Report of the 
Ontario Housing 
Affordability Task Force 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 2
Contents
Letter to Minister Clark.......................................................................3
Executive summary and recommendations ...............................4
Introduction............................................................................................6
Focus on getting more homes built ..............................................9
Making land available to build.......................................................10
Cut the red tape so we can 
build faster and reduce costs........................................................ 15
Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent.................................... 18
Support and incentivize 
scaling up housing supply............................................................. 22
Conclusion ..........................................................................................26
Appendix A: Biographies of Task Force Members ................27
Appendix B: Affordable Housing.................................................29
Appendix C: Government Surplus Land....................................31
Appendix D: Surety Bonds............................................................ 32
References.......................................................................................... 33 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 3
Letter to Minister Clark
Dear Minister Clark,
Hard-working Ontarians are facing a housing crisis. For many years, the province has not built enough housing 
to meet the needs of our growing population. While the affordability crisis began in our large cities, it has now 
spread to smaller towns and rural communities.
Efforts to cool the housing market have only provided temporary relief to home buyers. The long-term trend is 
clear: house prices are increasing much faster than Ontarian’s incomes. The time for action is now.
When striking the Housing Affordability Task Force, you and Premier Ford were clear: you wanted actionable, 
concrete solutions to help Ontarians and there was no time to waste. You asked us to be bold and gave us the 
freedom and independence to develop our recommendations.
In the past two months, we have met municipal leaders, planners, unions, developers and builders, the financial 
sector, academics, think tanks and housing advocates. Time was short, but solutions emerged consistently 
around these themes:
• More housing density across the province
• End exclusionary municipal rules that block or delay new housing
• Depoliticize the housing approvals process
• Prevent abuse of the housing appeals system
• Financial support to municipalities that build more housing
We present this report to you not as an “all or nothing” proposal, but rather as a list of options that the government 
has at its disposal to help address housing affordability for Ontarians and get more homes built. We propose an 
ambitious but achievable target: 1.5 million new homes built in the next ten years.
Parents and grandparents are worried that their children will not be able to afford a home when they start working 
or decide to start a family. Too many Ontarians are unable to live in their preferred city or town because they 
cannot afford to buy or rent.
The way housing is approved and built was designed for a different era when the province was less constrained 
by space and had fewer people. But it no longer meets the needs of Ontarians. The balance has swung too far in 
favour of lengthy consultations, bureaucratic red tape, and costly appeals. It is too easy to oppose new housing 
and too costly to build. We are in a housing crisis and that demands immediate and sweeping reforms.
It has been an honour to serve as Chair, and I am proud to submit this report on behalf of the entire Task Force.
Jake Lawrence
Chair, Housing Affordability Task Force 
Chief Executive Officer and Group Head, Global Banking and Markets, Scotiabank 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 4
Executive summary 
and recommendations
House prices in Ontario have almost tripled in the past 10 years, growing much faster than 
incomes. This has home ownership beyond the reach of most first-time buyers across the 
province, even those with well-paying jobs. Housing has become too expensive for rental units 
and it has become too expensive in rural communities and small towns. The system is not 
working as it should.
For too long, we have focused on solutions to “cool” the 
housing market. It is now clear that we do not have enough 
homes to meet the needs of Ontarians today, and we are 
not building enough to meet the needs of our growing 
population. If this problem is not fixed – by creating more 
housing to meet the growing demand – housing prices will 
continue to rise. We need to build more housing in Ontario.
This report sets out recommendations that would set a bold 
goal and clear direction for the province, increase density, 
remove exclusionary rules that prevent housing growth, 
prevent abuse of the appeals process, and make sure 
municipalities are treated as partners in this process by 
incentivizing success.
Setting bold targets and making 
new housing the planning priority
Recommendations 1 and 2 urge Ontario to set a bold 
goal of adding 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years 
and update planning guidance to make this a priority.
The task force then recommends actions in five main areas 
to increase supply:
Require greater density
Land is not being used efficiently across Ontario. In too many 
neighbourhoods, municipal rules only allow single-family 
homes – not even a granny suite. Taxpayers have invested 
heavily in subway, light rail, bus and rail lines and highways, 
and the streets nearby are ideally suited for more mid- and 
high-rise housing. Underused or redundant commercial and 
industrial buildings are ripe to be redeveloped into housing 
or mixed commercial and residential use. New housing 
on undeveloped land should also be higher density than 
traditional suburbs, especially close to highways. 
Adding density in all these locations makes better use 
of infrastructure and helps to save land outside urban 
boundaries. Implementing these recommendations will 
provide Ontarians with many more options for housing.
Recommendations 3 through 11 address how Ontario 
can quickly create more housing supply by allowing 
more housing in more locations “as of right” (without 
the need for municipal approval) and make better use 
of transportation investments. 
Reduce and streamline urban design rules
Municipalities require numerous studies and set all kinds of 
rules for adding housing, many of which go well beyond the 
requirements of the provincial Planning Act. While some of 
this guidance has value for urban design, some rules appear 
to be arbitrary and not supported by evidence – for example, 
requiring condo buildings to include costly parking stalls 
even though many go unsold. These rules and requirements 
result in delays and extra costs that make housing either 
impossible to build or very expensive for the eventual home 
buyer or renter.
Recommendation 12 would set uniform provincial 
standards for urban design, including building 
shadows and setbacks, do away with rules that 
prioritize preservation of neighbourhood physical 
character over new housing, no longer require 
municipal approval of design matters like a building’s 
colour, texture, type of material or window details, 
and remove or reduce parking requirements in cities 
over 50,000 in population. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 5
Depoliticize the process and cut red tape
NIMBYism (not in my backyard) is a major obstacle to 
building housing. It drags out the approval process, pushes 
up costs, and keeps out new residents. Because local 
councillors depend on the votes of residents who want to 
keep the status quo, the planning process has become 
politicized. Municipalities allow far more public consultation 
than is required, often using formats that make it hard for 
working people and families with young children to take 
part. Too few technical decisions are delegated to municipal 
staff. Pressure to designate buildings with little or no 
heritage value as “heritage” if development is proposed 
and bulk listings of properties with “heritage potential” are 
also standing in the way of getting homes built. Dysfunction 
throughout the system, risk aversion and needless 
bureaucracy have resulted in a situation where Ontario lags 
the rest of Canada and the developed world in approval 
times. Ontarians have waited long enough. 
Recommendations 13 through 25 would require 
municipalities to limit consultations to the legislated 
maximum, ensure people can take part digitally, 
mandate the delegation of technical decisions, prevent 
abuse of the heritage process and see property 
owners compensated for financial loss resulting from 
designation, restore the right of developers to appeal 
Official Plans and Municipal Comprehensive Reviews, 
legislate timelines for approvals and enact several other 
common sense changes that would allow housing to be 
built more quickly and affordably.
Fix the Ontario Land Tribunal
Largely because of the politicization of the planning process, 
many proponents look to the Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body, 
to give the go-ahead to projects that should have been 
approved by the municipality. Even when there is municipal 
approval, however, opponents appeal to the Tribunal – 
paying only a $400 fee – knowing that this may well 
succeed in delaying a project to the point where it might 
no longer make economic sense. As a result, the Tribunal 
faces a backlog of more than 1,000 cases and is seriously 
under-resourced.
Recommendations 26 through 31 seek to weed out or 
prevent appeals aimed purely at delaying projects, 
allow adjudicators to award costs to proponents in 
more cases, including instances where a municipality 
has refused an approval to avoid missing a legislated 
deadline, reduce the time to issue decisions, increase 
funding, and encourage the Tribunal to prioritize cases 
that would increase housing supply quickly as it tackles 
the backlog.
Support municipalities that commit to transforming 
the system
Fixing the housing crisis needs everyone working together. 
Delivering 1.5 million homes will require the provincial and 
federal governments to invest in change. Municipalities that 
make the difficult but necessary choices to grow housing 
supply should be rewarded, and those that resist new 
housing should see funding reductions.
Recommendations 49 and 50 call for Ontario 
government to create a large “Ontario Housing Delivery 
Fund” and encourage the federal government to match 
funding, and suggest how the province should reward 
municipalities that support change and reduce funding 
for municipalities that do not. 
This executive summary focuses on the actions that will get 
the most housing units approved and built in the shortest 
time. Other recommendations in the report deal with issues 
that are important but may take more time to resolve or 
may not directly increase supply (recommendation numbers 
are indicated in brackets): improving tax and municipal 
financing (32-37, 39, 42-44); encouraging new pathways 
to home ownership (38, 40, 41); and addressing labour 
shortages in the construction industry (45-47). 
This is not the first attempt to “fix the housing system”. 
There have been efforts for years to tackle increasing 
housing prices and find solutions. This time must be 
different. Recommendations 50-55 set out ways of helping 
to ensure real and concrete progress on providing the 
homes Ontarians need. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 6
Introduction
Ontario is in a housing crisis. Prices are skyrocketing: the average price for a house across 
Ontario was $923,000 at the end of 2021.[1]
 Ten years ago, the average price was $329,000.[2]
Over that period, average house prices have climbed 180% while average incomes have 
grown roughly 38%.[3] [4]
Not long ago, hard-working Ontarians – teachers, 
construction workers, small business owners – could afford 
the home they wanted. In small towns, it was reasonable to 
expect that you could afford a home in the neighbourhood 
you grew up in. Today, home ownership or finding a quality 
rental is now out of reach for too many Ontarians. The system 
is not working as it should be. 
Housing has become too expensive for rental units and 
it has become too expensive in rural communities and 
small towns. 
While people who were able to buy a home a decade or 
more ago have built considerable personal equity, the 
benefits of having a home aren’t just financial. Having a 
place to call home connects people to their community, 
creates a gathering place for friends and family, and 
becomes a source of pride.
Today, the reality for an ever-increasing number of 
Ontarians is quite different. Everyone in Ontario knows 
people who are living with the personal and financial stress 
of not being able to find housing they can afford. The young 
family who can’t buy a house within two hours of where 
they work. The tenant with a good job who worries about 
where she’ll find a new apartment she can afford if 
the owner decides to sell. The recent graduate who will 
have to stay at home for a few more years before he can 
afford to rent or buy.
While the crisis is widespread, it weighs more heavily on 
some groups than on others. Young people starting a family 
who need a larger home find themselves priced out of the 
market. Black, Indigenous and marginalized people face 
even greater challenges. As Ontarians, we have only 
recently begun to understand and address the reality 
of decades of systemic racism that has resulted in lower 
household incomes, making the housing affordability gap 
wider than average.
The high cost of housing has pushed minorities and 
lower income Ontarians further and further away from 
job markets. Black and Indigenous homeownership 
rates are less than half of the provincial average.[5] And 
homelessness rates among Indigenous Peoples are 
11 times the national average. When housing prevents an 
individual from reaching their full potential, this represents 
a loss to every Ontarian: lost creativity, productivity, and 
revenue. Lost prosperity for individuals and for the entire 
Ontario economy.
