A newly passed Ontario law, poised to hold landlords criminally liable for drug activity on their properties, is triggering growing anxiety among affordable housing providers and advocates across the province. Though the measure is intended to combat organized drug trafficking, its broad language is raising fears that it could penalize landlords—especially non-profit organizations—simply for housing vulnerable people struggling with addiction.
The legislation, part of the province’s broader Bill 10 public safety package, has received royal assent but has yet to come into force. Among its most controversial elements is a clause that imposes fines of up to $250,000 or possible jail time on landlords whose properties are used for drug production or trafficking. Landlords may defend themselves if they can prove they took “reasonable measures” to prevent illegal activity—although what qualifies as “reasonable” remains undefined.
Supportive housing providers say this ambiguity is deeply troubling. Fay Martin, founder and board member of Places for People in Haliburton Highlands, Ontario, called the legislation “terrifying.” Her non-profit, which operates 20 affordable housing units without direct government funding, serves tenants who often struggle with substance use and mental health issues.
“If this law takes effect without clarity, we’re forced into a choice—either risk penalties that could bankrupt us or stop housing people who need help the most,” Martin said. “That’s not a choice any community should have to make.”
Martin worries that the fear of liability will lead to housing discrimination, discouraging organizations like hers from renting to individuals in recovery or active addiction. She noted that supportive housing models rely on giving people a stable environment to heal—something this law could undermine.
Others in the sector share her concerns. Jennifer Van Gennip, a representative of Redwood Park Communities in Simcoe County and co-chair of the Ontario Alliance to End Homelessness, said she’s already witnessing a “chilling effect” among providers. “We’re hearing that some organizations are preemptively evicting tenants who use drugs, even recreationally, to avoid future liability,” she said.
Van Gennip is urging the government to distinguish clearly between high-level drug trafficking and what’s known as “survival dealing”—when individuals sell small amounts of substances to fund basic needs like food or rent. Without such nuance, she warned, the law could inadvertently target the very people supportive housing aims to help.
Legal experts say the legislation’s vagueness is part of the problem. John Fox, a Toronto-based lawyer specializing in affordable housing law, noted that landlords are unsure whether “reasonable measures” means installing more surveillance cameras, conducting frequent inspections, or rewriting lease agreements.
“Some form of guidance is really needed here,” Fox said. “We’re talking about volunteer-run boards who might not have legal expertise or financial resources. If they’re expected to police tenants or conduct ongoing surveillance, it could be legally and ethically problematic.”
The financial strain is another serious concern. With fines potentially reaching a quarter-million dollars per violation, small and mid-sized non-profits say they may not survive a single incident—especially those that already operate on shoestring budgets and rely on donations rather than government funding.
Several housing advocates and legal organizations are calling for supportive housing to be exempted from the legislation altogether. Fox noted that many non-profits work closely with mental health and addiction services and are already engaged in efforts to reduce drug-related harm in their communities. “This is not a risk they should be forced to shoulder,” he said.
The Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association (ONPHA) has submitted a list of recommendations to the provincial government, including requests for funding, liability protection for board members, and more thorough consultation before the law is enacted. CEO Marlene Coffey emphasized the need for clarity, saying, “We’re hopeful the regulation phase will include meaningful engagement with the sector.”
Municipal governments are also pushing back. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) sent a letter to the Ministry of the Solicitor General in June, warning that the law could create “unintended consequences, undue burdens, and risks to municipal landlords.”
Meanwhile, tenant advocacy groups such as the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) are preparing frontline staff with resources to help mitigate the potential fallout of the bill. ACTO has linked the new legislation with Bill 6—another provincial law that expands municipalities’ power to remove homeless people from public spaces—arguing that together, the two laws could exacerbate housing instability across Ontario.
“The practical impact of both Bills is that Ontarians will lose their housing and be pushed into greater precarity,” ACTO warned in a spring submission to Attorney General Doug Downey.
So far, the Ministry of the Solicitor General has not responded to requests for timelines on when the law will take effect or what detailed regulations will accompany it.
Until more clarity emerges, housing providers across Ontario remain caught between a growing housing crisis and a looming legal risk that could fundamentally change how they operate. For many, the law threatens to dismantle years of work aimed at building inclusive, supportive communities—at a time when those communities are needed more than ever.
