Council passed Interim Control By-law 0143-2026 on September 16, 2026. For one year from that date it restricts the use of land in Mississauga for a "Major Digital Infrastructure Facility" with 10 megawatts or more of total peak power demand, while the City reviews its Official Plan policies and zoning; Council can extend it to a total of two years. The City's notice of passing, dated September 24, 2026, gives November 5, 2026 as the last day to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. On September 29, 2026 Council approved a motion to set up a temporary Hyperscale Data Centre Task Force of Members of Council, City planning staff, industry stakeholders and citizen members, to be dissolved once the review is complete and Council has considered its recommendations.
Who writes the rules for data centres
The tension: Council has now imposed the data-centre pause it ordered drafted in July, but the planning rules its review will recommend for every future data centre have not been written. Council has voted on what the review must consider, not on what the rules will say.
In July 2026 Council directed staff to draft a pause on new large-scale data centres, and to review how the City plans for them. Council passed the pause on September 16, 2026. It lasts a year unless extended, to two years at most.
The pause does not write the rules. The review will recommend the rules every future data centre is judged by, such as Official Plan and zoning amendments and site plan guidelines. Council has voted on what the review must consider, not on what the rules will say. The City schedules those recommendations for spring to summer 2027, so they will come to the council elected on October 26.
The questions below ask how those rules should be adopted, what they should limit, and when the pause should end.
Resolution Options
Questions you can ask
To: allOn July 29 Council ordered a review of the City's planning rules for data centres, to end in recommendations such as Official Plan and zoning amendments and site plan guidelines. Will you commit to everything the review recommends, guidelines included, being published in draft for public comment and adopted by a recorded council vote, rather than taking effect as an internal staff document?
To: allWill you commit to the rules that come out of the data-centre review setting published limits on water use and electricity draw — and to actual consumption being reported publicly once a facility is running, not just projected at application?
To: mayoralCouncil passed the Interim Control By-law on September 16, 2026. It ends after a year, or sooner if Council is satisfied the land-use study is complete, unless Council extends it, to two years at most. Will you commit to it not being lifted until the new planning rules for data centres have been through a public council vote — even if that takes the full two years?
Candidates on record
Ward 6
- Martina Wood
The full story
On July 29, 2026, Mississauga council approved a motion directing staff to prepare an Interim Control By-law under section 38 of the Planning Act — a by-law that would, if council passed it, prohibit new large-scale data centres for up to a year, extendable to two, while the City reviews the sector. Council passed it on September 16, 2026. The motion was moved by Ward 9 Councillor Martin Reid and seconded by Ward 10 Councillor Sue McFadden, and followed more than 20 deputations, the large majority against.
Mayor Parrish did not cast a vote, as Global News reported. That outlet explained it as the mayor voting only in case of a tie — and we could not confirm that rule exists. Mississauga’s earlier Council Procedure By-law, 139-13, says every Member present “shall vote on every motion unless a Member indicates a conflict of interest”, and that where there is “an equality of votes on any question, the vote shall be deemed to be lost” — so on its face there is no tie for a mayor to break. The copy we read is consolidated only to 2018, and Council’s July 29 minutes cite a later one, Council Procedure By-law 0044-2022, as amended, which we have not read, so its wording may differ. The Municipal Act, 2001 separately provides that a tie vote “shall be deemed to be lost, except where otherwise provided by any Act” (s.245). Council’s minutes for July 29 record Mayor Parrish present, and asking staff about the data-centre application on this item, but record her in none of the day’s recorded votes, this one included; they give no reason. We state the discrepancy rather than pick a side: the non-vote is reported, the explanation for it is not established.
Nothing was prohibited until September 16, 2026, and that is not a quibble. Most coverage described July 29 as council imposing a moratorium. What council actually did that day was direct staff to draft one and bring it back — a real and consequential decision, and a different one. The prohibition came when Council passed the by-law on September 16 (see “What the by-law says”, below). Updated 2026-09-26: this paragraph was written before that vote.
A specific proposal in Meadowvale, debated under the same agenda item, is its own Core Issue. But the decision applies to the entire city, and it did something more consequential than pausing one building.
