September 15, 2026
It is not easy being a residential landlord in Ontario these days. We just posted Residential Landlords Beware in March, warning of the risks of administrative fines for bad faith. And here we are again.
Fines for bad faith are worrisome but can be taken as a modest warning to behave responsibly. Acting in good faith is not a high hurdle to jump.
THE ISSUE
What happens to your eviction if you act in good faith, but you make technical errors on the required forms?
In other areas, such as breach of a commercial lease, or contract, the concept of relief from forfeiture applies to allow forgiveness of oversights where there is no prejudice to the other party.
At Small Claims Court, or even Superior Court, the rules provide for forgiveness and flexibility, with a stated focus on deciding disputes on their merits.
But what about at the Landlord Tenant Board?
Surely, you’d think that they would want to keep the process easy to use, friendly for self-represented landlords. Just interested in fair decisions on the merits. Trying to speed up resolutions and clear up the ridiculous backlog.
THE BOTTOM LINE
Not so much.
Landlords are held to a standard of perfect, or at least near perfect, procedural compliance.
Failure to do so may result in you having to start the process all over again from the beginning – the notice of eviction.
This is a much scarier risk than fines for acting in bad faith. Made even more of a risk so because errors are easily made.
THE CASES
Section 1 of the Residential Tenancies Act states that part of the purpose of the Act is :
…to balance the rights and responsibilities of residential landlords and tenants and to provide for the adjudication of disputes and for other processes to informally resolve disputes. (emphasis added)
However, where the LTB tries to deal with the merits in the face of procedural errors, they are told by the Ontario Court of Appeal that a purpose of the act is “to provide protection for residential tenants from unlawful rent increases and unlawful evictions…”.
The Court effectively ignores the balancing part.
In Miller Estate v. Arguelles the Court says that
As remedial legislation with a tenant protection focus, the RTA must receive a fair, large and liberal construction that will best ensure its protective purpose is attained, resolving any ambiguity in favour of its tenant protection objects
(emphasis added)
That case involved an effort to evict a tenant so that the landlady could use the premises. Except, with the delay to get to the hearing, the landlady died before it was resolved. Her estate continued the case. The LTB amended the application and allowed the eviction.
There had also been a prior eviction attempt that was not disclosed on the eviction form N12 as required. The LTB also excused that oversight.
A review at the LTB and an appeal to the Divisional Court upheld this decision.
The tenant appealed further to the Court of Appeal. That court very rarely hears appeals from the LTB. Because it is a second level appeal, leave to appeal is required. Leave is granted only where there is an issue of public importance on a significant point of law.
So, just by the Court of Appeal taking on this case, you know that they want to send a message.
After a review of the facts of the case and the existing law, in particular the legislation, the court decides that the estate had no right to continue the hearing, and that with the landlady dead, there was no evidence of any individual with a right to continue the application.
So, that seems like a reason to overturn the LTB, but one that only applies to very rare situations.
Where is the public importance?
The Court of Appeal goes on to examine the omission of the prior eviction attempt, even though they really do not need to in this case.
They review the background of the section of the RTA requiring the disclosure, and the concern about “own use” evictions being done fraudulently.
The judgment refers to the fact that “ Tenants who appear before the Board are often self-represented, vulnerable, and unaware of their legal rights.” Thus, they need protection.
It says nothing about the challenges faced by a landlord faced by complex rules and forms.
The court says that the disclosure requirement is mandatory, and that the LTB has no power to waive the requirement
This substantive deficiency cannot be cured by amending the eviction application. The respondent’s eviction application should not have proceeded in the first place and should have been dismissed. The eviction application was therefore a nullity.
And if that is not enough bad news for landlords, the court notes that;
there is no screening process for electronic filing. As a result, this requires the Board to [reject a form N12 as incomplete] at the time of the hearing, as it is the only time to do so.
So, a totally innocent landlord who makes an error on the eviction notice waits many months and then has to start over.
And to make the bad news worse, on the same day, the court decided the case of Shafiq v. Ramsay , also an appeal of an LTB decision about a form N12.
In that case, the landlord had served a previous N12 a year before but had not taken it to hearing because they were not ready to move in. When he filled in the second N12, he did not tick off the box indicating that an N12 had been delivered before. The LTB accepted that this was an “oversight”.
In other words, it was innocent, and not the sort of improper use of the N12 that the disclosure is designed to guard against. Not the sort of “unlawful” or “bad faith” action that tenants need protection from.
So, a different result?
Guess again.
The judgment in this case is brief, simply applying the reasons given in the Miller Estate decision, saying that the disclosure provision:
requires details of the previously served N12 notices to be included and mandates that a failure to do so will result in a refusal to file the application. This is not a technical requirement but goes to the heart of the issues before the Board on a landlord’s own use eviction application
The court goes on to add that this case is “even stronger” in favour of the tenant than the Miller Estate facts because:
- the LTB did not formally amend the application to correct the error, and
- the LTB was wrong to focus on the lack of prejudice to the tenant.
The Shaifiq decision also criticizes how the LTB addressed the tenant’s complaint that his cognitive impairments precluded him from reasonably being able to participate and failed to consider all of the relevant circumstances and determine the overarching question of whether the eviction should be refused. They would have found in favour of the tenant on that basis even if the N12 was filled out correctly
Innocence does not matter. A legitimate intent to occupy the unit does not matter. All that matters is filling out the paperwork properly. Even then, an error by the LTB in their internal process can send the landlord back to square one.
There are a couple of a small bits of less than awful news for landlords:
- the court points out that this case is different from cases where tenants were found to be exploiting the appeal process to avoid paying rent.
- there is no indication as to how these decisions will affect evictions under other provisions of the Act
But:
- the strong “tenant protection” emphasis of these decisions, plus
- the fact that the “balancing” purpose of the Act is not discussed in the reasoning of ether judgment
are reasons to be concerned about just how high a standard landlords will be held to in other types of disputes as well.
TAKEAWAYS
- Process may be more important than the merits in eviction proceedings
- Landlords are held to a standard of perfect, or at least near perfect, procedural compliance.
- Experienced professional landlords ought to be reasonably capable of dealing with routine evictions, but
- If you do not have experience, or if your experience does not include the circumstances of the situation, getting legal advice right at the stage on the eviction notice is a sound investment, because
- The emphasis on tenant protection tilts the playing field severely, and
- Failure to achieve that procedural compliance may result in you having to start the process all over again from the beginning – the notice of eviction, with all the costs and lost time and rent that may result.
- Your good faith may not be enough to win the dispute.
WHAT WEILERS LLP CAN DO TO HELP YOU
The Landlord and Tenant Board is designed to accommodate parties bringing their own applications without lawyers, These cases show the costs and financial consequences of not getting the procedures right. Unless you have experience and confidence in your understanding of the mechanics of the Residential Tenancies Act the cost of legal advice before charging off to the Board is a sound investment.
At Weilers LLP we have the experience to provide that advice, and further representation if you need it, at a reasonable cost. Give us a call and see if we are the right lawyers for you.