Summary#

Bill 112, the Hazel McCallion Act (Peel Dissolution), 2023, is an enacted law that set out to dissolve The Regional Municipality of Peel and continue Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon as single-tier municipalities. It also repeals the Regional Municipality of Peel Act, 2005 on January 1, 2025. The Act’s stated goals include supporting local planning and housing, fair treatment between municipalities, effective services and value for taxpayers; these are goals, not guaranteed results.

• The Act established a transition board of up to five Minister-appointed members. The board must recommend how to restructure municipal finances, assets, debts, employment matters and services, among other matters.
• The board must monitor specified municipal and local-board decisions as it considers appropriate. Municipalities and their local boards must cooperate, provide records and information, and meet the board’s deadlines.
• For transactions considered between May 18, 2023 and January 1, 2025, the municipalities and their local boards had to consider the public interest in light of restructuring, including avoiding unreasonable impacts on another municipality.
• The board may direct a municipality or local board to change, undo or stop a transaction it considers contrary to that duty. If the direction is not followed, the Minister may order a transaction changed, ended or stopped.
• The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations to transfer Peel’s assets, debts and other obligations, and to set rules for shared services. These regulations may be made before the board gives its recommendations.

What it means for you#

• Residents of Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon: The Act provides for each city or town to operate as a single-tier municipality from January 1, 2025, rather than as part of the Peel regional structure. It does not itself specify how particular services, assets or debts are divided.
• Municipalities and local boards: They had to cooperate with the transition board, provide requested information—including confidential or privileged records—and consider restructuring when making covered transactions. Personal information obtained under the Act may be used or disclosed only for the Act’s purposes.
• Municipal employees and service users: The board had to make recommendations on employment matters, pensions, benefits and services. The Act does not itself set out the final employment arrangements or service-sharing plan.
• Taxpayers: The Act does not set a tax rate or promise lower costs. It allows the Minister to apportion the transition board’s fees and expenses among Peel, Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon.
• The Act says no person is entitled to compensation because of the Act or actions taken under it, except where the Act provides otherwise. It also says those actions do not count as expropriation or injurious affection.

Money#

The available material gives no cost estimate.

• The Minister determines the transition board’s fees and expenses and may apportion them among the four municipalities.
• Regulations may allow the board to hire staff, obtain facilities and hire experts, subject to any conditions set by regulation. No staffing or cost figure is given.
• The Act does not specify how assets, debts, pension obligations or service costs will ultimately be allocated.

What is unclear#

• The supplied material does not include the regulations or final decisions setting out how assets, debts, employment matters and services are allocated.
• The Act does not define “public interest” or “unreasonably impact” for the transaction rule.
• The Act does not set a detailed process for affected residents, employees or other parties to provide input on the restructuring.
• The transition board was to dissolve on January 31, 2025, unless the Minister prescribed a later date; no information about an extension is supplied.
• The Regional Municipality of Peel Act, 2005 is named for repeal, but its text was not supplied, so the prior legal arrangements cannot be checked against this Act.

Case for#

• The Act appears intended to replace regional government with three single-tier municipalities and give them responsibility for local governance.
• A transition board could bring recommendations together on assets, debts, employment and shared services before or during the restructuring.
• The public-interest rule and power to stop or change certain transactions could help prevent decisions during the transition from unreasonably harming another municipality.
• Regulation-making powers could allow the government to set transfer rules for complex assets, obligations and shared services.

Case against#

• The Act leaves many important outcomes—such as who receives assets, assumes debts and runs shared services—to later regulations or decisions.
• The Minister and Lieutenant Governor in Council have broad powers over the transition, including the ability to make restructuring regulations before the board recommends a plan.
• The Act does not set out a detailed process for affected residents or employees to challenge or comment on specific restructuring decisions.
• The absence of compensation for impacts under the Act could leave affected parties bearing losses, while the final distribution of costs and obligations is not specified in the supplied material.