Procedural Issues Regarding Eviction Applications Interpretation Guideline 10

(Disponible en français)

Interpretation Guidelines are intended to assist the parties in understanding the LTB’s usual interpretation of the law, to provide guidance to Members and promote consistency in decision-making. However, a Member is not required to follow a Guideline and may make a different decision depending on the facts of the case.

This Guideline deals with notices of termination, eviction applications filed by landlords under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (“RTA") and orders issued by the LTB as a result of these applications.

Notices of Termination

The delivery of a valid Notice of Termination (“Notice”) by a landlord is a required step for most eviction applications1. The LTB cannot terminate a tenancy and order eviction unless each tenant in possession of the rental unit was given a valid Notice of Termination from the landlord and the landlord has successfully proven the ground(s) claimed in the Notice at a hearing of the application.

Under section 43(1) of the RTA, landlords must use the prescribed Notice of Termination form. The prescribed forms include the mandatory requirements of subsections 43(2)(a) to (c) of the RTA.

At a hearing, the LTB Member must determine whether the Notice meets the RTA’s requirements. The LTB must also determine whether the date and method the Notice was given to each tenant satisfies the RTA’s requirements.

Notices of Termination that are defective because they do not meet the RTA’s requirements are void and cannot be amended to correct an error: Boomer v. Arvane Farms Ltd., 2025 ONSC 1772 (CanLII), para. 21.

However, where a Notice contains an error or a landlord has not used the prescribed form, the Member must also decide if the Notice substantially complies with the RTA’s requirements in accordance with s. 212 of the RTA.

If a Notice is defective and is not found to be substantially compliant, then the eviction portion of the application will be dismissed. However, if the landlord’s application also seeks payment of rent arrears or other compensation, the LTB may be able to proceed with those claims at the hearing even if the Notice is defective. See for example: Kim v Fedchenko, 2025 ONLTB 50920 (CanLII), Thomas v Rochead, 2022 CanLII 51505 (ON LTB).

Each type of Notice has instructions which a landlord should review before completing the Notice and giving it to the tenant(s).

Termination date

Under section 43(1)(b) of the RTA, the Notice of Termination must specify the correct date of termination without doubt or condition. An incorrect termination date cannot be amended or corrected after the Notice is given to the tenant and likely makes a Notice invalid. For example, stating a period of time but not a specific date (e.g., "10 days" rather than "April 16, 2026") may not be sufficient: Re Bianchi and Aguanno, 1983 CanLII 1967 (Div. Ct.). Also see for example: Islam v Nicholls, 2026 ONLTB 41193 (CanLII); Ricci v Galick, 2021 CanLII 103190.

However, in Mallia v Wolch, 1991 CanLII 8296 (Div. Ct.), the Court held that a notice of termination was valid despite listing a non-existent tenancy termination date (November 31, 1989). The Court reasoned that the intention of the landlord was clear to terminate the lease before the beginning of the monthly tenancy that started December 1st, and the Notice neither misled nor confused the tenant.

Each ground for eviction has a different termination date requirement in the RTA. In addition, in some cases the termination date differs depending upon the terms of the tenancy agreement between the landlord and tenant. For example, in a Notice of Termination for landlord’s own use under section 48 of the RTA (‘N12 Notice’), the date of termination must be at least 60 days after the notice is given and shall be the day a period of the tenancy ends or, where the tenancy is for a fixed term, the end of the term.

The termination date must allow at least the minimum period of Notice for that ground for eviction, or where there are several grounds for termination and eviction set out in the same Notice with different notice periods, the longest notice period.

When counting the days to determine the correct termination date, the date the Notice is given to the tenant is not included but the date of termination is (Rule 1.13 of the LTB’s Rules of Procedure). As discussed below, if the Notice is mailed or couriered to the tenant additional days must be added to calculate the date the Notice is deemed given.

