A proposed bill in Ontario has sparked growing concern from shopper and consumer-rights groups, who warn it may dramatically amend longstanding protections for loyalty and rewards points. While the government maintains the legislation is meant to modernize and clarify consumer-protection rules, critics argue it could quietly pave the way for retailers and businesses to impose expiry dates on points — undermining a benefit that many Ontarians rely on for discounts, groceries, travel, and more.

As Ottawa-area consumers weigh the potential impact, the debate raises broader questions about fairness, transparency, and the value of “earned rewards” in a time of rising living costs.

What the Current Law Says — and What’s Changing

History of Rewards-Point Protections

Under current legislative rules in Ontario, reward points earned through loyalty programs typically cannot expire simply because time has passed — a protection designed to safeguard consumers who accumulate points over long periods.

The core of these protections stems from the Protecting Rewards Points Act (enacted via an amendment to the Consumer Protection Act, 2002). That law explicitly prohibits suppliers from writing into consumer agreements any clause that causes rewards points to expire merely due to the passage of time.

Exceptions to the no-expiry rule are limited, including cases of account inactivity (if a program’s terms allow it), or where points are only redeemable for very low-value items (under a threshold such as $50).

Thus, for many Ontarians, the points they earn through grocery purchases, retail shopping, or travel benefits carry a lasting value — often treated like a form of savings or credit.

The New Legislation Under Debate

That legal framework is now under pressure. The government has recently proposed substantial amendments as part of a broader legislative package, Bill 46 (the “Protect Ontario by Cutting Red Tape Act, 2025”). Schedule 5 of this bill would rewrite how rewards-points agreements are regulated under the Consumer Protection Act.

Under the proposed changes:

• All agreements offering rewards points — new or existing — would need to comply with new regulatory standards, possibly including clearer disclosure and revised terms.

• The bill would permit the government to define, through future regulations, the conditions under which points could expire, be cancelled, or suspended.

• Consumers could request reinstatement of points that they believe were wrongly expired, cancelled, or suspended. If a dispute arises, they would have a private right of action to recover lost points.

• The government may even apply new rules retroactively, meaning rewards programs signed prior to the bill’s passage could be affected.

In effect, while the earlier law banned expiry “based only on the passage of time,” Bill 46 would shift the legal basis: expiry might become possible if regulations allow it. This has triggered alarm among consumer-rights advocates and everyday shoppers alike.

Why the Proposed Changes Are Triggering Alarm

Risk to Consumers’ Hard-Earned Value

For many Ontarians, loyalty points represent more than marketing perks: they are a form of earned value. In tough economic times — when groceries, rent, and other essential expenses stretch household budgets — loyalty points often help families offset costs or make occasional splurges more affordable.

Critics argue that by allowing retailers or programs to set expiry rules, the bill could strip away that value overnight. This is especially worrisome for people who accumulate points slowly over years — for example, through grocery shopping, credit-card rewards, or gas-station loyalty programs.

“As it is written, this bill would give corporations the power to wipe out the value you earned,” one opposition legislator warned recently during debates at the provincial legislature.

Lack of Consumer Clarity and Potential Unfairness

Another concern centers on transparency. Unless strict regulations mandate clear disclosure of new expiry or suspension rules, companies may include complex or obscure terms in fine print — potentially leaving consumers unaware until their points vanish.

Moreover, because the proposed law would allow future regulatory changes and possibly retroactive effects, consumers may find themselves subject to a shifting landscape of rights and obligations — undermining the stability of loyalty programs many expected to remain dependable.

Legal and Contractual Uncertainty

Legal experts also signal alarm. According to the Ontario Bar Association (OBA), retroactively changing the rights embedded in existing consumer agreements undermines fundamental legal principles.

In practice, this could mean that someone with points earned under a program in 2022, expecting them to persist indefinitely, might find those points wiped out in 2026 because of new regulations — a scenario that many consider unfair and misleading.

Government’s Defence: Modernization, Not Erosion

The provincial government, however, maintains that this legislation is not intended to erode consumer protections — but to modernize them.