It handed staff a blank page. Council directed staff to prepare an interim control by-law and to carry out a comprehensive review of the City’s planning policies, zoning and development approval framework for these facilities, returning with recommendations such as Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and site plan guidelines. None had been published as of 2026-09-30; the City’s data centre policy review page schedules the recommendation to Council for spring to summer 2027. When they are, and if Council adopts them, they could shape how future applications in Mississauga are judged: the motion directs staff to evaluate tools to regulate noise, water, energy, emissions and heat, and to report on public reporting of energy and water use where legally permissible.
Whoever writes them, writes the rules. And the people who will be on council when it lands are being elected on October 26.
It now has a date
The City’s own advisory of July 30, 2026 put two milestones on the calendar:
- September 16, 2026 — the interim control by-law went to Council, which passed it that day. Large data-centre development is prohibited until it expires (details below).
- This fall — an interim report to Council setting out the study’s scope, the consultation strategy and the review timelines.
The first fell before the October 26 election; the advisory dates the interim report only “this fall”. The by-law has now passed; the interim report is the document that proposes how the new rules get written — who is consulted, over what, and by when — with options for Council to adjust the study’s scope. The by-law pauses; the report proposes.
On September 29, 2026, Council approved a motion to establish a temporary Hyperscale Data Centre Task Force, item 15.2 on that agenda, a notice of motion from Councillor McFadden. In the City’s summary of the meeting, published October 1, 2026, the task force “will include Members of Council, City planning staff, industry stakeholders and citizen members”, will receive regular updates on the review, and will be dissolved “Once the review is complete and Council has considered any recommendations arising from the process.”
This is the reason to ask now rather than later. A candidate asked today has no idea which applications the new rules will help or hurt — nobody does, because they haven’t been drafted. A commitment made in that condition is worth considerably more than one made when the winners and losers are visible.
Two further points worth holding. Data centres consume water and electricity — shared resources with real limits, where one large user’s draw is genuinely subtracted from what remains for everyone else. And Mississauga may be first: Canada’s National Observer reported the vote as a possible national precedent. What gets written here may not stay here.
What the by-law says
Added 2026-09-13; updated 2026-09-16. Council passed it on 2026-09-16, and the City announced the decision at 11:19 that morning. It was item 17.5 on that agenda, directed by Resolution 0161-2026.
One thing is not established and is not asserted here: whether Council amended the by-law on the floor before passing it. The text set out below is the document put to Council — and that document is the unexecuted form, which reads “PASSED this ____ day of ____, 2026” and “BY-LAW NUMBER ____”, both blank. So the by-law number and the vote are not known here either. The City’s announcement does not mention an amendment, which is not the same as establishing there was none.
- What it stops. No land may be used for a “Major Digital Infrastructure Facility”: a building holding servers that store or process digital information, with a total peak power demand of 10 megawatts or more, counted across all the buildings on a lot. An existing warehouse, distribution or science-and-technology facility cannot be converted or enlarged for servers if the result would reach 10 megawatts. For the by-law’s purposes, a facility of that size cannot be classed as any other use the Zoning By-law defines or permits.
- What it does not stop. Uses legally existing on the day it passes, and server facilities below 10 megawatts.
- How long. It takes effect the day it passes and expires one year later, or when Council is satisfied that the land-use study is complete, unless it is extended. Section 38 of the Planning Act does not allow the first period to exceed one year, allows an extension to a total of two years, and once an interim control by-law ends, bars another one on the same lands for three years.
- Appeals. No notice or hearing is required before Council passes it. Anyone given notice afterwards may appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal within 50 days of its passing.
- Where. The whole City, with one exception marked on its Schedule “A” map: an area on the south side of Eglinton Avenue West between Ninth Line and Ridgeway Drive, together with the land south of Platinum Drive beside Ridgeway Drive as far as Odyssey Drive, north of Highway 403. The by-law does not say why that area is exempt.
It contains no clause about applications already filed. Besides the mapped area, its one exception is for uses that legally exist on the day it passes.
The question underneath this is not unique to data centres
Added 2026-09-05. The open question on this page — does a new rule reach work already begun under the old one? — is a general mechanism, and Mississauga answered it for another by-law on 29 July 2026.