Average price for a 
house across Ontario
2021
$923,000
$329,000
2011
+180% +38%
Over 10 Years
average 
house prices 
have climbed
while average 
incomes have 
grown  

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 7
As much as we read about housing affordability being a 
challenge in major cities around the world, the depth of the 
challenge has become greater in Ontario and Canada than 
almost anywhere in the developed world. 
How did we get here? Why do we have this problem? 
A major factor is that there just isn’t enough housing. 
A 2021 Scotiabank study showed that Canada has the 
fewest housing units per population of any G7 country – and, 
our per capita housing supply has dropped in the past five 
years.[6] An update to that study released in January 2022 
found that two thirds of Canada’s housing shortage is in 
Ontario.[7] Today, Ontario is 1.2 million homes – rental or 
owned – short of the G7 average. With projected population 
growth, that huge gap is widening, and bridging it will 
take immediate, bold and purposeful effort. And to support 
population growth in the next decade, we will need 
one million more homes. 
While governments across Canada have taken steps to 
“cool down” the housing market or provide help to first-time 
buyers, these demand-side solutions only work if there is 
enough supply. Shortages of supply in any market have a 
direct impact on affordability. Scarcity breeds price increases. 
Simply put, if we want more Ontarians to have housing, we 
need to build more housing in Ontario. 
Ontario must build 1.5 million homes over the 
next 10 years to address the supply shortage
The housing crisis impacts all Ontarians. The ripple effect of 
the crisis also holds back Ontario reaching its full potential.
Economy
Businesses of all sizes are facing problems finding and 
retaining workers. Even high-paying jobs in technology 
and manufacturing are hard to fill because there’s not 
enough housing nearby. This doesn’t just dampen the 
economic growth of cities, it makes them less vibrant, 
diverse, and creative, and strains their ability to provide 
essential services. 
Public services
Hospitals, school boards and other public service providers 
across Ontario report challenges attracting and retaining 
staff because of housing costs. One town told us that it 
could no longer maintain a volunteer fire department, 
because volunteers couldn’t afford to live within 10 minutes 
drive of the firehall.
Environment 
Long commutes contribute to air pollution and carbon 
emissions. An international survey of 74 cities in 16 countries 
found that Toronto, at 96 minutes both ways, had the 
longest commute times in North America and was 
essentially tied with Bogota, Colombia, for the longest 
commute time worldwide.[8] Increasing density in our cities 
and around major transit hubs helps reduce emissions to 
the benefit of everyone.
Our mandate and approach
Ontario’s Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing 
tasked us with recommending ways to accelerate our 
progress in closing the housing supply gap to improve 
housing affordability. 
Time is of the essence. Building housing now is exactly 
what our post-pandemic economy needs. Housing 
construction creates good-paying jobs that cannot be 
outsourced to other countries. Moreover, the pandemic 
gave rise to unprecedented levels of available capital that 
can be invested in housing – if we can just put it to work.
We represent a wide range of experience and perspectives 
that includes developing, financing and building homes, 
delivering affordable housing, and researching housing 
market trends, challenges and solutions. Our detailed 
biographies appear as Appendix A.
Canada has the lowest amount of housing per 
population of any G7 country.
We acknowledge that every house in 
Ontario is built on the traditional territory 
of Indigenous Peoples.
1.5M
Ontario must build 
homes over the next 10 years
to address the supply shortage. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 8
Our mandate was to focus on how to increase market 
housing supply and affordability. By market housing, we are 
referring to homes that can be purchased or rented without 
government support. 
Affordable housing (units provided at below-market rates
with government support) was not part of our mandate.
The Minister and his cabinet colleagues are working on that 
issue. Nonetheless, almost every stakeholder we spoke 
with had ideas that will help deliver market housing and 
also make it easier to deliver affordable housing. However, 
affordable housing is a societal responsibility and will 
require intentional investments and strategies to bridge the 
significant affordable housing gap in this province. We have 
included a number of recommendations aimed at affordable 
housing in the body of this report, but have also included 
further thoughts in Appendix B.
We note that government-owned land was also outside our 
mandate. Many stakeholders, however, stressed the value 
of surplus or underused public land and land associated 
with major transit investments in finding housing solutions. 
We agree and have set out some thoughts on that issue in 
Appendix C.
How we did our work 
Our Task Force was struck in December 2021 and 
mandated to deliver a final report to the Minister by the end 
of January 2022. We were able to work to that tight timeline 
because, in almost all cases, viewpoints and feasible 
solutions are well known. In addition, we benefited from 
insights gleaned from recent work to solve the problem in 
other jurisdictions. 
During our deliberations, we met with and talked to over 
140 organizations and individuals, including industry 
associations representing builders and developers, 
planners, architects, realtors and others; labour unions; 
social justice advocates; elected officials at the municipal 
level; academics and research groups; and municipal 
planners. We also received written submissions from many 
of these participants. In addition, we drew on the myriad 
public reports and papers listed in the References.
We thank everyone who took part in sessions that were 
uniformly helpful in giving us a deeper understanding of the 
housing crisis and the way out of it. We also thank the staff 
of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing who 
provided logistical and other support, including technical 
briefings and background. 
The way forward
The single unifying theme across all participants over the 
course of the Task Force’s work has been the urgency 
to take decisive action. Today’s housing challenges are 
incredibly complex. Moreover, developing land, obtaining 
approvals, and building homes takes years. 
Some recommendations will produce immediate benefits, 
others will take years for the full impact. 
This is why there is no time to waste. We urge the Minister 
of Municipal Affairs and Housing and his cabinet colleagues 
to continue measures they have already taken to accelerate 
housing supply and to move quickly in turning the 
recommendations in this report into decisive new actions.
The province must set an ambitious and bold goal to 
build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years. If we build 
1.5 million new homes over the next ten years, Ontario can 
fill the housing gap with more affordable choices, catch up 
to the rest of Canada and keep up with population growth. 
By working together, we can resolve Ontario’s housing 
crisis. In so doing, we can build a more prosperous future 
for everyone. 
The balance of this report lays out our recommendations.
People in households that spend 30% or more of total household income on shelter expenses are defined as 
having a “housing affordability” problem. Shelter expenses include electricity, oil, gas, coal, wood or other fuels, 
water and other municipal services, monthly mortgage payments, property taxes, condominium fees, and rent. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 9
Focus on getting more 
homes built
Resolving a crisis requires intense focus and a clear goal. The province is responsible for the 
legislation and policy that establishes the planning, land use, and home building goals, which guide 
municipalities, land tribunals, and courts. Municipalities are then responsible for implementing 
provincial policy in a way that works for their communities. The province is uniquely positioned to 
lead by shining a spotlight on this issue, setting the tone, and creating a single, galvanizing goal 
around which federal support, provincial legislation, municipal policy, and the housing market 
can be aligned.
In 2020, Ontario built about 75,000 housing units.[9] For this 
report, we define a housing unit (home) as a single dwelling 
(detached, semi-detached, or attached), apartment, suite, 
condominium or mobile home. Since 2018, housing 
completions have grown every year as a result of positive 
measures that the province and some municipalities have 
implemented to encourage more home building. But we 
are still 1.2 million homes short when compared to other 
G7 countries and our population is growing. The goal of 
1.5 million homes feels daunting – but reflects both the need 
and what is possible. In fact, throughout the 1970s Ontario 
built more housing units each year than we do today.[10]
The second recommendation is designed to address the 
growing complexity and volume of rules in the legislation, 
policy, plans and by-laws, and their competing priorities, 
by providing clear direction to provincial agencies, 
municipalities, tribunals, and courts on the overriding 
priorities for housing. 
1. Set a goal of building 1.5 million new homes in 
ten years.
2. Amend the Planning Act, Provincial Policy 
Statement, and Growth Plans to set “growth in the 
full spectrum of housing supply” and “intensification 
within existing built-up areas” of municipalities as 
the most important residential housing priorities in 
the mandate and purpose. 
The “missing middle” is often cited as an important part of the housing solution. We define the missing 
middle as mid-rise condo or rental housing, smaller houses on subdivided lots or in laneways and other 
additional units in existing houses. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 10
Making land available to build
The Greater Toronto Area is bordered on one side by Lake Ontario and on the other by the 
protected Greenbelt. Similarly, the Ottawa River and another Greenbelt constrain land supply 
in Ottawa, the province’s second-largest city. 
But a shortage of land isn’t the cause of the problem. 
Land is available, both inside the existing built-up areas 
and on undeveloped land outside greenbelts. 
We need to make better use of land. Zoning defines what 
we can build and where we can build. If we want to make 
better use of land to create more housing, then we need 
to modernize our zoning rules. We heard from planners, 
municipal councillors, and developers that “as of right” 
zoning – the ability to by-pass long, drawn out consultations 
and zoning by-law amendments – is the most effective tool 
in the provincial toolkit. We agree.
Stop using exclusionary zoning 
that restricts more housing
Too much land inside cities is tied up by outdated rules. 
For example, it’s estimated that 70% of land zoned for 
housing in Toronto is restricted to single-detached or 
semi-detached homes.[11] This type of zoning prevents 
homeowners from adding additional suites to create 
housing for Ontarians and income for themselves. As one 
person said, “my neighbour can tear down what was there 
to build a monster home, but I’m not allowed to add a 
basement suite to my home.”
While less analysis has been done in other Ontario 
communities, it’s estimated that about half of all residential 
land in Ottawa is zoned for single-detached housing, 
meaning nothing else may be built on a lot without public 
consultation and an amendment to the zoning by-law. In 
some suburbs around Toronto, single unit zoning dominates 
residential land use, even close to GO Transit stations and 
major highways. 
One result is that more growth is pushing past urban 
boundaries and turning farmland into housing. Undeveloped 
land inside and outside existing municipal boundaries must 
be part of the solution, particularly in northern and rural 
communities, but isn’t nearly enough on its own. Most of the 
solution must come from densification. Greenbelts and other 
environmentally sensitive areas must be protected, and 
farms provide food and food security. Relying too heavily 
on undeveloped land would whittle away too much of the 
already small share of land devoted to agriculture. 
Modernizing zoning would also open the door to more 
rental housing, which in turn would make communities 
more inclusive. 
Allowing more gentle density also makes better use of 
roads, water and wastewater systems, transit and other 
public services that are already in place and have capacity, 
instead of having to be built in new areas. 
The Ontario government took a positive step by allowing 
secondary suites (e.g., basement apartments) across the 
province in 2019. However, too many municipalities still 
place too many restrictions on implementation. For the last 
three years, the total number of secondary suites in Toronto 
has actually declined each year, as few units get permitted 
and owners convert two units into one.[12]
These are the types of renovations and home construction 
performed by small businesses and local trades, providing 
them with a boost. 