Section 56 of O. Reg. 516/06 under the RTA and Rule 1.6(a) of the LTB’s Rules of Procedure provide that the LTB cannot extend or shorten a notice period required by the RTA. See for example: Hebibasi v Good, 2026 ONLTB 2212; Harkamal v Moncada, 2025 ONLTB 74193; and Alexei v Linhares, 2026 ONLTB 5677.

Naming the parties - Multiple Tenants or Landlords

If the landlord has entered into a tenancy agreement with more than one tenant, the Notice of Termination must name and be given to all tenants in possession of the rental unit. Failure to name all tenants in possession and properly serve them may result in the Notice being found invalid.

Occupants of the rental unit who are not tenants, such as minor children or guests of the tenant, should not be named on the Notice of Termination or application and will be removed as parties from the application. Naming occupants on a Notice does not make the Notice invalid. See for example: Nunzio Joseph Pinelli v Lowe, 2023 ONLTB 37894.

LTB eviction orders grant the landlord vacant possession of the rental unit, which means that all tenants and other occupants must move out.

If there are multiple landlords any one of them can give a Notice of Termination to a tenant and all landlords do not need to be named. However, only certain landlords can serve N12 Notices of Termination under section 48 or 49(2) of the RTA. For more information see Guideline 12 - Eviction for Personal Use, Demolition, Repairs and Conversion.

Rental Unit Address

Under section 43(1)(a) of the RTA, a Notice must also identify the rental unit for which notice is given.

The Notice should provide the full address for the rental unit including the unit number (for example Unit 202 or Basement), the town or municipality and the postal code. If the rental unit address is incomplete or incorrect, the Notice may be defective. However, as discussed below, the LTB must also consider whether a Notice with an incomplete or incorrect address substantially complies with the RTA’s requirement to identify the rental unit as discussed below. See for example: Bennett v Smith, 2025 ONLTB 80835.

Notice must be signed on behalf of Landlord

Under section 43(1)(c) of the RTA, the Notice must be signed by the landlord or their agent, but the agent does not need to be licensed to provide legal services: Rivera v. Eleveld, 2022 ONSC 446. In Kyerematen v Warden, 2025 ONLTB 42596, the LTB determined that a Notice was defective because the signor was neither the landlord nor an agent, lawyer, or paralegal of the landlord. Rather, the signor was an employee of an organization that provided social services to residents of the tenant’s residential complex.

The Divisional Court of Ontario has also held that an unsigned Notice of Termination may be valid, so long as the landlord's name is typed or shown in the signature change. See: Van-Hees v Sui, 2025 ONLTB 17224, citing Darragh Construction & Investments Ltd v Cain (Ont. Div. Ct.), [1988] O.J. No. 597.

Reasons and Details

Section 43(2) of the RTA states that a Notice must set out the “reasons and details respecting the termination”.

In Ball v Metro Capital Property, [2002] O.J. No. 5931 (Div Ct.) the Notice at issue was a voidable N5 Notice. The Divisional Court held that there are several purposes for requiring a landlord to provide sufficient reasons and details in the notice. The tenant is entitled to: know the case to be met; to make an informed decision about whether to dispute the allegations; and consider whether to stop the conduct within seven days and thereby void the notice.

The level of specificity and the nature of detail that must be included changes based on the context of the Notice. In Boomer v Arvane Farms Ltd, 2025 ONSC 1772, the Divisional Court agreed with the LTB that where a Notice cannot be voided by the tenant, the same level of detail may not be required.

If the Notice is confusing to the degree that a reasonable person could not understand what it means, the LTB may find it defective. This might include vagueness or inconsistent explanations about the reason for giving the Notice. A Notice which only specifies a reason which is not a ground for eviction under the RTA may be invalid; and in some cases, adding such a claim to a legitimate ground may cause a Member to find the Notice is defective.

In TSL-84761-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 84842 (ON LTB), the Member found the Notices void because they included two misleading cover letters which misstated the law by asserting that the tenants must vacate. As the Member explained, a tenant may remain in their residence if they disagree with a Notice and make submissions to the LTB at a hearing. See also CMHA v Grinnus, 2025 ONLTB 34091.