According to official statements, Bill 46 is designed to simplify the existing framework, improve regulatory clarity for businesses, and ensure that loyalty-point agreements are up to date with modern retail practices.

The government also emphasizes that the bill does not necessarily mean that point expiry will be reintroduced across the board — rather, it enables the possibility of more regulated and transparent terms for loyalty programs going forward, while still preserving certain protections.

Moreover, businesses that offer loyalty points will be required to meet disclosure requirements under the new law, which supporters argue could lead to clearer communication about how and when points may expire or be cancelled.

Government officials point out that in the current framework, while time-based expiry is forbidden, points can already be lost under certain conditions — for example if an account becomes inactive or if the program closes. The proposed amendments would instead allow a standardized set of regulated conditions for expiry or suspension, which they argue could, in the long run, benefit both consumers and businesses.

What Could Change — And What Consumers Should Watch

Possibility of Expiry, Suspension or Cancellation

If Bill 46 passes and the government enacts regulations, loyalty programs may begin to impose expiry dates or inactivity-based point cancellations. This could affect many types of points: grocery loyalty rewards, credit-card miles, retail-store points, or travel-related programs — effectively transforming them from long-term savings to short-term perks.

Need for Clear Disclosure

Under the new regime, businesses will likely be required to disclose key information about their loyalty programs: how points are earned, when they may expire or be suspended, and any conditions tied to account activity or redemption thresholds. Consumers should demand clear, simple language in membership agreements going forward.

Right to Reinstatement and Legal Recourse

One of the more consumer-friendly aspects of the proposed law is that it allows consumers to request reinstatement of points lost improperly, and gives them a private right of action if a business fails to comply. This could pressure companies to be more transparent and fair in their policies.

Potential Retroactive Impact

Perhaps most controversially, the legislation may allow changes to apply retroactively — changing the rules for people who signed up years ago under a different expectation. Why this matters: someone who believed their points wouldn’t expire may suddenly find them at risk. This prospect has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts and consumer advocates alike.

Voices of Concern: Who Is Speaking Out

Opposition parties in the provincial legislature have been vocal. During recent debates, one member described the proposal as “a quiet rollback on consumer protections,” especially concerning for families using points for essentials like groceries and holiday gifts.

Meanwhile, several consumer-rights and advocacy groups are urging Ontarians to pay attention — and to speak out before the bill becomes law. They argue that even quietly allowing expiry could disproportionately harm lower- and middle-income families who depend on accumulating rewards over time.

Legal experts from the Ontario Bar Association caution that retroactive changes to contract rights undermine trust in the legal system and risk destabilizing relationships between businesses and consumers.

On the business side, many retailers and loyalty-program operators are watching closely. Because loyalty points are often built into long-term customer relationships, any changes could force companies to rethink how they structure programs, communicate with members, and manage their liabilities. The lack of clarity over prospective regulations — and how sweeping any new policy might be — adds to the uncertainty.

What Ontarian Consumers Should Do Now

Given the uncertainty, experts recommend that residents of Ontario take several precautionary steps:

• Check your loyalty accounts: Review your current loyalty programs (grocery stores, credit cards, travel points, retail clubs) and note down your point balances.

• Read terms and conditions carefully: As many businesses may update their loyalty-program rules soon, pay attention to changes in terms — especially any clauses about expiration, inactivity, or account suspension.

• Redeem what you value sooner rather than later: If possible, consider using points before new laws or regulations change the rules.

• Stay alert for updates: Keep an eye on news related to Bill 46 and any regulations issued under it. Changes could come quickly — and some may apply retroactively.

• Advocate for clear consumer protections: Support calls for regulations that preserve point value, guarantee disclosures, and prevent unfair expiry or cancellation.

Conclusion: A Moment of Reckoning for Loyalty Programs

The proposed amendments to Ontario’s consumer-protection rules mark a significant turning point in how loyalty programs might operate in the province. What was once a stable protection — the guarantee that earned reward points wouldn’t fade simply because time passed — may soon become subject to new, potentially complex regulatory conditions.