70%
It’s estimated that
of land zoned for housing in Toronto 
is restricted to single-detached
or semi-detached homes. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 11
Underused and vacant commercial and industrial properties 
are another potential source of land for housing. It was 
suggested to us that one area ripe for redevelopment into 
a mix of commercial and residential uses is the strip mall, 
a leftover from the 1950s that runs along major suburban 
streets in most large Ontario cities. 
“As of right” zoning allows more kinds of housing that are 
accessible to more kinds of people. It makes neighbourhoods 
stronger, richer, and fairer. And it will get more housing 
built in existing neighbourhoods more quickly than any 
other measure. 
3. Limit exclusionary zoning in municipalities through 
binding provincial action:
a) Allow “as of right” residential housing up to 
four units and up to four storeys on a single 
residential lot.
b) Modernize the Building Code and other policies 
to remove any barriers to affordable construction 
and to ensure meaningful implementation 
(e.g., allow single-staircase construction for 
up to four storeys, allow single egress, etc.).
4. Permit “as of right” conversion of underutilized or 
redundant commercial properties to residential 
or mixed residential and commercial use.
5. Permit “as of right” secondary suites, garden suites, 
and laneway houses province-wide.
6. Permit “as of right” multi-tenant housing (renting 
rooms within a dwelling) province-wide.
7. Encourage and incentivize municipalities to increase 
density in areas with excess school capacity to 
benefit families with children.
Align investments in roads and transit 
with growth
Governments have invested billions of dollars in highways, 
light rail, buses, subways and trains in Ontario. But 
without ensuring more people can live close to those 
transit routes, we’re not getting the best return on those 
infrastructure investments.
Access to transit is linked to making housing more 
affordable: when reliable transit options are nearby, people 
can get to work more easily. They can live further from the 
centre of the city in less expensive areas without the 
added cost of car ownership.
The impacts of expanding public transit go far beyond 
serving riders. These investments also spur economic 
growth and reduce traffic congestion and emissions. We all 
pay for the cost of transit spending, and we should all share 
in the benefits.
If municipalities achieve the right development near 
transit – a mix of housing at high- and medium-density, 
office space and retail – this would open the door to better 
ways of funding the costs. Other cities, like London, UK 
and Hong Kong, have captured the impacts of increased 
land value and business activity along new transit routes 
to help with their financing.
Ontario recently created requirements (residents/hectare) 
for municipalities to zone for higher density in transit 
corridors and “major transit station areas”.[13] These are 
areas surrounding subway and other rapid transit stations 
and hubs. However, we heard troubling reports that local 
opposition is blocking access to these neighbourhoods 
and to critical public transit stations. City staff, councillors, 
and the province need to stand up to these tactics and 
speak up for the Ontarians who need housing. 
The Province is also building new highways in the Greater 
Golden Horseshoe, and it’s important to plan thoughtfully 
for the communities that will follow from these investments, 
to make sure they are compact and liveable.
Population density
(people per km2)
Tokyo
London
New York
Toronto
4,200
1,700
450
1,800 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 12
8. Allow “as of right” zoning up to unlimited height 
and unlimited density in the immediate proximity 
of individual major transit stations within two years 
if municipal zoning remains insufficient to meet 
provincial density targets.
9. Allow “as of right” zoning of six to 11 storeys with 
no minimum parking requirements on any streets 
utilized by public transit (including streets on bus 
and streetcar routes). 
10. Designate or rezone as mixed commercial and 
residential use all land along transit corridors and 
redesignate all Residential Apartment to mixed 
commercial and residential zoning in Toronto.
11. Support responsible housing growth on 
undeveloped land, including outside existing 
municipal boundaries, by building necessary 
infrastructure to support higher density 
housing and complete communities and applying 
the recommendations of this report to all 
undeveloped land. 
Start saying “yes in my backyard”
Even where higher density is allowed in theory, the official 
plans of most cities in Ontario contain conflicting goals like 
maintaining “prevailing neighbourhood character”. This bias 
is reinforced by detailed guidance that often follows from 
the official plan. Although requirements are presented as 
“guidelines”, they are often treated as rules.
Examples include: 
• Angular plane rules that require successively higher 
floors to be stepped further back, cutting the number 
of units that can be built by up to half and making 
many projects uneconomic
• Detailed rules around the shadows a building casts
• Guidelines around finishes, colours and other design details 
One resident’s desire to prevent a shadow being cast in their 
backyard or a local park frequently prevails over concrete 
proposals to build more housing for multiple families. By-laws 
and guidelines that preserve “neighbourhood character” 
often prevent simple renovations to add new suites to 
existing homes. The people who suffer are mostly young, 
visible minorities, and marginalized people. It is the perfect 
example of a policy that appears neutral on its surface but 
is discriminatory in its application.[14]
Far too much time and money are spent reviewing and 
holding consultations for large projects which conform with 
the official plan or zoning by-law and small projects which 
would cause minimal disruption. The cost of needless 
delays is passed on to new home buyers and tenants. 
Minimum parking requirements for each new unit are another 
example of outdated municipal requirements that increase 
the cost of housing and are increasingly less relevant with 
public transit and ride share services. Minimum parking 
requirements add as much as $165,000 to the cost of a new 
housing unit, even as demand for parking spaces is falling: 
data from the Residential Construction Council of Ontario 
shows that in new condo projects, one in three parking 
stalls goes unsold. We applaud the recent vote by Toronto 
City Council to scrap most minimum parking requirements. 
We believe other cities should follow suit.
While true heritage sites are important, heritage preservation 
has also become a tool to block more housing. For example, 
some municipalities add thousands of properties at a time to 
a heritage register because they have “potential” heritage 
value. Even where a building isn’t heritage designated or 
registered, neighbours increasingly demand it be as soon 
as a development is proposed.
This brings us to the role of the “not in my backyard” or 
NIMBY sentiment in delaying or stopping more homes from 
being built. 
New housing is often the last priority
A proposed building with market and affordable 
housing units would have increased the midday 
shadow by 6.5% on a nearby park at the fall 
and spring equinox, with no impact during the summer 
months. To conform to a policy that does not permit 
“new net shadow on specific parks”, seven floors 
of housing, including 26 affordable housing units, 
were sacrificed. 
Multiple dry cleaners along a transit route were 
designated as heritage sites to prevent new housing 
being built. It is hard not to feel outrage when our laws 
are being used to prevent families from moving into 
neighbourhoods and into homes they can afford along 
transit routes. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 13
NIMBY versus YIMBY
NIMBYism (not in my backyard) is a large and constant 
obstacle to providing housing everywhere. Neighbourhood 
pushback drags out the approval process, pushes up 
costs and discourages investment in housing. It also keeps 
out new residents. While building housing is very costly, 
opposing new housing costs almost nothing.
Unfortunately, there is a strong incentive for individual 
municipal councillors to fall in behind community opposition – 
it’s existing residents who elect them, not future ones. The 
outcry of even a handful of constituents (helped by the rise 
of social media) has been enough, in far too many cases, to 
persuade their local councillor to vote against development 
even while admitting its merits in private. There is a sense 
among some that it’s better to let the Ontario Land Tribunal 
approve the development on appeal, even if it causes long 
delays and large cost increases, then to take the political heat. 
Mayors and councillors across the province are fed up and 
many have called for limits on public consultations and 
more “as of right” zoning. In fact, some have created a new 
term for NIMBYism: BANANAs – Build Absolutely Nothing 
Anywhere Near Anything, causing one mayor to comment 
“NIMBYism has gone BANANAs”. We agree. In a growing, 
thriving society, that approach is not just bad policy, it is 
exclusionary and wrong.
As a result, technical planning decisions have become 
politicized. One major city has delegated many decisions to 
senior staff, but an individual councillor can withdraw the 
delegation when there is local opposition and force a vote 
at Council. We heard that this situation is common across 
the province, creating an electoral incentive for a councillor 
to delay or stop a housing proposal, or forcing a councillor 
to pay the electoral cost of supporting it. Approvals of 
individual housing applications should be the role of 
professional staff, free from political interference. 
The pressure to stop any development is now so intense that 
it has given rise to a counter-movement – YIMBYism, or “yes 
in my backyard,” led by millennials who recognize entrenched 
opposition to change as a huge obstacle to finding a home. 
They provide a voice at public consultations for young people, 
new immigrants and refugees, minority groups, and Ontarians 
struggling to access housing by connecting our ideals to 
the reality of housing. People who welcome immigrants to 
Canada should welcome them to the neighbourhood, fighting 
climate change means supporting higher-density housing, 
and “keeping the neighbourhood the way it is” means 
keeping it off-limits. While anti-housing voices can be loud, 
a member of More Neighbours Toronto, a YIMBY group that 
regularly attends public consultations, has said that the most 
vocal opponents usually don’t represent the majority in a 
neighbourhood. Survey data from the Ontario Real Estate 
Association backs that up, with almost 80% of Ontarians 
saying they are in favour of zoning in urban areas that would 
encourage more homes.
Ontarians want a solution to the housing crisis. We 
cannot allow opposition and politicization of individual 
housing projects to prevent us from meeting the needs 
of all Ontarians. 
12. Create a more permissive land use, planning, and 
approvals system:
a) Repeal or override municipal policies, zoning, 
or plans that prioritize the preservation of 
physical character of neighbourhood
b) Exempt from site plan approval and public 
consultation all projects of 10 units or less that 
conform to the Official Plan and require only 
minor variances
c) Establish province-wide zoning standards, or 
prohibitions, for minimum lot sizes, maximum 
building setbacks, minimum heights, angular 
planes, shadow rules, front doors, building depth, 
landscaping, floor space index, and heritage 
view cones, and planes; restore pre-2006 site 
plan exclusions (colour, texture, and type of 
materials, window details, etc.) to the Planning 
Act and reduce or eliminate minimum parking 
requirements; and 
d) Remove any floorplate restrictions to allow 
larger, more efficient high-density towers.
13. Limit municipalities from requesting or hosting 
additional public meetings beyond those that are 
required under the Planning Act. 
14. Require that public consultations provide digital 
participation options.
15. Require mandatory delegation of site plan 
approvals and minor variances to staff or 
pre-approved qualified third-party technical 
consultants through a simplified review and 
approval process, without the ability to withdraw 
Council’s delegation. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 14
16. Prevent abuse of the heritage preservation and 
designation process by:
a) Prohibiting the use of bulk listing on municipal 
heritage registers
b) Prohibiting reactive heritage designations after 
a Planning Act development application has 
been filed
17. Requiring municipalities to compensate property 
owners for loss of property value as a result of 
heritage designations, based on the principle of 
best economic use of land. 
18. Restore the right of developers to appeal Official 
Plans and Municipal Comprehensive Reviews. 
