For years, excess soil left construction sites with little oversight. Once it was hauled away, it was “out of sight, out of mind.” That’s no longer the case in Ontario.
Ontario’s Excess Soil Regulation (O. Reg. 406/19) has fundamentally changed how soil is managed across the province. On qualifying projects, every load must now be planned, classified, tracked, and documented from source to destination. What was once treated as a disposal issue is now a regulated, engineered process – one that carries implications for project timelines, costs, and risk.
The regulation is also changing how the industry views soil itself. Rather than waste to be removed, excess soil is increasingly treated as a resource to be managed, reused, and accounted for. For contractors and project leaders, that shift means new responsibilities, new workflows, and far less margin for error.
Application of regulation: who and what it covers
The regulation applies to any project moving significant volumes of soil: at least 2,000 cubic metres or approximately 200 truckloads. This includes municipal infrastructure projects, condo developments, transit projects, and large-scale excavation work. The project leader (e.g., municipality, developer) is ultimately responsible for regulatory compliance. However, contractors must adhere to the rules to ensure excess soil reaches its intended destination.
“The lines get blurred with how contracts are written,” said Ryan Moniz, vice president of XS Soil Solutions. “We’re seeing some municipalities take on that responsibility while others download it all onto the contractor.”
Qualifying projects must register with Ontario’s Excess Soil Registry, operated by the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority (RPRA). This digital system tracks the movement and reuse of excess soil from construction projects. The public online database enables regulators – and, in some cases, the public – to see where soil is coming from and where it’s going.
The importance of planning and documentation
A project must comply with the regulation once soil is moved. However, compliance preparation should start long before digging begins. Early engagement and planning are essential. It can take weeks or months to complete the documentation and get approvals to move forward. Failing to account for the time requirements can create project delays and cost overruns.
“Very frequently, we get calls to come out and qualify some soil so they can move it tomorrow,” said Moniz. “Now they must start planning four to six weeks in advance, or even more, to engage with a QP [Qualified Person] to understand their compliance responsibilities.”
The regulation requires completion of several planning documents before soil leaves the site. Project leaders must file notice on the RPRA Excess Soil Registry and an Excess Soil Management Plan (ESMP) with project details, soil quality, and reuse plans. In practice, this turns soil movement into a sequential, engineered process, and not a logistical afterthought. Depending on contractual responsibility, either the project leader or contractor must then submit the following documents, which are interdependent and to be completed sequentially:
- Assessment of Past Uses (APU): Determines potential contamination risks (Phase I Environment Site Assessment)
- Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP): Outlines how soil will be tested
- Soil Characterization Report (SCR): Classifies soil quality
- Excess Soil Destination Assessment Report (ESDAR): Identifies where soil will go
“These are all engineering documents, which take a considerable amount of time,” said Karim Hosny, founder and president of XS Soil Solutions. “They feed into the planning component, which is why it takes four to eight weeks to get your projects in compliance before you start moving material.”
Tracking soil from source to destination
Once the soil begins to move off-site on regulated projects, tracking becomes required to maintain compliance. Contractors are responsible for tracking every load of soil, including its origin, classification, management, and destination. They must then submit documentation for inclusion in the RPRA registry.
In effect, every load of soil now carries a documented history – from where it originated to where it ultimately ends up. Paper records and spreadsheets are acceptable methods of soil tracking. However, manual document management can be time-consuming and induce unnecessary risk. Digital online tracking tools have become widely used across the industry.
Some contractors fail to consider the costs when pricing the job. Waiting too long to engage engineers will lead to rush costs for engineering, sampling, and lab work. This also creates site slowdowns, which means paying for idle equipment and crews.
“Under the regulation, you must store your data for up to seven years,” said Hosny. “Digital software allows for proper document management and storage. A subway tunnel or bridge reconstruction project could go on for years, which will create a lot of data.”
Contractors are typically required to issue monthly soil reports to the project leader or contracting authority. If the soil plan changes during the project (e.g., design updates, new excavations), they have 30 days to update the planning documents on the RPRA registry.
Compliance challenges
Despite being in place for years, the regulation is still being interpreted differently across projects, creating uncertainty around how materials like bedrock are classified and managed. The Ministry of the Environment does not always provide guidance, allowing QPs to interpret the regulation as they see fit. This can lead to conflicting opinions between opposing parties.
“There are a lot of grey areas where the Ministry has left room for interpretation,” said Moniz. “When does slate or bedrock become soil? How is that defined and managed? Understanding how to manage rock is a very big pinch point in the industry.”
Gaps in enforcement have created uneven adoption of the regulation across the province. Some areas, particularly in northern Ontario, are not compliant because they lack regulatory oversight or education on the regulation. Issues can also arise when less experienced firms get involved with excess soil management.
Addressing costs and operational impacts
The regulation requires environmental assessments, engineering services, and documentation. Some contractors fail to consider the costs when pricing the job. Waiting too long to engage engineers will lead to rush costs for engineering, sampling, and lab work. This also creates site slowdowns, which means paying for idle equipment and crews. The RPRA also imposes registry fees, which vary according to project size.
“The RPRA fees are misaligned with the other services being provided,” said Moniz. “Compared to soil testing, report writing, and field work, RPRA fees are often higher than all those services combined. It’s essentially a tax to register and do the right thing.”
Securing approvals from the receiving site can create operational delays. Their QP must review and approve soil reports. Any issues or concerns on the receiving party’s end can delay the approval process and increase project timelines. There are also different costs in disposing of clean versus contaminated soil. Failure to properly identify soil conditions during the bidding process can mean losing money on the project.
“Early engagement with your QP is important, as it allows us to understand the complexities of the project, where efficiencies could be observed, what to expect in terms of the soil data, the levels of contamination, and how much is contaminated versus how much is clean,” said Hosny.
Integrating excess soil planning into your project strategy
To ensure compliance with the Excess Soil Regulation, project leaders and contractors should:
- Engage an experienced engineering firm or QP early on
Integrate soil planning into the bidding process - Identify potential receiving sites in advance
- Complete all documentation according to the regulations
- Invest in a digital tracking and documentation system
- Treat soil as a resource rather than waste
The regulation has fundamentally changed how excess soil is handled in Ontario. Projects that treat soil management as a planning exercise – not a disposal task – will be better positioned to control costs, avoid delays, and stay compliant as enforcement continues to evolve.
“Contractors have a lot of responsibilities and can’t be expected to know what’s happening with the regulations,” said Hosny. “Having a QP on retainer allows for the best consulting advice, as they understand the regulation and can help you navigate changes.”
