EPR Overhaul: Ontario Proposes Amendments To Extended Producer Responsibility Regimes

On April 2, 2026, Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (the “Ministry”) published proposed amendments to several extended producer responsibility (“EPR”) regulations, specifically the Tires Regulation, the Hazardous and Special Products Regulation, and the associated Administrative Penalties Regulation. If enacted, these amendments could significantly change the operation of, and penalties issued under, all EPR programs in Ontario. The consultation period for the proposed amendments is open until May 2, 2026.

This bulletin outlines each of the proposed amendments and their potential impacts on designated producers and Producer Responsibility Organizations (“PROs”) under their respective EPR regimes. You can read more about EPR in Ontario, and more broadly, in our prior bulletins on the following topics:

• Amendments to the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016;
• Amendments to the Blue Box Regulation;
• RPRA Collection System, Management Requirements and Performance Credits Guidance; and
• Why Extended Producer Responsibility and the Circular Economy Demand Boardroom Action.

What is Extended Producer Responsibility?

Extended producer responsibility, or “EPR”, promotes a circular economy by making producers responsible for products at their end of life. EPR regimes in Ontario are implemented under the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act (the “Act”), which also creates and governs the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority (“RPRA”), the body that regulates Ontario’s EPR programs. Regulations under the Act set out program requirements for the management, collection and recycling of designated materials, namely blue box materials, electrical and electronic equipment (“EEE”), hazardous and special products (“HSP”), batteries and tires.

Proposed Amendments: Tires Regulation

The Ministry is proposing to amend the Tires Regulation by implementing the following:

1. An expanded “call-in” collection requirement and a guaranteed pick-up response time.
2. A required management timeline of three (3) months for collected tires.

1. Expanded “Call-in” Collection Requirement and Guaranteed Pick-up Response Time

Section 5 of the Tires Regulation requires producers to establish a collection network with a prescribed number of collection sites. In practice, these networks are usually established and operated by PROs on behalf of tire producers. Currently, the Tires Regulation only requires call-in collection for certain prescribed areas that have accumulated more than 200 tires. The proposed amendments would require PROs to collect tires from any collection site that has accumulated at least 50 tires and requests pick-up, regardless of whether the site is within the PRO’s established collection network. Following a pick-up request, PROs would be required to collect the tires within one month during peak tire changing months (October to December and April to May) and within two months during the rest of the year.

The Ministry also proposes that RPRA allocate responsibility between PROs for collecting tires from sites outside of established collection networks based on each PRO’s market share. While this change is intended to address backlogs at tire collection sites and ensure regular collection service, it creates additional collection obligations that would increase compliance burdens on PROs with limited time to prepare.

This change would come into effect upon the filing of the amendments.

2. Required Management Target of Three Months for Collected Tires

Under section 12 of the Tires Regulation, collected tires must be processed by March 31 of the following year after a compliance year concludes in order to count towards producers’ annual management targets. Processing means transforming a tire into constituent materials, including by shredding, chipping, grinding, cutting, cryogenic crushing, or any activity used to chemically alter a tire (e.g., depolymerization). The Tires Regulation does not currently impose a timeline for processing tires that producers are not using to meet their management targets. The proposed amendment would add a requirement for all collected tires to be managed within three months of collection, whether or not the tires are going towards management targets. This would apply to tires collected from both in-network collection sites and call-in requests.

This change is intended to ensure that collected tires are not stored for extended periods or sent directly to landfill, generating energy from tire waste, or incinerated if they are not needed to meet management targets. This amendment is consistent with existing requirements in the Batteries Regulation, EEE Regulation, HSP Regulation, and Blue Box Regulation. Like the above amendment, this change would increase burdens on PROs by imposing stricter management requirements and processing timelines with limited time to prepare for compliance.

This change would be effective upon filing.

Proposed Amendments: HSP

The proposed amendments to the HSP Regulation are as follows:

1. Revised recycling efficiency rate requirements.
2. Clarified HSP collection site requirements.

1. Revised Recycling Efficiency Rate Requirements

The HSP Regulation requires producers to have certain HSP materials (namely antifreeze; barometers, thermometers, and thermostats; oil containers; paints and coatings; and solvents) processed by an approved processor that meets prescribed minimum recycling efficiency rates (“RER”) set out in section 30 of the HSP Regulation for the two preceding calendar years starting in 2027. The proposed amendment would postpone the RER requirement for antifreeze and oil containers from 2027 to 2028, affording producers and PROs more time to consider recycling options for these materials. The RER requirements for solvent, paints and coatings would still come into effect in 2027. The Ministry is also seeking feedback on whether the RER for mercury-containing products should be removed or revised.

This change would come into effect in 2027.

2. Clarified HSP Collection Site Requirements

The HSP Regulation sets out requirements for the number and location of collection sites that HSP producers (or their PROs) must operate in a base municipality (i.e., the local municipality in which a producer is required to establish and operate HSP collection sites under sections 13 to 18 of the HSP Regulation). Producers may reduce (or “offset”) the number of collection sites they are required to operate in a base municipality by the total number of collection sites they operate in either an adjacent municipality to the base municipality or an upper-tier municipality (being a municipality composed of two or more lower-tier municipalities, for example, the upper-tier Regional Municipality of Halton is composed of a number of lower-tier municipalities, including the City of Burlington and the Town of Oakville).