For consumers who have long relied on loyalty points as a form of value — whether for groceries, essentials, travel, or occasional luxuries — the stakes are high. The uncertainty, the risk of retroactive application, and the potential for points to be cancelled or expire could undermine thousands of dollars worth of perceived savings.

Supporters of the changes argue the new rules will modernize the system, provide clearer regulation for businesses and consumers alike, and permit flexibility as retail habits evolve. But many are not convinced that this will lead to stronger protections — or fair outcomes — for everyday Ontarians.

At a time when families are feeling squeezed by inflation, housing costs, and rising expenses, the potential loss of loyalty-point value represents more than a policy technicality — it could make a real difference in someone’s ability to stretch a budget, put food on the table, or hold onto small savings.

Whether Bill 46 becomes law as currently drafted — or whether consumer pushback leads to amendments preserving point protections — remains to be seen. What is clear already, however, is that this debate has put the future of loyalty programs in Ontario squarely into the spotlight.

A growing group of women is preparing to launch a proposed class action lawsuit against a Toronto club promoter and several prominent nightlife companies, alleging systemic negligence that, they say, allowed decades of sexual violence to occur inside some of the city’s most popular venues. The legal action is being coordinated by End Violence Everywhere (EVE), a Canadian advocacy organization supporting survivors of abuse.

At the centre of the lawsuit is Mark Holland, a well-known Toronto club promoter who was convicted of sexual assault in 2020 and ordered to remain on the sex offender registry for 20 years. The proposed lawsuit also names multiple hospitality companies that allegedly continued to employ or work with Holland despite what EVE describes as knowledge — or at least reasonable awareness — of his past misconduct.

While no formal claim has yet been filed and the allegations have not been tested in court, EVE says dozens of women have now come forward with similar accounts of harm, identifying what they describe as a long-standing pattern of abuse enabled by the city’s nightlife ecosystem.

The unfolding situation has once again raised serious questions about accountability, corporate responsibility, and safety within Toronto’s bar and nightclub scene.

Advocacy Group Moves Forward With Proposed Legal Action

End Violence Everywhere (EVE) announced its intention to pursue a class action lawsuit against Holland and several hospitality companies believed to have employed him or provided him access to their venues over the years. According to a draft of the proposed lawsuit reviewed by CBC News, the companies named include Honeycomb Hospitality, Lobby, INK Entertainment, and Uniq Hospitality.

The draft alleges that the companies worked with Holland “despite knowledge or constructive knowledge of his past misconduct,” and failed to take reasonable measures to protect patrons from harm.

“Over the span of nearly two decades, numerous women have reported being sexually assaulted, drugged, or otherwise harmed by Mark Holland,” the draft states. “These incidents followed a consistent pattern, often beginning in VIP areas or at private after-parties and ending in secluded areas of the venues or affiliated residences.”

EVE founder Cait Alexander announced that the organization is currently representing approximately 30 women with direct allegations involving Holland. In addition, more than 20 others have shared experiences involving different individuals whom EVE claims were also permitted to operate within the same nightlife spaces despite known risks.

Deadline Issued to Companies Named in the Draft

Alexander said that the proposed legal action can still be prevented if the companies involved meet specific conditions by December 1. These include issuing a public apology, acknowledging responsibility, and signing a formal agreement with EVE outlining changes to ensure safety for women within their establishments.

“For too long, survivors have been silenced, ignored, or pushed aside while profits came first,” Alexander said during a news conference. “These companies cannot claim innocence when they were warned, informed, or otherwise made aware of the danger they were hosting inside their own spaces.”

So far, Honeycomb Hospitality has stated that it has “no comment at this time.” The other named companies had not provided public responses as of the latest update.

Allegations Point to a Pattern of Abuse Spanning Decades

According to EVE, the reported incidents date back as far as the late 1990s and stretch into 2025. After Holland’s most recent criminal charges in August 2025 — which reportedly included three counts of sexual assault and one count of disobeying a court order — Alexander posted a warning on social media. The response, she says, was overwhelming.

