Review of Ontario Building Code would be a major undertaking

By Dave Henderson

March 9, 2026

It seems like we frequently write about building code or other regulatory changes. The regulatory landscape is constantly evolving, and it is difficult for builders to stay on top of all the changes.

Some changes are positive and remove actual or perceived barriers. Other changes simply make delivering housing increasingly difficult and costly.

Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Rob Flack is one of the first politicians with this portfolio to understand the challenges our industry faces. He is attempting to make structural changes to housing policy and regulations the best way he knows how. It isn’t easy when there have been decades and multiple layers of anti-development rhetoric and government direction to chip away.

The minister recently announced he would like to initiate a line-by-line review of the Ontario Building Code. This is in addition to several other major policy shifts like those found in bills 17 and 60.

During his address to members at RESCON’s annual general meeting in January, he relayed the story of his first days as minister of municipal affairs and housing and seeing two gigantic binders in his office. He asked what they were. When he was told they contained the province’s building code, he immediately questioned why it was so big.

Most of us who are very familiar with the document(s) ask ourselves the same question every time we need to find that one item, that one illusive article hidden somewhere in the volumes of paper. Why is it so big? And more importantly, how did it get to be that way?

Those of us with a little grey in our hair can remember a time when it was only one book.

The answer to the question may simply be, it is that big because we let it get that way. In code, regulatory and policy development, it is very easy to continue to add onto the existing files. We build additional language and rules on top of a thin scaffolding of policy and objectives.

Every code change cycle, we add more. More rules. More regulation. More cost. We add, but rarely do we ever take away. We don’t stop to ask if what is currently there is still needed. We don’t review or question if minimum standards have gone too far. And we certainly don’t perform a cost-versus-benefit-analysis on adopted policy. Maybe we should.

It is still early days. Minister Flack appears to be sincere in his desire to undertake a line-by-line review of the Ontario Building Code. If the project goes ahead, this will be a major undertaking.

There have been no announcements as to the scope of the project, the expected duration of the project, or what guardrails will be in place.

Reviewing the code to ensure that all the regulatory language aligns with the objectives will not result in much change. What is needed is a bold, hard examination of “wants” versus “needs” of the code.

Core principles like fire and life safety, structural sufficiency, and durability are fundamental. Energy efficiency arguably has merit as a core principle. But what of the others? The social policy objectives that have wriggled their way into the code over numerous code change cycles and ever-shifting government mandates will require significant debate and discussion.

What exactly are the needs, what are nice-to-haves, and what can the market determine? Also, what have all of these things added to the cost of construction, and do their objectives outweigh the basic human need for safe, affordable shelter? These will be the challenges facing any group tasked with Minister Flack’s project agenda.

Personally, I believe this project is long overdue. But I expect it will be like watching an episode of the infamous television show Hoarders. You are eager to see the dramatic before and after montage, but you fear the process will be consumed by lots of arguing, shuffling things around, awkward intervention from therapists and, in the end., a house full of neatly stacked boxes with little change in volume.