We have heard mixed feedback on Committees of 
Adjustment. While they are seen to be working well in some 
cities, in others they are seen to simply add another lengthy 
step in the process. We would urge the government to first 
implement our recommendation to delegate minor variances 
and site plan approvals to municipal staff and then assess 
whether Committees of Adjustment are necessary and an 
improvement over staff-level decision making. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 15
Cut the red tape so we can
build faster and reduce costs
One of the strongest signs that our approval process is not working: of 35 OECD countries, 
only the Slovak Republic takes longer than Canada to approve a building project. The UK and 
the US approve projects three times faster without sacrificing quality or safety. And they save 
home buyers and tenants money as a result, making housing more affordable.[15]
A 2020 survey of development approval times in 
23 Canadian cities shows Ontario seriously lagging: 
Hamilton (15th), Toronto (17th), Ottawa (21st) with approval 
times averaging between 20-24 months. These timelines 
do not include building permits, which take about two years 
for an apartment building in Toronto. Nor did they count the 
time it takes for undeveloped land to be designated for 
housing, which the study notes can take five to ten years.[16]
Despite the good intentions of many people involved in 
the approvals and home-building process, decades of 
dysfunction in the system and needless bureaucracy have 
made it too difficult for housing approvals to keep up with 
the needs of Ontarians. There appear to be numerous 
reasons why Ontario performs so poorly against other 
Canadian cities and the rest of the developed world. We 
believe that the major problems can be summed up as:
• Too much complexity in the planning process, with the 
page count in legislation, regulation, policies, plans, and 
by-laws growing every year
• Too many studies, guidelines, meetings and other 
requirements of the type we outlined in the previous 
section, including many that go well beyond the scope 
of Ontario’s Planning Act 
• Reviews within municipalities and with outside agencies 
that are piecemeal, duplicative (although often with 
conflicting outcomes) and poorly coordinated
• Process flaws that include reliance on paper 
• Some provincial policies that are more relevant 
to urban development but result in burdensome, 
irrelevant requirements when applied in some rural 
and northern communities.
All of this has contributed to widespread failure on the part 
of municipalities to meet required timelines. The provincial 
Planning Act sets out deadlines of 90 days for decisions 
on zoning by-law amendments, 120 days for plans of 
subdivision, and 30 days for site plan approval, but 
municipalities routinely miss these without penalty. For 
other processes, like site plan approval or provincial 
approvals, there are no timelines and delays drag on. The 
cost of delay falls on the ultimate homeowner or tenant.
The consequences for homeowners and renters are 
enormous. Ultimately, whatever cost a builder pays gets 
passed on to the buyer or renter. As one person said: 
“Process is the biggest project killer in Toronto because 
developers have to carry timeline risk.”
Site plan control was often brought up as a frustration. 
Under the Planning Act, this is meant to be a technical 
review of the external features of a building. In practice, 
municipalities often expand on what is required and take 
too long to respond. 
8,200
Then & Now
Total words in:
1996
Provincial Policy 
Statement
17,000
2020
17,000
1970
Planning Act
96,000
2020 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 16
An Ontario Association of Architects study calculating the 
cost of delays between site plan application and approval 
concluded that for a 100-unit condominium apartment 
building, each additional month of delay costs the applicant 
an estimated $193,000, or $1,930 a month for each unit.[17]
A 2020 study done for the Building Industry and Land 
Development Association (BILD) looked at impacts of delay 
on low-rise construction, including single-detached homes. It 
estimated that every month an approval is delayed adds, on 
average, $1.46 per square foot to the cost of a single home. 
A two-year delay, which is not unusual for this housing type, 
adds more than $70,000 to the cost of a 2,000-square-foot 
house in the GTA.[16]
Getting rid of so much unnecessary and unproductive 
additional work would significantly reduce the burden on 
staff. It would help address the widespread shortages of 
planners and building officials. It would also bring a stronger 
sense among municipal staff that they are part of the housing 
solution and can take pride in helping cut approval times and 
lower the costs of delivering homes.
Adopt common sense approaches that save 
construction costs 
Wood using “mass timber” – an engineer compressed wood, 
made for strength and weight-bearing – can provide a 
lower-cost alternative to reinforced concrete in many mid-rise 
projects, but Ontario’s Building Code is hampering its use. 
Building taller with wood offers advantages beyond cost:
• Wood is a renewable resource that naturally sequesters 
carbon, helping us reach our climate change goals 
• Using wood supports Ontario’s forestry sector and 
creates jobs, including for Indigenous people 
British Columbia’s and Quebec’s building codes allow 
woodframe construction up to 12 storeys, but Ontario limits 
it to six. By amending the Building Code to allow 12-storey 
woodframe construction, Ontario would encourage increased 
use of forestry products and reduce building costs.
Finally, we were told that a shift in how builders are required 
to guarantee their performance would free up billions of 
dollars to build more housing. Pay on demand surety bonds 
are a much less onerous option than letters or credit, 
and are already accepted in Hamilton, Pickering, Innisfil, 
Whitchurch-Stouffville and other Ontario municipalities. 
We outline the technical details in Appendix D. 
19. Legislate timelines at each stage of the provincial 
and municipal review process, including site plan, 
minor variance, and provincial reviews, and deem 
an application approved if the legislated response 
time is exceeded. 
20. Fund the creation of “approvals facilitators” with 
the authority to quickly resolve conflicts among 
municipal and/or provincial authorities and ensure 
timelines are met. 
21. Require a pre-consultation with all relevant parties 
at which the municipality sets out a binding list that 
defines what constitutes a complete application; 
confirms the number of consultations established 
in the previous recommendations; and clarifies that 
if a member of a regulated profession such as a 
professional engineer has stamped an application, 
the municipality has no liability and no additional 
stamp is needed. 
22. Simplify planning legislation and policy documents.
23. Create a common, province-wide definition of plan 
of subdivision and standard set of conditions which 
clarify which may be included; require the use of 
standard province-wide legal agreements and, 
where feasible, plans of subdivision.
24. Allow wood construction of up to 12 storeys.
25. Require municipalities to provide the option of pay 
on demand surety bonds and letters of credit. 
Then: In 1966, a draft plan of subdivision in a town in 
southwestern Ontario to provide 529 low-rise and 
mid-rise housing units, a school site, a shopping centre 
and parks was approved by way of a two-page letter 
setting out 10 conditions. It took seven months to clear 
conditions for final approval.
And now: In 2013, a builder started the approval 
process to build on a piece of serviced residential land 
in a seasonal resort town. Over the next seven years, 
18 professional consultant reports were required, 
culminating in draft plan approval containing 50 
clearance conditions. The second approval, issued 
by the Local Planning Appeals Board in 2020, ran to 
23 pages. The developer estimates it will be almost 
10 years before final approval is received.  

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 17
Prevent abuse of the appeal process
Part of the challenge with housing approvals is that, by the 
time a project has been appealed to the Ontario Land 
Tribunal (the Tribunal), it has usually already faced delay and 
compromises have been made to reduce the size and scope 
of the proposal. When an approved project is appealed, the 
appellant – which could just be a single individual – may pay 
$400 and tie up new housing for years. 
The most recent published report showed 1,300 unresolved 
cases.[18] While under-resourcing does contribute to delays, 
this caseload also reflects the low barrier to launching an 
appeal and the minimal risks if an appeal is unsuccessful: 
• After a builder has spent time and money to ensure a 
proposal conforms with a municipality’s requirements, 
the municipal council can still reject it – even if its own 
planning staff has given its support. Very often this is to 
appease local opponents.
• Unlike a court, costs are not automatically awarded to 
the successful party at the Tribunal. The winning side 
must bring a motion and prove that the party bringing 
the appeal was unreasonable, clearly trying to delay the 
project, and/or being vexatious or frivolous. Because the 
bar is set so high, the winning side seldom asks for costs 
in residential cases. 
This has resulted in abuse of the Tribunal to delay new 
housing. Throughout our consultations, we heard from 
municipalities, not-for-profits, and developers that affordable 
housing was a particular target for appeals which, even if 
unsuccessful, can make projects too costly to build. 
Clearly the Tribunal needs more resources to clear its 
backlog. But the bigger issue is the need for so many 
appeals: we believe it would better to have well-defined 
goals and rules for municipalities and builders to avoid this 
costly and time-consuming quasi-judicial process. Those who 
bring appeals aimed at stopping development that meets 
established criteria should pay the legal costs of the successful 
party and face the risk of a larger project being approved.
The solution is not more appeals, it’s fixing the system. We 
have proposed a series of reforms that would ensure only 
meritorious appeals proceeded, that every participant faces 
some risk and cost of losing, and that abuse of the Tribunal 
will be penalized. We believe that if Ontario accepts our 
recommendations, the Tribunal will not face the same volume 
of appeals. But getting to that point will take time, and the 
Tribunal needs more resources and better tools now.
Recommendation 1 will provide legislative direction to 
adjudicators that they must prioritize housing growth and 
intensification over competing priorities contained in 
provincial and municipal policies. We further recommend 
the following:
26. Require appellants to promptly seek permission 
(“leave to appeal”) of the Tribunal and demonstrate 
that an appeal has merit, relying on evidence 
and expert reports, before it is accepted.
27. Prevent abuse of process:
a) Remove right of appeal for projects with at 
least 30% affordable housing in which units 
are guaranteed affordable for at least 40 years.
b) Require a $10,000 filing fee for third-party 
appeals.
c) Provide discretion to adjudicators to award 
full costs to the successful party in any appeal 
brought by a third party or by a municipality 
where its council has overridden a 
recommended staff approval. 
28. Encourage greater use of oral decisions issued the 
day of the hearing, with written reasons to follow, 
and allow those decisions to become binding the 
day that they are issued.
29. Where it is found that a municipality has refused 
an application simply to avoid a deemed approval 
for lack of decision, allow the Tribunal to award 
punitive damages. 
30. Provide funding to increase staffing (adjudicators 
and case managers), provide market-competitive 
salaries, outsource more matters to mediators, 
and set shorter time targets.
31. In clearing the existing backlog, encourage 
the Tribunal to prioritize projects close to the 
finish line that will support housing growth and 
intensification, as well as regional water or utility 
infrastructure decisions that will unlock significant 
housing capacity. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 18
Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent
The price you pay to buy or rent a home is driven directly by how much it costs to build a home. 
In Ontario, costs to build homes have dramatically increased at an unprecedented pace over 
the past decade. In most of our cities and towns, materials and labour only account for about 
half of the costs. The rest comes from land, which we have addressed in the previous section, 
and government fees. 
A careful balance is required on government fees because, 
as much as we would like to see them lowered, governments 
need revenues from fees and taxes to build critically 
needed infrastructure and pay for all the other services that 
make Ontario work. So, it is a question of balance and of 
ensuring that our approach to government fees encourages 
rather than discourages developers to build the full range 
of housing we need in our Ontario communities.