By-law 0132-2026, passed on 29 July 2026, sets heights and densities on certain lands in the city’s protected major transit station areas. It carries transition clauses: an application for a complete site plan or draft plan of subdivision, or a building permit, received before 29 July 2026 may still be approved under the old 2007 zoning by-law “as it read immediately before” that date. The Clarkson issue sets out that by-law and what it removed.
So on that instrument, the answer was: no, the new rule does not reach what was already filed. That is an ordinary and arguably fair way to write a by-law — an applicant who filed under one rule-set is not judged retroactively by another. But it has a consequence a reader should see: the new standards govern the next application, not the ones already in the queue.
The same question applies to the interim control by-law. An interim control by-law that exempts everything already filed pauses less than it appears to. Which applications were already in the queue on 16 September is therefore a fact worth knowing — and it is a fair thing to ask a candidate who says the pause will protect the city.
The draft on Council’s September 16 agenda carries no transition clause. Apart from the area its map exempts, it excepts only uses legally existing on the day it passes; it says nothing about applications already filed. What that silence means for an application part-way through review is not something the text states, and this page does not guess. Whether Council amended it on the floor before passing it on September 16 is not established.
Fact-check
AN INTERIM CONTROL BY-LAW IS IN FORCE. Council passed it on 2026-09-16 and the City announced the decision at 11:19 that morning. Corrected 2026-09-16: this claim previously opened "NO MORATORIUM IS IN FORCE", which held until Council passed the by-law. On July 29, 2026 Mississauga council approved a motion DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE that Interim Control By-law under section 38 of the Planning Act, for Council's consideration on September 16, 2026, which WOULD prohibit new large-scale digital infrastructure — artificial intelligence, cloud computing and hyperscale data centres — for up to one year while a review is carried out, with staff to report on the need for any extension up to a maximum of one further year. The City's own words: 'Staff will prepare the ICBL and it will be brought forward for Council approval on September 16, 2026. If approved, data centre development would be prohibited until the ICBL expires.' Widely reported as a moratorium having been imposed; that is not what the instrument does, and the difference mattered because nothing was prohibited until the by-law passed, which it did on 2026-09-16. The motion was moved by Ward 9 Councillor Martin Reid and seconded by Ward 10 Councillor Sue McFadden, and followed more than 20 deputations, the large majority opposed. Mayor Parrish did not cast a vote, per Global News. Corrected 2026-08-11: this read "(the mayor votes only to break a tie)" as though it were settled procedure. IT IS AN OUTLET'S CHARACTERISATION OF A BY-LAW, AND THE BY-LAW APPEARS TO SAY OTHERWISE. Global News verbatim: "Mississauga's motion passed unanimously. Mayor Carolyn Parrish did not cast a vote, as the mayor only votes in case of a tie." Council Procedure By-law 139-13 s.63(3)(b): "Every Member present shall vote on every motion unless a Member indicates a conflict of interest, in which case the Member shall recuse him/herself." s.63(3)(e): a Member who fails to vote without declaring a conflict has the vote "recorded in the negative". s.63(3)(f): "If there is an equality of votes on any question, the vote shall be deemed to be lost" — THERE IS NO CASTING VOTE, so there is no tie to break. "MEMBER" means a member of Council (s.3) and the Mayor is the head of Council. CORROBORATING, FROM THIS SITE'S OWN LEDGER: the council-conduct-sanctions entry records Mayor Crombie voting in a 9-2 decision on 2022-07-06 — a non-tie — sourced to the minutes. CAVEATS, ALL REAL: the by-law copy read is consolidated only to 2018; the July 29 2026 minutes cite a later Council Procedure By-law, 0044-2022, as amended, which has not been read; and the same minutes record the Mayor present and in none of the day's recorded votes, this one included, and give no reason. WHAT WAS DONE: the false procedural rule is off the page; the reported non-vote stays, attributed; the discrepancy is stated. WHAT IS STAGED FOR THE OPERATOR: how far the page should go in characterising a sitting mayoral candidate's non-vote. That is a fairness judgement, not a fact, and it is not CC's. The motion also directs a comprehensive review of the City's planning policies, zoning and development approval framework for these facilities, ending in recommendations such as Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and site plan guidelines. None had been published as of 2026-09-30; the City's data centre policy