Ultimately, whether the Notice is adequate is a question of whether it communicates the necessary elements clearly enough that a tenant would be expected to understand it and the options they have.

Substantial Compliance

Section 212(1) of the RTA states that “[s]ubstantial compliance with this Act respecting the contents of forms, notices or documents is sufficient.” Section 212(2) provides, “[f]or greater certainty, an error in the contents of a form, notice or document still constitutes substantial compliance with this Act, as long as the error does not significantly prejudice a party’s ability to participate in a proceeding under this Act.”

This provision means that a Notice or another type of form, or document containing a minor error may still be valid under the RTA if it does not cause significant prejudice to the tenant’s ability to participate in the LTB’s proceeding. See for example: Bennett v Smith, 2025 ONLTB 80835 and Highgate Property Investments Inc v Adebowale 2025 ONLTB 33587.

In addition to some of the cases discussed above, some further examples of LTB decisions where the substantial compliance of Notices were considered are set out below:

Examples of LTB decisions where Notices were found to be substantially compliant:

Examples of LTB decisions where Notices of Termination were found not to be substantially compliant:

An oral notice of termination cannot substantially comply with a requirement to give written notice. The statutory requirement to give written Notice cannot be waived by a Member.

Service of the Notice of Termination

The landlord must give the Notice of Termination to each tenant living in the rental unit and cannot file an application for termination of the tenancy until this is done. See: Persad, 2022 CanLII 51509. If the landlord does not demonstrate the Notice was sufficiently given to each tenant in possession, then the application for termination must be dismissed.

The RTA provides that “A notice or document is sufficiently given to a person” by a method set out in subsection 191(1) of the RTA or Rule 3.1 of the LTB’s Rules of Procedure.

In Toronto Community Housing Corp. v. Zelsman, 2017 ONSC 5289, the Divisional Court held that valid service is determined by the Landlord’s compliance with the RTA, not whether the tenant(s) actually received the notice. See also: Medallion Corporation v Shields, 2023 ONLTB 71150.

Rule 3.4 of the LTB’s Rules of Procedure provides that a party may ask the LTB to permit an alternative method of service including service by email or service on the party's representative.

Where the landlord used a method to serve a Notice not provided for under the RTA or the Rules and without specific permission through a direction signed by a Member, before an application for eviction is dismissed, the Member must consider section 191(2) of the RTA.

Under section 191(2) of the RTA, if the tenant acknowledges receipt of the Notice or if the landlord can prove the contents of the Notice actually came to the attention of the tenant by the date required, this will be sufficient no matter how the Notice was served. See for example: Kibria v Williams, 2023 ONLTB 25857.

The landlord or the person who gave the Notice to the tenant must also complete a Certificate of Service setting out how and when the Notice was served.

Multiple Grounds and Notices of Termination

A landlord may believe that there is more than one ground for eviction and give a Notice of Termination with more than one ground or deliver multiple Notices of Termination together.

For example, a landlord may use the same N5 Notice to claim both that the tenant has substantially interfered with other tenants’ reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex by making loud noise late at night and that the tenant has negligently caused undue damage to the front door of the rental unit.

Alternatively, where the grounds the landlord wants to rely upon are not on the same Notice, the Landlord may serve multiple notices. For example, if the tenant is behind in the rent and has assaulted someone in the residential complex, the landlord may serve two different Notices - one for non-payment of rent (N4 Notice) and the other for committing an illegal act (N7 Notice). The landlord may file a single application for eviction based on both Notices so long as it is filed by the deadline for each Notice. Alternatively, the landlord may file a separate application based on each Notice.

The LTB has found that giving a tenant multiple notices of termination based on different grounds is not contrary to the RTA and is not procedurally unfair unless it results in confusion. See for example: Vlahos Trailer Park v Macdonald, 2026 ONLTB 27867; EAL-40976-14 (Re), 2014 CanLII 76724.