She received thousands of messages from individuals describing their experiences in Toronto’s nightlife scene. From this, EVE compiled a detailed list of more than 50 potential victims, several alleged perpetrators, and numerous industry insiders who were allegedly aware of what was happening but failed to intervene.

Despite these serious allegations, Holland was reportedly able to continue working in nightlife settings after being released on bail. His defence lawyer, Randall Barrs, has stated that Holland’s bail conditions did not restrict where he could work.

Barrs acknowledged that there have been multiple accusations against his client in the past but emphasized that Holland was acquitted of several historic charges.

Legal Background and Prior Convictions

Holland’s legal history includes a mixture of convictions, acquittals, and dismissed charges. In 2016, he was charged in connection with an alleged sexual assault involving an 18-year-old woman at a photoshoot. He was later acquitted of that charge.

Following that investigation, Toronto police received information suggesting there may be additional victims. This led to four more charges related to incidents that allegedly occurred between 1994 and 2014. Of these, one resulted in a 2020 conviction involving an assault in a nightclub stairwell in 2008.

After delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Holland was sentenced in 2022. The court ordered him to remain on the sex offender registry for 20 years and imposed eight months of conditional imprisonment, including house arrest.

Two other allegations were dismissed in court, and a fourth was downgraded to a common assault charge, which was resolved through a peace bond agreement. Barrs has pointed to this mixed legal outcome as evidence that further judgment should be reserved for the courts.

“In this country, we have a presumption of innocence,” Barrs said in a written statement. “Mr. Holland has one conviction. The rest have been acquitted. These public attacks have cost him his livelihood and compromised his ability to receive a fair trial.”

Survivors Share Emotional Testimonies

At EVE’s recent news conference, two women publicly shared their experiences for the first time. Although they did not reveal their identities, they described the profound emotional and psychological impact that has stayed with them for years.

One woman said she was assaulted by Holland during a 2016 modelling photoshoot. Although the case ended in an acquittal, she explained that learning about his more recent charges caused old trauma to resurface.

“I am devastated to know that he is still out there, and even more devastated that people continue to enable him,” she said. “Why are men like this protected more than the women they harm?”

Another woman spoke about an alleged assault that took place nearly 18 years ago. She reported the incident to police in 2016, but the case did not result in a conviction. After returning to Toronto in 2025, she was shocked to learn that Holland was allegedly still working in the same industry.

“Imagine knowing that despite decades of allegations, trials, and even a conviction, he was still being welcomed into these spaces,” she said. “That is not just one person failing — that is a system failing.”

Demands for Industry-Wide Reform

Beyond monetary damages, the proposed class action lawsuit seeks legal commitments to reform safety policies within Toronto’s nightlife industry. EVE is demanding that companies ban convicted sexual offenders from working or collaborating with their venues and implement stronger protective measures for patrons.

Lawyer Kathryn Marshall, who is representing EVE in the proposed lawsuit, described the situation as a wake-up call for the entire hospitality sector.

“These businesses turned their clubs into hunting grounds by ignoring clear warning signs,” Marshall said. “Profit was prioritized over people. This case must become the catalyst for systemic change.”

Marshall added that the required reforms are not just about one individual, but about addressing a deeply embedded culture of silence and negligence.

A Broader Conversation on Safety and Accountability

The proposed lawsuit arrives at a critical moment, as Toronto and other Canadian cities confront rising concerns around gender-based and intimate partner violence. Authorities and advocacy groups have repeatedly warned that more must be done to protect women in public and private spaces.

While the final outcome of the proposed legal action remains uncertain, one outcome is already clear: more women are stepping forward, more stories are being heard, and longstanding structures that once allowed silence are now being challenged.

For survivors, this moment represents more than just legal action — it represents a chance for recognition, accountability, and transformation.