Align government fees and charges 
with the goal of building more housing 
Improve the municipal funding model
Housing requires more than just the land it is built on. It 
requires roads, sewers, parks, utilities and other infrastructure. 
The provincial government provides municipalities with a way 
to secure funding for this infrastructure through development 
charges, community benefit charges and parkland dedication 
(providing 5% of land for public parks or the cash equivalent). 
These charges are founded on the belief that growth – not 
current taxpayers – should pay for growth. As a concept, it 
is compelling. In practice, it means that new home buyers 
pay the entire cost of sewers, parks, affordable housing, or 
colleges that will be around for generations and may not be 
located in their neighbourhood. And, although building 
affordable housing is a societal responsibility, because 
affordable units pay all the same charges as a market 
unit, the cost is passed to new home buyers in the same 
building or the not-for-profit organization supporting the 
project. We do not believe that government fees should 
create a disincentive to affordable housing.
If you ask any developer of homes – whether they are 
for-profit or non-profit – they will tell you that development 
charges are a special pain point. In Ontario, they can be 
as much as $135,000 per home. In some municipalities, 
development charges have increased as much as 900% 
in less than 20 years.[20] As development charges go up, the 
prices of homes go up. And development charges on a 
modest semi-detached home are the same as on a luxury 
6,000 square foot home, resulting in a disincentive to build 
housing that is more affordable. Timing is also a challenge 
as development charges have to be paid up front, before 
a shovel even goes into the ground.
To help relieve the pressure, the Ontario government 
passed recent legislation allowing builders to determine 
development charges earlier in the building process. But 
they must pay interest on the assessed development charge 
to the municipality until a building permit is issued, and there 
is no cap on the rate, which in one major city is 13% annually.
Cash payments to satisfy parkland dedication also 
significantly boost the costs of higher-density projects, 
adding on average $17,000 to the cost of a high-rise condo 
across the GTA.[21] We heard concerns not just about the 
amount of cash collected, but also about the money not 
being spent in the neighbourhood or possibly not being 
spent on parks at all. As an example, in 2019 the City of 
Toronto held $644 million in parkland cash-in-lieu payments.[22]
Everyone can agree that we need to invest in parks as our 
communities grow, but if the funds are not being spent, 
perhaps it means that more money is being collected for 
parklands than is needed and we could lower the cost of 
housing if we adjusted these parkland fees.
A 2019 study carried out for BILD 
showed that in the Greater Toronto Area, 
development charges for low-rise housing are 
on average more than three times higher per unit than 
in six comparable US metropolitan areas, and roughly 
1.75-times higher than in the other Canadian cities. 
For high-rise developments the average per unit 
charges in the GTA are roughly 50% higher than in the 
US areas, and roughly 30% higher than in the other 
Canadian urban areas.[19] 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 19
Modernizing HST Thresholds
Harmonized sales tax (HST) applies to all new housing – 
including purpose-built rental. Today, the federal component 
is 5% and provincial component is 8%. The federal and 
provincial government provide a partial HST rebate. Two 
decades ago, the maximum home price eligible for a rebate 
was set at $450,000 federally and $400,000 provincially, 
resulting in a maximum rebate of $6,300 federally and 
$24,000 provincially, less than half of today’s average home 
price. Buyers of new homes above this ceiling face a 
significant clawback. Indexing the rebate would immediately 
reduce the cost of building new homes, savings that can be 
passed on to Ontarians. When both levels of government 
agree that we are facing a housing crisis, they should not 
be adding over 10% to the cost of almost all new homes.
32. Waive development charges and parkland 
cash-in-lieu and charge only modest connection 
fees for all infill residential projects up to 10 units 
or for any development where no new material 
infrastructure will be required.
33. Waive development charges on all forms of 
affordable housing guaranteed to be affordable 
for 40 years. 
34. Prohibit interest rates on development charges 
higher than a municipality’s borrowing rate.
35. Regarding cash in lieu of parkland, s.37, Community 
Benefit Charges, and development charges:
a) Provincial review of reserve levels, collections 
and drawdowns annually to ensure funds are 
being used in a timely fashion and for the 
intended purpose, and, where review points 
to a significant concern, do not allow further 
collection until the situation has been corrected.
b) Except where allocated towards municipality-wide 
infrastructure projects, require municipalities to 
spend funds in the neighbourhoods where they 
were collected. However, where there’s a 
significant community need in a priority area of 
the City, allow for specific ward-to-ward allocation 
of unspent and unallocated reserves.
36. Recommend that the federal government and 
provincial governments update HST rebate to 
reflect current home prices and begin indexing the 
thresholds to housing prices, and that the federal 
government match the provincial 75% rebate and 
remove any clawback. 
Make it easier to build rental
In cities and towns across Ontario, it is increasingly hard to 
find a vacant rental unit, let alone a vacant rental unit at an 
affordable price. Today, 66% of all purpose-built rental 
units in the City of Toronto were built between 1960 and 
1979. Less than 15% of Toronto’s purpose-built rentals were 
constructed over the ensuing 40 years in spite of the 
significant population growth during that time. In fact, 
between 2006 and 2016, growth in condo apartments 
increased by 186% while purpose-built rental only grew by 
0.6%.[12] In 2018, the Ontario government introduced positive 
changes that have created growth in purpose-built rental 
units – with last year seeing 18,000 units under construction 
and 93,000 proposed against a 5-year average prior to 2020 
of 3,400 annually.[23]
Long-term renters often now feel trapped in apartments 
that don’t make sense for them as their needs change. And 
because they can’t or don’t want to move up the housing 
ladder, many of the people coming up behind them who 
would gladly take those apartments are instead living in 
crowded spaces with family members or roommates. 
Others feel forced to commit to rental units at prices way 
beyond what they can afford. Others are trying their luck 
in getting on the wait list for an affordable unit or housing 
co-op – wait lists that are years long. Others are leaving 
Ontario altogether. 
Government charges on a new single-detached home 
averaged roughly $186,300, or almost 22% of the price, 
across six municipalities in southcentral Ontario. For a 
new condominium apartment, the average was almost 
$123,000, or roughly 24% of a unit’s price.
of all purpose-built rental units 
in the City of Toronto were 
built between 1960 and 1979.
66% 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 20
A pattern in every community, and particularly large 
cities, is that the apartments and rented rooms that 
we do have are disappearing. Apartment buildings are 
being converted to condos or upgraded to much more 
expensive rental units. Duplexes get purchased and 
turned into larger single-family homes.
A major challenge in bridging the gap of rental supply is that, 
more often than not, purpose-built rental projects don’t make 
economic sense for builders and investors. Ironically, there is 
no shortage of Canadian investor capital seeking housing 
investments, particularly large pension funds – but the 
economics of investing in purpose-built rental in Ontario just 
don’t make sense. So, investments get made in apartment 
projects in other provinces or countries, or in condo projects 
that have a better and safer return-on-investment. What can 
governments do to get that investor capital pointed in the 
right direction so we can create jobs and get more of the 
housing we need built?
Some of our earlier recommendations will help, particularly 
indexing the HST rebate. So will actions by government to 
require purpose-built rental on surplus government land 
that is made available for sale. (Appendix C)
Municipal property taxes on purpose-built rental can 
be as much as 2.5 times greater than property taxes 
for condominium or other ownership housing.[24]
The Task Force recommends:
37. Align property taxes for purpose-built rental with 
those of condos and low-rise homes.
Make homeownership possible for 
hardworking Ontarians who want it
Home ownership has always been part of the Canadian 
dream. You don’t have to look far back to find a time when 
the housing landscape was very different. The norm was for 
young people to rent an apartment in their twenties, work 
hard and save for a down payment, then buy their first 
home in their late twenties or early thirties. It was the same 
for many new Canadians: arrive, rent, work hard and buy. 
The house might be modest, but it brought a sense of 
ownership, stability and security. And after that first step 
onto the ownership ladder, there was always the possibility 
of selling and moving up. Home ownership felt like a real 
possibility for anyone who wanted it. 
That’s not how it works now. Too many young people 
who would like their own place are living with one or both 
parents well into adulthood. 
The escalation of housing prices over the last decade has 
put the dream of homeownership out of reach of a growing 
number of aspiring first-time home buyers. While 73% of 
Canadians are homeowners, that drops to 48% for Black 
people, 47% for LGBTQ people[5] (StatsCan is studying rates 
for other populations, including Indigenous People who are 
severely underhoused). This is also an issue for younger 
adults: a 2021 study showed only 24% of Torontonians 
aged 30 to 39 are homeowners.[25]
In Canada, responsibility for Indigenous housing programs 
has historically been a shared between the federal and 
provincial governments. The federal government works 
closely with its provincial and territorial counterparts to 
improve access to housing for Indigenous peoples both on 
and off reserve. More than 85% of Indigenous people live in 
urban and rural areas, are 11 times more likely to experience 
homelessness and have incidence of housing need that is 
52% greater than all Canadians. The Murdered and Missing 
Indigenous Women and Girls report mentions housing 
299 times – the lack of which being a significant, contributing 
cause to violence and the provision of which as a significant, 
contributing solution. The Province of Ontario has made 
significant investments in Urban Indigenous Housing, but 
we need the Federal Government to re-engage as an 
active partner.
While measures to address supply will have an impact on 
housing prices, many aspiring homeowners will continue 
to face a gap that is simply too great to bridge through 
traditional methods.
The Task Force recognizes the need for caution about 
measures that would spur demand for housing before the 
supply bottleneck is fixed. At the same time, a growing 
number of organizations – both non-profit and for-profit are 
proposing a range of unique home equity models. Some 
of these organizations are aiming at households who have 
sufficient income to pay the mortgage but lack a sufficient 
down payment. Others are aiming at households who fall 
short in both income and down payment requirements for 
current market housing. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 21
The Task Force heard about a range of models to help 
aspiring first-time home buyers, including:
• Shared equity models with a government, non-profit or 
for-profit lender holding a second “shared equity mortgage” 
payable at time of sale of the home
• Land lease models that allow residents to own their home 
but lease the land, reducing costs
• Rent-to-own approaches in which a portion of an occupant’s 
rent is used to build equity, which can be used as a 
down payment on their current unit or another market 
unit in the future
• Models where the equity gain is shared between the 
homeowner and the non-profit provider, such that the 
non-profit will always be able to buy the home back and 
sell it to another qualified buyer, thus retaining the home’s 
affordability from one homeowner to the next.
Proponents of these models identified barriers that thwart 
progress in implementing new solutions. 
• The Planning Act limits land leases to a maximum of 
21 years. This provision prevents home buyers from 
accessing the same type of mortgages from a bank or 
credit union that are available to them when they buy 
through traditional homeownership.
• The Perpetuities Act has a similar 21-year limit on any 
options placed on land. This limits innovative non-profit 
models from using equity formulas for re-sale and 
repurchase of homes.