review page schedules the recommendation to Council for spring to summer 2027. Canada's National Observer reported the vote as a possible national precedent. MILESTONES ADDED 2026-08-10 from the City advisory of 2026-07-30: the interim control by-law goes to Council for approval on SEPTEMBER 16, 2026, and staff will bring an INTERIM REPORT to Council this fall covering the study scope, consultation strategy and review timelines. The first preceded the October 26 election; the interim report is dated only 'this fall'. THE BY-LAW AS PUT TO COUNCIL — item 17.5 on the 2026-09-16 Council agenda, stamped 17.5 on every page of the document itself; Legal Services approval by Katie Pfaff dated 2026-09-09, file LA.25-26.255. It was directed by Resolution No. 0161-2026. It prohibits the use of any land for a 'Major Digital Infrastructure Facility', defined as a building containing servers that store or process digital information with a total peak load power demand of 10 megawatts or more, counted across all buildings on a lot, except uses legally existing on the day it passes. It bars converting or enlarging a legally existing warehouse, distribution or science-and-technology facility for servers where the result reaches 10 megawatts, and for its purposes such a facility is not to be interpreted as any other use a Zoning By-law defines or permits. It takes effect on passing and expires one year later or when a land use study is completed to Council's satisfaction, unless extended under the Planning Act. It contains no clause about applications already filed. Planning Act s.38: the first period cannot exceed one year (s.38(1)); an extension cannot take the total past two years (s.38(2)); no notice or hearing is required before passing, and notice follows within 20 days (s.38(3)); a person given notice may appeal to the Tribunal within 50 days (s.38(4)); and once it ends, no further interim control by-law may apply to the same lands for three years (s.38(7)). Schedule A shades the whole City and hatches one exempt area: the south side of Eglinton Avenue West between Ninth Line and Ridgeway Drive, with the land south of Platinum Drive beside Ridgeway Drive as far as Odyssey Drive, north of Highway 403; the by-law does not say why. Council passed it on 2026-09-16. NOT YET ESTABLISHED, AND NOT ASSERTED: whether Council amended the by-law on the floor. Everything described above is the text put to Council, read in full on 2026-09-13 and again on 2026-09-16. That document is the UNEXECUTED form: it reads "PASSED this ____ day of ____, 2026" and "BY-LAW NUMBER ____", both blank. So the by-law number, any recorded vote and any floor amendment are open, and the executed by-law has not been obtained. The City release of 2026-09-16 does not mention an amendment, which is not the same as establishing there was none.
Developments
After more than twenty delegations and about five hours of debate, council approved a motion directing staff to prepare an Interim Control By-law under section 38 of the Planning Act — a by-law that would, if council passed it, prohibit new large-scale data centre development for up to a year while the City reviews the sector. The motion was moved by Ward 9 Councillor Martin Reid and seconded by Ward 10 Councillor Sue McFadden. The review will examine municipal infrastructure, economic activity, environment, noise, energy and water use, and the roles of the provincial and federal governments. NOTHING WAS PROHIBITED ON JULY 29: the by-law was to go to council for approval on September 16, 2026, and the City's own advisory said "if approved, data centre development would be prohibited until the ICBL expires." An interim report on study scope, consultation strategy and timelines was due that fall. Most coverage described July 29 as council imposing a moratorium; what council did was direct staff to draft one and bring it back, which is a real decision and a different one. Two further things worth stating plainly. The motion did not decide the Meadowvale application debated alongside it, and on July 29 did not pause it either. And Prologis, the applicant, told council it was "prepared to refrain from filing an appeal" while its application continued through review (The Pointer reported this as a warning that the company would appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal), asking whether a study requires prohibiting an application already deemed complete and under technical review — a question no City document has been found to settle. Data centres remained permitted in Mississauga's Employment Areas in the meantime; the Zoning By-law has no category for them at all, which is part of what the review is for. Updated 2026-09-30: Council passed the interim control by-law on September 16, 2026. Corrected 2026-09-30: this entry said the Meadowvale application was the one the motion "grew out of"; Council's minutes show the application debated under the same item, not that the motion arose from it.