Conclusion: A Turning Point for Toronto’s Nightlife Industry

Although the class action lawsuit has not yet been formally filed, its impact is already being felt throughout Toronto’s nightlife community. Allegations of negligence against powerful hospitality companies have sparked debate, raised public awareness, and intensified demands for reform.

If the case proceeds, it could become one of the most significant legal challenges ever faced by the city’s entertainment industry. Even if it is resolved outside of court, it has already opened a critical conversation about responsibility, trust, and the duty of care owed to every person who walks through a club or restaurant door.

For the dozens of women preparing to take legal action, the goal is clear: ensuring that no one else has to endure what they experienced, and that the spaces meant for enjoyment and celebration are never again allowed to become places of fear.

In an unprecedented reversal of a major road safety policy, every automated speed enforcement camera in Toronto has now been removed. Once a central piece of the city’s strategy to curb dangerous driving and protect pedestrians, the cameras were dismantled by the very vendor that installed them, bringing a turbulent chapter in municipal road safety to a close.

The sudden disappearance of the devices is not the result of vandalism, technical failures, or city-led budget cuts. Instead, it is the endpoint of a politically charged campaign led by Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who repeatedly referred to the devices as a revenue-generating “cash grab” rather than a life-saving safety measure. In less than twelve months, Toronto went from expanding its automated enforcement program to eliminating it entirely.

This is the story of how that happened — and what it means for the future of road safety in Ontario’s largest city.

A Tragedy That Prompted Change

The push toward automated speed enforcement was rooted in a devastating and avoidable tragedy. In the fall of 2021, Valdemar Avila, 71, and his wife, Fatima Avila, 69, were sitting in slow-moving rush-hour traffic on Parkside Drive, a busy roadway bordering High Park. Although the speed limit was clearly marked at 50 kilometres per hour, a BMW driven by 38-year-old Artur Kotula struck their Toyota from behind at more than twice the permitted speed.

The impact was catastrophic. Valdemar died at the scene. His wife, who had immigrated to Canada with him in the 1970s, later died in hospital from her injuries. The incident sent shockwaves through the community and across the city.

In the aftermath, Toronto lowered the speed limit on Parkside Drive to 40 km/h and installed a speed camera in an effort to prevent similar tragedies. The results were immediate and striking. Between April 2022 and March 2023, the camera alone issued 24,556 speeding tickets.

Kotula was eventually sentenced to six-and-a-half years in prison. The presiding judge described his behaviour as a “crime of stupidity,” underscoring the needless nature of the loss.

The Rise — and Target — of Toronto’s Speed Cameras

At first, speed cameras were seen by municipal officials and safety advocates as a logical and effective response to the city’s persistent speeding problem. By using automated technology to monitor speed in school zones and high-risk corridors, the city was attempting to change driver behavior without relying solely on police officers.

Rather than reducing the program, Toronto moved to expand it. After initial deployment of 75 cameras across the city, officials announced plans to double the number to 150. The logic was simple: fewer speeding vehicles would lead to safer streets, and ideally, fewer tickets would eventually be issued.

“If these cameras generated no revenue at all, that would mean the program was working,” said Barbara Gray, then-general manager of the city’s transportation division.

But not everyone saw the cameras as a safety tool. Increasingly, frustration and anger from certain drivers began to build, particularly in areas where repeat fines were common. Parkside Drive, the very site of the 2021 fatal collision, became a focal point of protest.

Repeated Vandalism Signals Growing Anger

By December 2024, the first act of direct defiance occurred. The Parkside Drive camera was cut down, dragged through mud, and dumped into High Park’s duck pond. It was a dramatic and symbolic rejection of the city’s efforts to slow drivers down.

That single act set off a wave of vandalism. Throughout 2025, speed cameras across Toronto were repeatedly targeted. Some were cut, others destroyed, and many had to be repaired or replaced. By early September, in one coordinated overnight spree, 16 cameras were taken down in multiple neighbourhoods across the city.

The destruction pointed to a deeper divide: while safety advocates praised the program, a vocal group of opponents viewed the cameras as unfair, invasive, and focused on profit rather than public welfare.