• Land Transfer Tax (LTT) is charged each time a home is 
sold and is collected by the province; and in Toronto, this 
tax is also collected by the City. This creates a double-tax 
in rent-to-own/equity building models where LTT ends up 
being paid first by the home equity organization and then 
by the occupant when they are able to buy the unit.
• HST is charged based on the market value of the home. 
In shared equity models where the homeowner neither 
owns nor gains from the shared equity portion of their 
home, HST on the shared equity portion of the home 
simply reduces affordability. 
• Residential mortgages are highly regulated by the federal 
government and reflective of traditional homeownership. 
Modifications in regulations may be required to adapt to 
new co-ownership and other models.
The Task Force encourages the Ontario government 
to devote further attention to avenues to support new 
homeownership options. As a starting point, the Task 
Force offers the following recommendations:
38. Amend the Planning Act and Perpetuities Act to 
extend the maximum period for land leases and 
restrictive covenants on land to 40 or more years.
39. Eliminate or reduce tax disincentives to 
housing growth.
40. Call on the Federal Government to implement 
an Urban, Rural and Northern Indigenous 
Housing Strategy.
41. Funding for pilot projects that create innovative 
pathways to homeownership, for Black, 
Indigenous, and marginalized people and 
first-generation homeowners.
42. Provide provincial and federal loan guarantees 
for purpose-built rental, affordable rental and 
affordable ownership projects. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 22
Support and incentivize 
scaling up housing supply
Our goal of building 1.5 million homes in ten years means doubling how many homes Ontario 
creates each year. As much as the Task Force’s recommendations will remove barriers to 
realizing this ambitious goal, we also need to ensure we have the capacity across Ontario’s 
communities to deliver this new housing supply. This includes capacity of our housing 
infrastructure, capacity within our municipal planning teams, and boots on the ground 
with the skills to build new homes.
There is much to be done and the price of failure for 
the people of Ontario is high. This is why the provincial 
government must make an unwavering commitment to 
keeping the spotlight on housing supply. This is also 
why the province must be dogged in its determination to 
galvanize and align efforts and incentives across all levels 
of government so that working together, we all can get 
the job done.
Our final set of recommendations turns to these issues of 
capacity to deliver, and the role the provincial government 
can play in putting the incentives and alignment in place 
to achieve the 1.5 million home goal.
Invest in municipal infrastructure 
Housing can’t get built without water, sewage, 
and other infrastructure
When the Task Force met with municipal leaders, they 
emphasized how much future housing supply relies on 
having the water, storm water and wastewater systems, 
roads, sidewalks, fire stations, and all the other parts of 
community infrastructure to support new homes and 
new residents. 
Infrastructure is essential where housing is being built 
for the first time. And, it can be a factor in intensification 
when added density exceeds the capacity of existing 
infrastructure, one of the reasons we urge new 
infrastructure in new developments to be designed for 
future capacity. In Ontario, there are multiple municipalities 
where the number one barrier to approving new housing 
projects is a lack of infrastructure to support them. 
Municipalities face a myriad of challenges in getting this 
infrastructure in place. Often, infrastructure investments 
are required long before new projects are approved and 
funding must be secured. Notwithstanding the burden 
development charges place on the price of new housing, 
most municipalities report that development charges are 
still not enough to fully cover the costs of building new 
infrastructure and retrofitting existing infrastructure in 
neighbourhoods that are intensifying. Often infrastructure 
crosses municipal boundaries creating complicated and 
time-consuming “who pays?” questions. Municipal leaders 
also shared their frustrations with situations where new 
housing projects are approved and water, sewage and 
other infrastructure capacity is allocated to the project – 
only to have the developer land bank the project and 
put off building. Environmental considerations with new 
infrastructure add further cost and complexity. The Task 
Force recommends:
43. Enable municipalities, subject to adverse external 
economic events, to withdraw infrastructure 
allocations from any permitted projects where 
construction has not been initiated within three 
years of build permits being issued.
44. Work with municipalities to develop and 
implement a municipal services corporation 
utility model for water and wastewater under 
which the municipal corporation would borrow 
and amortize costs among customers instead 
of using development charges. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 23
Create the Labour Force to meet 
the housing supply need
The labour force is shrinking in many segments 
of the market 
You can’t start to build housing without infrastructure. 
You can’t build it without people – skilled trades people
in every community who can build the homes we need. 
The concern that we are already facing a shortage in 
skilled trades came through loud and clear in our 
consultations. We heard from many sources that our 
education system funnels young people to university 
rather than colleges or apprenticeships and creates the 
perception that careers in the skilled trades are of less 
value. Unions and builders are working to fill the pipeline 
domestically and recruit internationally, but mass 
retirements are making it challenging to maintain the 
workforce at its current level, let alone increase it. 
Increased economic immigration could ease this 
bottleneck, but it appears difficult for a skilled labourer 
with no Canadian work experience to qualify under 
Ontario’s rules. Moreover, Canada’s immigration policies 
also favour university education over skills our economy 
and society desperately need. We ought to be welcoming 
immigrants with the skills needed to build roads and 
houses that will accommodate our growing population. 
The shortage may be less acute, however, among 
smaller developers and contractors that could renovate 
and build new “missing middle” homes arising from the 
changes in neighbourhood zoning described earlier. 
These smaller companies tap into a different workforce 
from the one needed to build high rises and new 
subdivisions. Nonetheless, 1.5 million more homes will 
require a major investment in attracting and developing 
the skilled trades workforce to deliver this critically 
needed housing supply. We recommend:
45. Improve funding for colleges, trade schools, 
and apprenticeships; encourage and incentivize 
municipalities, unions and employers to provide 
more on-the-job training.
46. Undertake multi-stakeholder education program 
to promote skilled trades.
47. Recommend that the federal and provincial 
government prioritize skilled trades and adjust 
the immigration points system to strongly favour 
needed trades and expedite immigration status 
for these workers, and encourage the federal 
government to increase from 9,000 to 20,000 
the number of immigrants admitted through 
Ontario’s program.
Create a large Ontario Housing Delivery 
Fund to align efforts and incent new 
housing supply
Build alignment between governments to enable 
builders to deliver more homes than ever before
All levels of government play a role in housing. 
The federal government sets immigration policy, which has 
a major impact on population growth and many tax policies. 
The province sets the framework for planning, approvals, and 
growth that municipalities rely upon, and is responsible for 
many other areas that touch on housing supply, like investing 
in highways and transit, training workers, the building code 
and protecting the environment. Municipalities are on the 
front lines, expected to translate the impacts of federal 
immigration policy, provincial guidance and other factors, 
some very localized, into official plans and the overall 
process through which homes are approved to be built.
The efficiency with which home builders can build, whether 
for-profit or non-profit, is influenced by policies and decisions 
at every level of government. In turn, how many home 
developers can deliver, and at what cost, translates directly 
into the availability of homes that Ontarians can afford. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 24
Collectively, governments have not been sufficiently 
aligned in their efforts to provide the frameworks and 
incentives that meet the broad spectrum of housing needs in 
Ontario. Much action, though, has been taken in recent years.
• The Ontario government has taken several steps to 
make it easier to build additional suites in your own 
home: reduced disincentives to building rental housing, 
improved the appeal process, focused on density around 
transit stations, made upfront development charges more 
predictable, and provided options for municipalities to 
create community benefits through development. 
• The federal government has launched the National 
Housing Strategy and committed over $70 billion in 
funding.[26] Most recently, it has announced a $4 billion 
Housing Accelerator Fund aimed at helping municipalities
remove barriers to building housing more quickly.[27]
• Municipalities have been looking at ways to change 
outdated processes, rules, and ways of thinking that 
create delays and increases costs of delivering homes. 
Several municipalities have taken initial steps towards 
eliminating exclusionary zoning and addressing other 
barriers described in this report.
All governments agree that we are facing a housing crisis. 
Now we must turn the sense of urgency into action and 
alignment across governments.
Mirror policy changes with financial incentives 
aligned across governments
The policy recommendations in this report will go a long way 
to align efforts and position builders to deliver more homes. 
Having the capacity in our communities to build these homes 
will take more than policy. It will take money. Rewarding 
municipalities that meet housing growth and approval 
timelines will help them to invest in system upgrades, hire 
additional staff, and invest in their communities. Similarly, 
municipalities that resist new housing, succumb to NIMBY 
pressure, and close off their neighbourhoods should see 
funding reductions. Fixing the housing crisis is a societal 
responsibility, and our limited tax dollars should be directed 
to those municipalities making the difficult but necessary 
choices to grow housing supply. 
In late January 2022, the provincial government 
announced $45 million for a new Streamline Development 
Approval Fund to “unlock housing supply by cutting red 
tape and improving processes for residential and industrial 
developments”.[28] This is encouraging. More is needed.
Ontario should also receive its fair share of federal 
funding but today faces a shortfall of almost $500 million,[29]
despite two thirds of the Canadian housing shortage being 
in Ontario. We call on the federal government to address 
this funding gap.
48. The Ontario government should establish a 
large “Ontario Housing Delivery Fund” and 
encourage the federal government to match 
funding. This fund should reward:
a) Annual housing growth that meets or 
exceeds provincial targets
b) Reductions in total approval times for 
new housing
c) The speedy removal of exclusionary 
zoning practices
49. Reductions in funding to municipalities that fail 
to meet provincial housing growth and approval 
timeline targets.
We believe that the province should consider partial grants 
to subsidize municipalities that waive development charges 
for affordable housing and for purpose-built rental.
Sustain focus, measure, monitor, improve
Digitize and modernize the approvals and 
planning process
Some large municipalities have moved to electronic 
tracking of development applications and/or electronic 
building permits (“e-permits”) and report promising 
results, but there is no consistency and many smaller 
places don’t have the capacity to make the change.
Municipalities, the provincial government and agencies use 
different systems to collect data and information relevant to 
housing approvals, which slows down processes and leaves 
much of the “big picture” blank. This could be addressed by 
ensuring uniform data architecture standards. 
Improve the quality of our housing data to inform 
decision making
Having accurate data is key to understanding any challenge and 
making the best decisions in response. The Task Force heard 
from multiple housing experts that we are not always using 
the best data, and we do not always have the data we need. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 25
Having good population forecasts is essential in each 
municipality as they develop plans to meet future land 
and housing needs. Yet, we heard many concerns about 
inconsistent approaches to population forecasts. In the 
Greater Golden Horseshoe, the forecast provided to 
municipalities by the province is updated only when the 
Growth Plan is updated, generally every seven years; but 
federal immigration policy, which is a key driver of growth, 
changes much more frequently. The provincial Ministry 
of Finance produces a population forecast on a more 
regular basis than the Growth Plan, but these are not 
used consistently across municipalities or even by other 
provincial ministries. 