Sometimes the same event may give rise to more than one ground for termination. As a result, the landlord may serve more than one Notice of Termination at the same time citing the same event as the reason for all the Notices. For example, if a landlord believes that a tenant intentionally damaged the fire alarm system in the residential complex, the landlord may serve a Notice of Termination for willfully or negligently causing undue damage to the rental unit (N5 Notice), and a Notice of Termination alleging an impairment of safety (N7 Notice).

In some circumstances, the LTB has found that serving multiple Notices for the same conduct may cause confusion and result in a determination that all the Notices are defective and the application must be dismissed. This occurs most frequently where the landlord has served both a voidable and non-voidable Notice for the same conduct. This is because the tenant is being told both that they can avoid eviction if they correct the conduct and that the landlord has the right to file an application for eviction regardless. See TSL-96380-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 120849 (ON LTB). As the LTB noted in Garcia v Fournier, 2024 ONLTB 13667, the “test that the Board must apply to determine if a notice of termination was confusing is not subjective—whether the tenant was actually confused by the notices—but objective—whether a reasonable tenant would be confused by the notices.”

Therefore, when serving multiple Notices of Termination, landlords should consider whether the Notices will confuse the tenant as confusing Notices may be found to be defective and result in the landlord’s application being dismissed.

A tenant’s failure to pay rent in full and on time may result in a landlord serving both a voidable N4 Notice for non-payment and a non-voidable N8 Notice for late payment of rent. The Divisional Court has confirmed that any non-payment of rent is both late and in arrears. As a result, a landlord may pursue termination under both grounds at the same time or in separate proceedings. See: Shearer v. Oz, 2026 ONSC 3753; Parousis v. Centurion Property Associates Inc., 2025 ONSC 6864.

Voidable Notices

Some types of Notices can be voided if the tenant corrects the issue or omission. A landlord cannot file an eviction application based on a Notice that has been voided by the tenant.

N4 Notices for non-payment of rent

Subsection 59(3) of the RTA provides that a N4 Notice is void if, before the landlord applies for eviction, the tenant pays the rent arrears claimed in the N4 Notice and any additional rent that came due by the date the tenant makes the payment. The landlord cannot file an application until the day after the date of termination on the N4 Notice.

If the tenant pays the rent owed when the N4 Notice was given before the end of the current rental period and before the landlord files an application with the LTB, the N4 Notice is void. If the tenant does not pay the arrears before the end of that rental period and another rental period begins, the rent for that rental period as well as the previous arrears must be paid before the landlord applies in order to void the N4 Notice.

For example:

A landlord gives a tenant a N4 Notice on May 2, specifying that the tenant owes $1,500.00 for the rental period of May 1-31, with a termination date of May 9. The earliest date that the landlord could apply to the LTB is May 10 and the tenant could void the Notice by paying $1,500.00 by May 9. However, if the landlord does not apply to the LTB in the month of May, the tenant could also void the Notice by paying $1,500.00 on or before May 31.

Alternatively, if the landlord waited until May 27 to give the N4 Notice, specifying a termination date of June 3, the tenant could void the Notice by paying $1,500.00 on or before May 31. However, if the payment was made on or after June 1, the tenant would have to pay $3,000.00 to void the Notice because the rent for June will also have come due.

“First” N5 Notices

On a N5 Notice of Termination for damages, substantial interference with reasonable enjoyment or overcrowding (under sections 62, 64 or 67 of the RTA), the landlord must indicate whether the notice is voidable or not. Non-voidable “Second” N5 Notices are discussed below.

On a voidable or “First” N5 Notice, the tenant may avoid eviction by correcting the conduct or issue described in the Notice within seven days of receiving it. The landlord cannot file an application for eviction during these 7 days. If the tenant does not correct the behaviour or issue within these seven days the landlord has 30 days from the date of termination on the N5 Notice to file an eviction application with the LTB.

At the hearing, the LTB must determine whether the tenant voided the N5 Notice within the seven days. Where there are multiple issues set out in the N5 Notice, as long as at least one issue has not been voided, the landlord may file an application for eviction but the hearing for eviction will be limited to the non-voided issue.