Premier Ford Enters the Battle

The very next day after the mass destruction of cameras in September, Premier Doug Ford publicly weighed in. His remarks left little doubt about where he stood.

“Hopefully the cities will get rid of them,” he said. “Or I’m going to help them get rid of them very shortly.”

From that moment, the fate of Toronto’s speed cameras was effectively sealed.

Ford doubled down on his position in the weeks that followed, arguing that physical traffic-calming infrastructure, such as speed bumps and signage, was more effective than automated ticketing systems. However, road safety experts were quick to push back against this argument.

“You cannot put speed bumps on major arterial roads,” said Linda Rothman, a researcher involved in urban transportation studies. “In the exact places where speeding is most dangerous, speed cameras are one of the few viable tools available.”

Despite these concerns, the province moved forward.

What the Research Really Showed

In the midst of the political debate, a powerful piece of evidence emerged in support of the cameras. A study conducted by researchers from the Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids) and Toronto Metropolitan University examined 250 school zones with speed cameras between July 2020 and December 2022.

The findings were clear and compelling.

“We observed a significant reduction in vehicle speeds,” said Dr. Andrew Howard, head of orthopedic surgery at SickKids and the study’s lead author. “What was especially encouraging was that the fastest drivers showed the greatest decrease in speed.”

In simple terms, the cameras were doing exactly what they were designed to do: slow cars down in places where children and pedestrians are most vulnerable.

Ontario’s police chiefs supported the findings, releasing a statement highlighting the effectiveness of Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) tools in changing driver behavior and improving safety for all road users.

Still, the political momentum against the program continued to grow.

An Attempt to Compromise Falls Flat

Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow made several efforts to find middle ground with the provincial government. She proposed softer measures, including a grace period between the issuance of a first and second ticket. Her goal was to reduce the perception of the program as punitive while maintaining its safety benefits.

Additionally, mayors from other major Ontario cities joined together, writing a letter to Premier Ford in October. They warned that eliminating speed cameras would undocut years of progress in school zone safety and expose pedestrians, cyclists, and children to increased risks.

None of these efforts changed the outcome.

On October 20, the province introduced Bill 56 — formal legislation to end automated speed enforcement programs across Ontario.

With that, the decision was no longer in Toronto’s hands.

The Final Uninstall

By the end of November, every speed camera in the city had been removed. The process was carried out by Verra Mobility, the Arizona-based company that had supplied and maintained the equipment for Toronto.

In a statement, Verra Mobility confirmed it would be exiting the Ontario market altogether. While acknowledging the legislative decision, the company stood by the effectiveness of its technology.

“Speed cameras have a proven track record of improving road safety and reducing serious collisions,” the statement read.

Unlike past disappearances sparked by midnight sabotage, this time the process was orderly, official, and final. The cameras are gone — and there are currently no plans for their return.

What Happens Next for Road Safety in Toronto?

With automated enforcement off the table, the province has committed $210 million to municipalities for alternative traffic-calming strategies. These include speed bumps, increased signage, road narrowing, and other physical measures designed to slow cars down.

However, many urban planners and safety experts remain skeptical that these steps alone can replace the continuous, data-driven enforcement provided by cameras, particularly on busy city roads where physical modifications may be impractical or ineffective.

Residents, too, remain divided. Some have welcomed the decision, seeing it as a win for drivers. Others worry that, without constant monitoring, speeding may once again become the norm — and that more lives could be placed at risk.

Conclusion: A City at a Crossroads

Toronto’s experience with speed cameras is more than a story about traffic tickets. It is a reflection of how public safety, politics, public opinion, and evidence can collide — and sometimes override one another.

What began as a response to tragedy evolved into one of the city’s most ambitious safety programs, backed by research and supported by medical and law enforcement communities. Yet, in less than a year, it was undone by political will and growing public resistance.

Whether Toronto’s streets will become more dangerous or simply different in design remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: the debate over how best to keep roads safe in a growing urban environment is far from over.