Population forecasts get translated into housing need in 
different ways across the province, and there is a lack of data 
about how (or whether) the need will be met. Others pointed 
to the inconsistent availability of land inventories. Another 
challenge is the lack of information on how much land is 
permitted and how much housing is actually getting built 
once permitted, and how fast. The Task Force also heard 
that, although the Provincial Policy Statement requires 
municipalities to maintain a three-year supply of short-term 
(build-ready) land and report it each year to the province, 
many municipalities are not meeting that requirement. 
At a provincial and municipal level, we need better data on 
the housing we have today, housing needed to close the 
gap, consistent projections of what we need in the future, 
and data on how we are doing at keeping up. Improved 
data will help anticipate local and provincial supply 
bottlenecks and constraints, making it easier to determine 
the appropriate level and degree of response. 
It will also be important to have better data to assess how 
much new housing stock is becoming available to groups 
that have been disproportionately excluded from home 
ownership and rental housing.
Put eyes on the crisis and change the conversation 
around housing
Ours is not the first attempt to “fix the housing system”. 
There have been efforts for years to tackle increasing 
housing prices and find solutions so everyone in Ontario 
can find and afford the housing they need. This time must 
be different. 
The recommendations in this report must receive sustained 
attention, results must be monitored, significant financial 
investment by all levels of government must be made. And, 
the people of Ontario must embrace a housing landscape 
in which the housing needs of tomorrow’s citizens and 
those who have been left behind are given equal weight 
to the housing advantages of those who are already well 
established in homes that they own.
50. Fund the adoption of consistent municipal 
e-permitting systems and encourage the 
federal government to match funding. Fund 
the development of common data architecture 
standards across municipalities and provincial 
agencies and require municipalities to provide 
their zoning bylaws with open data standards. 
Set an implementation goal of 2025 and make 
funding conditional on established targets.
51. Require municipalities and the provincial 
government to use the Ministry of Finance 
population projections as the basis for housing 
need analysis and related land use requirements. 
52. Resume reporting on housing data and 
require consistent municipal reporting, 
enforcing compliance as a requirement for 
accessing programs under the Ontario 
Housing Delivery Fund.
53. Report each year at the municipal and provincial 
level on any gap between demand and supply by 
housing type and location, and make underlying 
data freely available to the public.
54. Empower the Deputy Minister of Municipal 
Affairs and Housing to lead an all-of-government 
committee, including key provincial ministries 
and agencies, that meets weekly to ensure our 
remaining recommendations and any other 
productive ideas are implemented. 
55. Commit to evaluate these recommendations 
for the next three years with public reporting 
on progress. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 26
Conclusion
We have set a bold goal for Ontario: building 1.5 million homes in the next 10 years.
We believe this can be done. What struck us was that 
everyone we talked to – builders, housing advocates, 
elected officials, planners – understands the need to act now. 
As one long-time industry participant said, “for the first time 
in memory, everyone is aligned, and we need to take 
advantage of that.” 
Such unity of purpose is rare, but powerful. 
To leverage that power, we offer solutions that are bold but 
workable, backed by evidence, and that position Ontario 
for the future.
Our recommendations focus on ramping up the supply 
of housing. Measures are already in place to try to cool 
demand, but they will not fill Ontario’s housing need. 
More supply is key. Building more homes will reduce the 
competition for our scarce supply of homes and will give 
Ontarians more housing choices. It will improve housing 
affordability across the board.
Everyone wants more Ontarians to have housing. 
So let’s get to work to build more housing in Ontario. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 27
APPENDIX A:
Biographies of Task Force Members
Lalit Aggarwal is President of Manor Park Holdings, a 
real estate development and operating company active 
in Eastern Ontario. Previously, Lalit was an investor for 
institutional fund management firms, such as H.I.G. European 
Capital Partners, Soros Fund Management, and Goldman 
Sachs. He is a past fellow of the C.D. Howe Institute and a 
former Director of both Bridgepoint Health and the Centre for 
the Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine. Lalit holds 
degrees from the University of Oxford and the University of 
Pennsylvania. He is also a current Director of the Hospital for 
Sick Children Foundation, the Sterling Hall School and the 
Chair of the Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario. 
David Amborski is a professional Urban Planner, Professor 
at Ryerson University’s School of Urban and Regional 
Planning and the founding Director of the Centre for Urban 
Research and Land Development (CUR). His research and 
consulting work explore topics where urban planning 
interfaces with economics, including land and housing 
markets. He is an academic advisor to the National 
Executive Forum on Public Property, and he is a member 
of Lambda Alpha (Honorary Land Economics Society). 
He has undertaken consulting for the Federal, Provincial 
and a range of municipal governments. Internationally, 
he has undertaken work for the Canadian International 
Development Agency (CIDA), the World Bank, the 
Inter-American Development Bank, the Lincoln Institute 
of Land Policy, and several other organizations in Eastern 
Europe, Latin America, South Africa, and Asia. He also 
serves on the editorial boards of several international 
academic journals.
Andrew Garrett is a real estate executive responsible for 
growing IMCO’s $11+ Billion Global Real Estate portfolio to 
secure public pensions and insurance for Ontario families. 
IMCO is the only Ontario fund manager purpose built to 
onboard public clients such as pensions, insurance, 
municipal reserve funds, and endowments. Andrew has 
significant non-profit sector experience founding a B Corp 
certified social enterprise called WeBuild to help incubate 
social purpose real estate projects. He currently volunteers 
on non-profit boards supporting social purpose real estate 
projects, youth programs and the visual arts at Art Gallery 
of Ontario. Andrew sits on board advisory committees for 
private equity firms and holds a Global Executive MBA 
from Kellogg School Management and a Real Estate 
Development Certification from MIT Centre for Real Estate. 
Tim Hudak is the CEO of the Ontario Real Estate Association 
(OREA). With a passion and voice for championing the 
dream of home ownership, Tim came to OREA following a 
distinguished 21-year career in politics, including five years 
as Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. 
In his role, Tim has focused on transforming OREA into 
Ontario’s most cutting-edge professional association at 
the forefront of advocacy on behalf of REALTORS® and 
consumers, and providing world-class conferences, standard 
forms, leadership training and professional guidance to its 
Members. As part of his work at OREA, Tim was named one 
of the most powerful people in North American residential 
real estate by Swanepoel Power 200 for the last five years. 
Tim is married to Deb Hutton, and together they have two 
daughters, Miller and Maitland. In his spare time, Tim enjoys 
trails less taken on his mountain bike or hiking shoes as well 
as grilling outdoors.
Jake Lawrence was appointed Chief Executive Officer and 
Group Head, Global Banking and Markets in January 2021. 
In this role, Jake is responsible for the Bank’s Global 
Banking and Markets business line and strategy across its 
global footprint. Jake joined Scotiabank in 2002 and has 
held progressively senior roles in Finance, Group Treasury 
and Global Banking and Markets. From December 2018 to 
January 2021, Jake was Co-Group Head of Global Banking 
and Markets with specific responsibility for its Capital 
Markets businesses, focused on building alignment across 
product groups and priority markets to best serve our 
clients throughout our global footprint. Previously, Jake was 
Executive Vice President and Head of Global Banking and 
Markets in the U.S., providing overall strategic direction and 
execution of Scotiabank’s U.S. businesses. Prior to moving 
into GBM, Jake served as Senior Vice President and Deputy 
Treasurer, responsible for Scotiabank’s wholesale funding 
activities and liquidity management as well as Senior Vice 
President, Investor Relations. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 28
Julie Di Lorenzo (GPLLM, University of Toronto 2020), is 
self-employed since 1982, operates one of the largest 
female-run Real Estate Development Companies in 
North America. She was instrumental in the Daniel Burnham 
award-winning Ontario Growth Management Plan (2004) 
as President of BILD. Julie served as the first female-owner 
President of GTHBA (BILD) and on the boards of the Ontario 
Science Centre, Harbourfront Toronto, Tarion (ONHWP), 
St. Michael’s Hospital, NEXT36, Waterfront Toronto, Chair 
of IREC Committee WT, Havergal College (Co-Chair of 
Facilities), York School (interim Vice-Chair), and Canadian 
Civil Liberties Association Board. Julie has served various 
governments in advisory capacity on Women’s issues, 
Economic Development, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 
Awards include Lifetime Achievement BILD 2017, ICCO 
Business Excellence 2005 & ICCO Businesswoman of the 
Year 2021.
Justin Marchand (CIHCM, CPA, CMA, BComm) is Métis and 
was appointed Chief Executive Officer of Ontario Aboriginal 
Housing Services (OAHS) in 2018. Justin has over 20 years of 
progressive experience in a broad range of sectors, including 
two publicly listed corporations, a large accounting and 
consulting firm, and a major crown corporation, and holds 
numerous designations across financial, operations, and 
housing disciplines. He was most recently selected as Chair 
of the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association’s (CHRA’s) 
Indigenous Caucus Working Group and is also board 
member for CHRA. Justin is also an active board member for 
both the Coalition of Hamilton Indigenous Leadership (CHIL) 
as well as Shingwauk Kinoomaage Gamig, located in 
Bawaating. Justin believes that Housing is a fundamental 
human right and that when Indigenous people have access 
to safe, affordable, and culture-based Housing this provides 
the opportunity to improve other areas of their lives.
Ene Underwood is CEO of Habitat for Humanity Greater 
Toronto Area), a non-profit housing developer that helps 
working, lower income families build strength, stability and 
self-reliance through affordable homeownership. Homes 
are delivered through a combination of volunteer builds, 
contractor builds, and partnerships with non-profit and 
for-profit developers. Ene’s career began in the private 
sector as a strategy consultant with McKinsey & Company 
before transitioning to not-for-profit sector leadership. Ene 
holds a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) from the University of 
Waterloo and a Master of Business Administration from 
Ivey Business School.
Dave Wilkes is the President and CEO of the Building 
Industry and Land Development Association of the GTA 
(BILD). The Association has 1,300 members and proudly 
represents builders, developers, professional renovators 
and those who support the industry.
Dave is committed to supporting volunteer boards and 
organizations. He has previously served on the George 
Brown College Board of Directors, Ontario Curling 
Association, and is currently engaged with Black North 
Initiative (Housing Committee) and R-Labs I+T Council.
Dave received his Bachelor of Arts (Applied Geography) 
from Ryerson. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 29
APPENDIX B:
Affordable Housing
Ontario’s affordable housing shortfall was raised in almost every conversation. With rapidly 
rising prices, more lower-priced market rental units are being converted into housing far out 
of reach of lower-income households. In parallel, higher costs to deliver housing and limited 
government funding have resulted in a net decrease in the number of affordable housing units 
run by non-profits. The result is untenable: more people need affordable housing after being 
displaced from the market at the very time that affordable supply is shrinking. 