In CEL-55834-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 28629, the landlord gave the tenants a N5 Notice for substantial interference due to issues related to odour, pests, and clutter. The Member reasoned that “[i]n order to void the first voidable N5 Notice, the Tenants must correct all of the issues identified in the notice.” The Member found that the tenants failed to void the N5 Notice because there were still issues related to odour, sanitation and pests after the seven-day voiding period had ended.

In TSL-32669-12 (Re, 2014 CanLII 71668, the tenant harassed the landlord’s staff, and the landlord served the tenant with a N5 Notice. The tenant engaged in further harassment on the seventh day of the voiding period. The Member reasoned that “the Tenant could have voided the N5 had he stopped the behaviour complained of within the seven-day period following service of the N5. He did not.”

Second N5s and Other Notices Under Section 68 of the RTA

After a valid First N5 Notice has been given to a tenant, the landlord can give a second Notice under section 68 of the RTA (“Second Notice”) if new conduct or a situation arises that takes place more than seven days but less than six months after the First N5 Notice was given.

The reason for the Second Notice does not have to be the same behaviour or issue that led to the First Notice. Conduct or issues that can form the basis for a Second Notice under section 68 of the RTA are:

A Notice under section 68 of the RTA has a shortened notice period and cannot be voided by the tenant. The landlord can apply to the LTB to terminate the tenancy and evict the tenant as soon as it is given to the tenant. The landlord can give the tenant a Second N5 Notice or another Second Notice under section 68 regardless of whether the tenant has voided the First N5 Notice.

Conduct or events that took place before the end of the voiding period for the First N5 Notice cannot form the basis for eviction on a Second Notice. This limitation period applies to the date of conduct, not the date the Second Notice is given. See: TEL 99269 19 (Re), 2019 CanLII 87627 (ON LTB).

Additionally, if the Second Notice is based solely on the same incidents that were listed on the First N5 Notice, the Second Notice will be found invalid and the landlord may not be able to proceed with their application for termination and eviction. See: Kajan v Medeiros, 2021 CanLII 85723 (ON LTB) and Estate of Sathyamoorthy v Parks, 2020 CanLII 117577 (ON LTB); TEL 02567 19 (Re), 2020 CanLII 61212 (ON LTB), TEL 79009 17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 60227 (ON LTB).

Date When Application May be Filed

An eviction application based on rent arrears cannot be filed until at least the day after the termination date specified in the N4 Notice (see subsection 74(1)).

An eviction application based on a First N5 Notice for undue damage, interference with reasonable enjoyment or overcrowding (sections 62, 64 or 67) cannot be filed until after the seven-day period for the tenant to remedy the situation has passed without the tenant complying.

For all other types of eviction applications (e.g., personal use, safety, illegal act, tenant's notice to vacate, etc.), the application may be filed after the Notice is given (see subsection 69(1)).

Under subsection 69(2), an eviction application based on any ground other than unpaid rent cannot be filed more than 30 days after the termination date set out in the Notice of Termination; otherwise, the application will be dismissed. There is no deadline for rent arrears applications.

Completeness of the Application

It is the landlord's responsibility to ensure that their application is correct and complete, and that all necessary supporting documents have been filed, such as the relevant Notice(s) and Certificates of Service.

Section 185 of the RTA provides the landlord must sign the application or authorize someone who is able to represent the landlord under the Law Society Act to do so. That person must be a licensee or someone able to provide legal services through an exemption under By-Law 4 of the Law Society of Ontario: Rivera v. Eleveld, 2022 ONSC 446.

Where the landlord is a corporation, an authorized corporate representative such as a director or officer may sign.

Section 53 of O. Reg. 516/06 under the RTA specifies what information must accompany applications when they are filed with the LTB. Applications for eviction based on Notices given under sections 48, 49, and 50 require additional documents to be filed. See section “Affidavit or Declaration” in Guideline 12 - Eviction for Personal Use, Demolition, Repairs and Conversion and Tenant Applications for Bad Faith.

