Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Where does money go from the speed cameras in Ontario
Executive Summary
Ontario municipalities historically used automated speed enforcement (ASE) to issue tickets and retain revenue for municipal purposes such as budget stabilization, processing costs, and safety initiatives, but the provincial government moved to ban municipal speed cameras in September 2025 and create a new provincial fund for alternative safety measures [1]. Local governments reported that ASE revenue had been substantial in some places—Toronto cameras once generated nearly $7 million, Belleville and Brampton used surpluses for reserves and processing costs, and York Region recorded roughly $11.5 million in collected fines—showing a mix of safety and fiscal uses [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. How big is the money trail? The scale varies by municipality and time.
Municipal reporting shows very different scales of revenue from ASE across Ontario. Toronto’s program produced headline figures—one camera generating nearly $7 million—and York Region reported about $11.5 million in fines collected by automated cameras as of October 2024, with the region installing more cameras thereafter [1] [4]. Smaller municipalities like Belleville explicitly transferred ASE surpluses into a Tax Rate Stabilization Reserve, demonstrating that proceeds can materially affect local budgets. These figures cover periods before the September 2025 provincial ban, meaning the collection landscape changed after those amounts were reported [2] [1].
2. Where did municipalities say the money actually go? Budgets, reserves, and overhead.
Municipal council records and reporting state ASE proceeds were applied to municipal financial management and program costs: Belleville moved surplus funds into a stabilization reserve to smooth tax impacts; Brampton used revenue to offset startup and processing centre costs and to replenish strategic reserves tapped to pay implementation expenses; York Region signaled that growing fine income supports broader road safety and operational needs [2] [3] [4]. These allocations indicate cities treated ASE revenue as part of general or earmarked municipal finance, rather than segregating it strictly as a “safety-only” fund [2] [3].
3. What the province said and why it changed policy in 2025.
In September 2025, the Ontario government framed its decision to ban municipal speed cameras as protecting taxpayers from revenue-driven enforcement, asserting cameras had been used more as a fiscal tool than a road-safety measure; the province pledged to replace municipal programs with a new provincial fund dedicated to alternative safety measures [1]. This shift reflects a central government judgment about incentives: the province presented the move as ending perceived municipal dependence on ticket revenue, while offering centralized funding to continue safety work. The ban post-dates much municipal revenue reporting and thus halts the previously observed flows [1].
4. Conflicting narratives: safety tool versus revenue stream.
Municipalities emphasized ASE as a safety tool and backed that with decisions to reinvest funds in reserves, processing costs, and safety initiatives, arguing the cameras reduce speeds and collisions while helping budgets [2] [4]. The provincial narrative characterized ASE as a revenue source that could distort enforcement priorities and promised centralized funding instead. Both narratives rely on legitimate concerns: municipalities cite quantifiable revenues and program costs, while the province points to potential perverse incentives when fines feed local coffers. The available reporting shows both facts—revenue existed and jurisdictions used it for municipal finance—supporting both perspectives [1] [2] [4].
5. What local accounting practices reveal—and what they omit.
Municipal statements show explicit accounting moves—surpluses transferred to reserves or used to offset implementation costs—yet public reporting often omits full lifecycle costs, such as ongoing processing, appeals, administrative overhead, and program evaluation. Brampton’s reporting that revenue recouped funds taken from strategic reserves to pay for a processing centre illustrates that initial capital and operating costs reduce net municipal benefit; gross fine totals can overstate municipal gain when not netted against expenditures [3]. Media pieces focusing on ticket counts sometimes fail to trace the final budgetary treatment, leaving context gaps [5] [6].
6. Recent coverage and gaps in public transparency.
Reporting through 2024–2025 captured revenue magnitudes and municipal uses but left transparency gaps about per-ticket net revenue and long-term allocation decisions. The Toronto Star pieces in October 2025 concentrated on program mechanics and which vehicles were ticketed, without detailing where money went after collection, reflecting a common reporting split between enforcement operation details and municipal accounting practices [5] [6]. The provincial ban announcement in September 2025 filled a policy gap but did not uniformly publish standardized accounting for past municipal receipts [1].
7. Bottom line and outstanding questions for citizens and policymakers.
Established facts show ASE produced meaningful revenue for some Ontario municipalities and that those funds were used for reserves, offsetting program costs, and general budget needs, up until the provincial ban in September 2025 which created a new provincial safety fund [2] [3] [4] [1]. Remaining questions include standardized net-revenue accounting across municipalities, empirical evaluation of ASE’s road-safety impact versus revenue effects, and specifics of the new provincial fund’s allocation rules—areas that require further publicly accessible auditing and reporting.