Despite these offsetting allowances, producers who offset using an upper-tier municipality must maintain at least one collection site in every base municipality and the same total number of sites in the upper-tier municipality. By contrast, producers who offset using adjacent municipalities are not required to maintain a minimum number of collection sites in the base municipality.

The current language in the HSP Regulation requires clarification regarding these offsetting allowances. This change is unlikely to have a practical effect on the HSP program, as it aligns with RPRA’s existing interpretation and does not change the underlying obligation.

This change would be effective upon filing.

Proposed Amendments: Administrative Penalties

The Ministry is proposing to amend the Administrative Penalties Regulation by removing the $1 million cap for administrative penalties (“APs”) and requiring PROs to disclose financial information to RPRA.

Currently, the Administrative Penalties Regulation caps APs at $1 million. The proposed change would remove this cap and would allow RPRA to issue APs exceeding $1 million for contraventions of the Tires, HSP, Batteries, EEE, and Blue Box Regulations.

Additionally, the Ministry is proposing a requirement for PROs to provide RPRA with annual, confidential reports on financial information that RPRA could use in their economic benefit assessment when determining AP amounts.

These proposed changes are intended to deter non-compliance and remove any incentive to treat APs as a cheaper alternative to compliance, as uncapped APs represent increased potential financial liability for producers. However, even for large corporations, a $1 million penalty is already significant and does not relieve the producer of its obligation to correct their non-compliance, which incurs costs in addition to the AP. Further, the potential reputational harm from the publication of an AP for non-compliance is a deterrent that most companies take seriously regardless of the quantum of the penalty.

With respect to the financial disclosure requirement, while this may inform RPRA’s calculation of economic benefits in issuing APs, it also raises confidentiality and anti-competitive concerns regarding PRO and processor pricing, given that Ontario’s EPR regime allows multiple PROs to compete to service producers.

This change would take effect upon filing and would apply to contraventions of all Ontario EPR programs occurring on or after the filing date.

Proposed Amendments: Changes Intended to Increase Ontario-based Recycling

Currently, there are no requirements or restrictions on where tire processing must occur. The Ministry intends to increase Ontario-based processing and support local processing capacity, and is seeking feedback on the following options:

1. Creating a requirement that a certain percentage of a producer’s management target must be fulfilled by processing tires at an Ontario-based facility;
2. Providing an incentive to count tires processed in Ontario at a higher value than those processed outside of Ontario (e.g., a tire processed in Ontario would be worth 2 times its actual weight); or
3. Applying a reduced credit for tire weights processed outside of Ontario (e.g., 1kg of tire weight processed outside of Ontario would count as 0.5kg).

The Ministry is also seeking feedback on whether such requirements should be limited to the tires program or applied across all Ontario EPR programs. Depending on the costs associated with processing in Ontario, these changes could increase compliance costs for producers and PROs alike. Where facilities do not currently exist to support Ontario-based processing to meet such requirements, additional time and investment by PROs, producers, processors, and potentially the government will be required to establish and operate such facilities.

Proposed Amendments: Producer Responsibility Organization Actions Across Programs

These proposed changes would impact the tires, HSP, batteries, and EEE programs by creating new rules for shared PRO activities. These changes are not currently being proposed for the Blue Box program.

Currently, the Tires, HSP, Batteries, and EEE Regulations allow producers and PROs to share collection sites and to purchase excess performance credits from other producers to meet minimum management requirements. The Ministry is seeking feedback on whether the legislative scheme should include new rules for sharing collection sites and credits, and has proposed two approaches:

• Approach 1: Incorporate rules based on RPRA’s Collection System and Minimum Management Requirements Guideline for PROs that share collection sites and/or trade performance credits. For example, require PROs to have arrangements for servicing shared sites and allocating materials collected there or require PROs to have agreements for trading performance credits in place before the end of the compliance year and enforce a pre-determined trading deadline.
• Approach 2: Require PROs to use a clearinghouse (an independent third-party) that is responsible for allocating shared collection responsibilities and setting excess performance credit trading rules and prices.

Approach 1 could be implemented by amending the Regulations, whereas Approach 2 would require more substantive legislative changes and additional time to implement. Both approaches, in particular Approach 2, represent a departure from how the programs currently operate and would likely have far-reaching impacts on how PROs and producers manage their obligations and buy, sell, and verify performance credits. The Ministry is seeking feedback on which programs the selected approach should apply to and is considering application to all non-Blue Box EPR regimes.

Takeaways

The consultation period for the proposed amendments is open until May 2, 2026. As these changes are likely to impact all producers and PROs subject to Ontario’s EPR programs, this is an important opportunity for impacted stakeholders to provide feedback on the Ministry’s proposal.

McMillan’s environmental group will continue to monitor the development of these amendments and is available to assist clients in interpreting and making submissions on the proposed changes. If you have any questions about how these amendments, or EPR regimes more generally, may impact your business, please contact the authors of this bulletin.

The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.

© McMillan LLP 2025