Throughout our consultations, we were reminded of the 
housing inequities experienced by Black, Indigenous 
and marginalized people. We also received submissions 
describing the unique challenges faced by off-reserve 
Indigenous Peoples both in the province’s urban centres 
and in the north.
While many of the changes that will help deliver market 
housing will also help make it easier to deliver affordable 
housing, affordable housing is a societal responsibility. 
We cannot rely exclusively on for-profit developers nor 
on increases in the supply of market housing to fully solve 
the problem.
The non-profit housing sector faces all the same barriers, 
fees, risks and complexities outlined in this report as for-profit 
builders. Several participants from the non-profit sector 
referred to current or future partnerships with for-profit 
developers that tap into the development and construction 
expertise and efficiencies of the private sector. Successful 
examples of leveraging such partnerships were cited with 
Indigenous housing, supportive housing, and affordable 
homeownership. 
We were also reminded by program participants that, 
while partnerships with for-profit developers can be very 
impactful, non-profit providers have unique competencies 
in the actual delivery of affordable housing. This includes 
confirming eligibility of affordable housing applicants, 
supporting independence of occupants of affordable 
housing, and ensuring affordable housing units remain 
affordable from one occupant to the next.
One avenue for delivering more affordable housing 
that has received much recent attention is inclusionary 
zoning. In simple terms, inclusionary zoning (IZ) requires 
developers to deliver a share of affordable units in new 
housing developments in prescribed areas. The previous 
Ontario government passed legislation in April 2018 
providing a framework within which municipalities could 
enact Inclusionary Zoning bylaws.
Ontario’s first inclusionary zoning policy was introduced in 
fall 2021 by the City of Toronto and applies to major transit 
station areas. Internationally, inclusionary zoning has been 
used successfully to incentivize developers to create new 
affordable housing by providing density bonuses (more units 
than they would normally be allowed, if some are affordable) 
or reductions in government fees. Unfortunately, the City’s 
approach did not include any incentives or bonuses. 
Instead, Toronto requires market-rate fees and charges for 
below-market affordable units. This absence of incentives 
together with lack of clarity on the overall density that will be 
approved for projects has led developers and some housing 
advocates to claim that these projects may be uneconomic 
and thus will not get financed or built. Municipalities shared 
with us their concerns regarding the restriction in the 
provincial IZ legislation that prohibits “cash in lieu” payments. 
Municipalities advised that having the option of accepting the 
equivalent value of IZ units in cash from the developer would 
enable even greater impact in some circumstances (for 
example, a luxury building in an expensive neighbourhood, 
where the cost of living is too high for a low-income resident).
Funding for affordable housing is the responsibility of 
all levels of government. The federal government has 
committed to large funding transfers to the provinces 
to support affordable housing. The Task Force heard, 
however, that Ontario’s share of this funding does not 
reflect our proportionate affordable housing needs. This, 
in turn, creates further financial pressure on both the 
province and municipalities, which further exacerbates the 
affordable housing shortages in Ontario’s communities. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 30
Finally, many participants in Task Force consultations 
pointed to surplus government lands as an avenue for 
building more affordable housing and this is discussed 
in Appendix C.
We have made recommendations throughout the report 
intended to have a positive impact on new affordable 
housing supply. We offer these additional recommendations 
specific to affordable housing:
• Call upon the federal government to provide equitable 
affordable housing funding to Ontario. 
• Develop and legislate a clear, province-wide definition of 
“affordable housing” to create certainty and predictability. 
• Create an Affordable Housing Trust from a portion of Land 
Transfer Tax Revenue (i.e., the windfall resulting from 
property price appreciation) to be used in partnership 
with developers, non-profits, and municipalities in the 
creation of more affordable housing units. This Trust 
should create incentives for projects serving and brought 
forward by Black- and Indigenous-led developers and 
marginalized groups.
• Amend legislation to:
• Allow cash-in-lieu payments for Inclusive Zoning units 
at the discretion of the municipality.
• Require that municipalities utilize density bonusing or 
other incentives in all Inclusionary Zoning and Affordable 
Housing policies that apply to market housing. 
• Permit municipalities that have not passed Inclusionary 
Zoning policies to offer incentives and bonuses for 
affordable housing units. 
• Encourage government to closely monitor the 
effectiveness of Inclusionary Zoning policy in creating 
new affordable housing and to explore alternative 
funding methods that are predictable, consistent and 
transparent as a more viable alternative option to 
Inclusionary Zoning policies in the provision of 
affordable housing.
• Rebate MPAC market rate property tax assessment 
on below-market affordable homes. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 31
APPENDIX C:
Government Surplus Land
Surplus government lands fell outside the mandate of the Task Force. However, this question 
came up repeatedly as a solution to housing supply. While we take no view on the disposition of 
specific parcels of land, several stakeholders raised issues that we believe merit consideration:
• Review surplus lands and accelerate the sale and 
development through RFP of surplus government land 
and surrounding land by provincially pre-zoning for 
density, affordable housing, and mixed or residential use. 
• All future government land sales, whether commercial or 
residential, should have an affordable housing component 
of at least 20%. 
• Purposefully upzone underdeveloped or underutilized 
Crown property (e.g., LCBO).
• Sell Crown land and reoccupy as a tenant in a higher 
density building or relocate services outside of 
major population centres where land is considerably 
less expensive. 
• The policy priority of adding to the housing supply, 
including affordable units, should be reflected in the 
way surplus land is offered for sale, allowing bidders 
to structure their proposals accordingly.  

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 32
APPENDIX D:
Surety Bonds
Moving to surety bonds would free up billions of dollars for building
When a development proposal goes ahead, the developer typically needs to make site 
improvements, such as installing common services. The development agreement details 
how the developer must perform to the municipality’s satisfaction. 
Up until the 1980s, it was common practice for Ontario 
municipalities to accept bonds as financial security for 
subdivision agreements and site plans. Today, however, 
they almost exclusively require letters of credit from a 
chartered bank. The problem with letters of credit is that 
developers are often required to collateralize the letter of 
credit dollar-for-dollar against the value of the municipal 
works they are performing. 
Often this means developers can only afford to finance 
one or two housing projects at a time, constraining housing 
supply. The Ontario Home Builders’ Association estimates 
that across Ontario, billions of dollars are tied up in 
collateral or borrowing capacity that could be used to 
advance more projects. 
Modern “pay on demand surety bonds” are proven to 
provide the same benefits and security as a letter of credit, 
while not tying up private capital the way letters of credit 
do. Moving to this option would give municipalities across 
Ontario access to all the features of a letter of credit with 
the added benefit of professional underwriting, carried 
out by licensed bonding companies, ensuring that the 
developer is qualified to fulfill its obligations under the 
municipal agreement. 
Most important from a municipal perspective, the financial 
obligation is secured. If a problem arises, the secure bond 
is fully payable by the bond company on demand. Surety 
companies, similar to banks, are regulated by Ontario’s Office 
of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to ensure they 
have sufficient funds in place to pay out bond claims. 
More widespread use of this instrument could unlock billions 
of dollars of private sector financial liquidity that could be 
used to build new infrastructure and housing projects, 
provide for more units in each development and accelerate 
the delivery of housing of all types. 

Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 33
References
1. Ontario Housing Market Report
https://wowa.ca/ontario-housing-market
2. Global Property Guide
 https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/North-America/Canada/
Price-History-Archive/canadian-housing-market-strong-127030
3. National Household Survey Factsheet
https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/census/
nhshi11-6.html#:~:text=Median%20After%2Dtax%20Income%20
of,and%20British%20Columbia%20at%20%2467%2C900
4. CMHC
https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/hmip-pimh/en/TableMapChart/
5. The Globe And Mail
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/
article-black-canadians-have-some-of-the-lowest-home￾ownership-rates-in-canada/
6. Scotiabank
https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/
economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing.
housing-note.housing-note--may-12-2021-.html
7. Scotiabank 
https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/
economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing.
housing-note.housing-note--january-12-2022-.html
8. Expert Market
https://www.expertmarket.co.uk/vehicle-tracking/
best-and-worst-cities-for-commuting
9. Statista
https://www.statista.com/statistics/198063/total-number-of￾housing-starts-in-ontario-since-1995/
10. Poltext 
https://www.poltext.org/sites/poltext.org/files/discoursV2/DB/
Ontario/ON_DB_1975_29_5.pdf
11. Toronto City Planning
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/ph/bgrd/
backgroundfile-173165.pdf
12. Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO)
https://www.frpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/
Urbanation-FRPO-Ontario-Rental-Market-Report-Summer-2020.pdf
13. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
https://www.ontario.ca/document/growth-plan-greater-golden￾horseshoe/where-and-how-grow
14. More Neighbours Toronto 
https://www.moreneighbours.ca/
15. The World Bank 
https://www.doingbusiness.org/en/data/exploretopics/
dealing-with-construction-permits
16. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
https://bildgta.ca/Assets/BILD%20Municipal%20
Benchmarking%20Study%20-%20FINAL%20-%20Sept%20
2020%20BILD.pdf
17. Construction and Design Alliance of Ontario (CDAO)
http://www.cdao.ca/files/OAA/P5727%20-%20OAA%20Site%20
Plan%20Delay%20Study%20Update%20(2018).pdf
18. Tribunals Ontario 2019-20 Annual Report
https://olt.gov.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Tribunals_
Ontario_2019-2020_Annual_Report_EN_v2.html
19. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
https://bildgta.ca/Assets/Bild/FINAL%20-%20BILD%20-%20
Comparison%20of%20Government%20Charges%20in%20
Canada%20and%20US%20-%20Sept%2013%202019.pdf
20. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
https://bildgta.ca/Assets/FINAL%20GTA%20-%20
Development%20Charges%20-%2009%202020.pdf
21. Toronto Star
https://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2018/09/01/
where-did-the-money-go-parkland-dedication-fees-should-be￾used-to-build-parks-in-gta.html
22. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
https://bildgta.ca/Assets/misc/BILD%20-%20New%20
Homeowner%20Money%20Report%20-%20Oct%205%20
2021%20(002)_Redacted.pdf
23. Urbanation Inc.
https://www.urbanation.ca/news/336-gta-rental-construction￾surged-2021-vacancy-fell
24. Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO)
https://www.frpo.org/lobby-view/cities-still-ripping-off-renters
25. Edison Financial 
https://edisonfinancial.ca/millennial-home-ownership-canada/
26. Government of Canada National Housing Strategy 
https://www.placetocallhome.ca/what-is-the-strategy
27. CMHC
https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/media-newsroom/
news-releases/2021/housing-accelerator-fund-rent-to-own-program
28. Toronto Star
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/01/19/
ford-government-announces-45-million-to-cut-red-tape-and￾speed-up-applications-for-new-home-construction.html
29. Canadian Real Estate Wealth
https://www.canadianrealestatemagazine.ca/news/
federal-funds-must-flow-for-housing-programs-334810.aspx 