed Act. While the latter is less obscure, there needs to be some guidance on what a landlord is expected to do. Does the Proposed Act require landlords to perform inspections? Monitor CCTV for drug use? Infringe upon the privacy rights of tenants? The Proposed Act does not provide guidance as to whether a tenants rights under the Residential Tenancies Act, for example, are paramount.

The severity of the penalties for breaching the Proposed Act add to the legal uncertainty, making it difficult for landlords to gauge their level of responsibility but pressuring them to push into their tenant’s affairs.

          b. Impacts on Non-Profit and Supportive Housing

When director liability is applied equally to both for-profit and non-profit corporations, it creates an imbalance in the cost-benefit equation of each role. While both types of directors face the same potential risks, non-profit directors—being volunteers by definition—do not share in the financial upside when outcomes are positive. Further, the risks for non-profit and supportive housing providers, which often serve vulnerable populations, are disproportionate because they are intending to deal with populations which may suffer from addiction, and because there is no off-setting upside to the risk they are being asked to take. Personal liability for staff and board members of non-profits should be removed from this equation, to avoid a chilling effect to volunteer directors under the Proposed Act. We have to ensure that the legislation is not discouraging harm reduction strategies and housing-first models, which are essential for supporting vulnerable populations.

                    c. Constitutional Concerns

Another concern would be the potential constitutional implications of the Proposed Act. The legislation would grant police broad powers to close premises and remove individuals without a warrant, which could violate several rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including to Sections 7, 8, and 11(d). These provisions could be challenged on the grounds of procedural fairness and the presumption of innocence, as the burden would shift to landlords to prove they took reasonable steps to prevent illegal activity on their properties.

III. Final Thoughts

The Proposed Act signals a shift towards a more aggressive provincial enforcement against drug-related activity on private premises. While its stated objective—to enhance public safety and deter criminal activity—is important, the Proposed Act raises serious concerns about fairness, clarity, and practical implementation. If enacted in its current form, the legislation would impose new obligations on landlords – but no one can say what those obligations actually are.

Non-profit and supportive housing providers, already serving some of the province’s most vulnerable residents, would face disproportionate risk. To mitigate these risks, further consultation with housing experts, legal practitioners, and tenant rights organizations is essential. Without careful scrutiny of how the Proposed Act would operate in practice, passing it in its current form may ultimately exacerbate existing housing challenges, unintentionally infringe on the privacy of law-abiding tenants, and send chills down the spines of prospective volunteer directors of non-profit organizations.