Section 59 of O.Reg. 516/06 under the RTA and Rule 4.5 of the LTB’s Rules of Procedure provide that where Notices, affidavits or Certificates of Service cannot be uploaded at the same time as an application is filed on TOP, they must be filed with the LTB within 5 calendar days. Rule 6.10 provides that an application which is incomplete because it does not include documents required by the RTA, regulations or Rules will not be accepted.

Where the required documents are not filed within five days of the landlord filing the application, the hearing Member may consider whether to extend the time or dismiss the application (See section 190 of the RTA and section 56 of O.Reg. 516/06 under the RTA).

Other Claims on a L2 Application

On a L2 Application to End a Tenancy and Evict a Tenant or Collect Money (“L2 Application”) a landlord can ask for both termination of the tenancy and for an order requiring the tenant to pay compensation to the landlord. Termination and compensation can be sought in the same L2 Application. When completing the application, the landlord must clearly indicate if they are claiming termination, compensation, or both.

Certain claims for compensation are only available where a landlord is also claiming termination of the tenancy. These are:

On a L2 Application, regardless of whether they are claiming termination, a landlord may ask for an order requiring the tenant to pay them:

When proven at the hearing, these claims for compensation result in an order requiring the tenant to pay money to the landlord, but do not terminate the tenancy. Therefore, a landlord does not need to serve a Notice of Termination before making these claims in an L2 Application.

The L2 Application requires the landlord to provide details about each claim and the landlord must be able to prove their claim at the hearing.

Where a landlord wants both termination and compensation for the same events, the landlord must claim both on the L2 Application.

For example, if the landlord is seeking termination and eviction based on a N5 Notice for undue damage, and they also want to claim the cost to repair or replace the damaged property, the landlord must specifically claim both termination and compensation on the L2 Application. The landlord should also explain in detail what damage occurred to the property, why it is undue, why they think it was negligently or wilfully caused by the tenant, an occupant or a guest of the tenant. With respect to the claim for compensation, the landlord should also explain how they calculated their costs to repair or to replace the damaged property where repair was not possible. Evidence of the damage and the repair or replacement costs, such as pictures and invoices, should be provided to the tenant and the LTB before the hearing in accordance with Rule 19.1 of the LTB’s Rules of Procedure.

Similarly, if claiming unpaid utilities, the landlord must complete the table on the L2 Application to provide the required information for each unpaid utility bill that the tenant was required to pay under the terms of the tenancy agreement. The utility bills and the tenancy agreement requiring the tenants to pay the utility costs should be provided to the tenant and the LTB before the hearing in accordance with Rule 19.1 of the LTB’s Rules of Procedure. If the landlord wants to claim additional utility charges that became due after the landlord filed their L2 Application, the Member will consider whether the tenant was made aware these charges would be claimed at the hearing in deciding whether to amend the application and permit the landlord to seek these.

Finally, if claiming out-of-pocket costs incurred, or that will be incurred, as a result of substantial interference, the landlord should be prepared to explain how the costs arose as a result of the substantial interference and how these were calculated including with invoices where appropriate.

If the landlord is seeking daily compensation for each day the tenant remains in the rental unit after the termination date set out in the Notice of Termination, in addition to evidence that supports the grounds for termination, at the hearing, the landlord must be prepared to provide evidence about the new rent that has become due and any rent payments made by the tenant since the termination date set out in the Notice of Termination. Similarly, with respect to administrative and NSF charges, the landlord should be prepared to demonstrate a cheque was returned due to insufficient funds and any amount a bank charged the landlord for the return of that cheque.

In any LTB order which terminates a tenancy and where arrears, daily compensation, compensation for undue damage, unpaid utilities or expenses due to substantial interference are ordered, the LTB will inquire whether the landlord is holding a last month's rent deposit from the tenant and will credit the tenant with this amount, as well as any interest owing on this last month’s rent deposit.

Payment of Arrears after a L1 Application Is Filed

Subsection 74(2) of the RTA provides that if, before the eviction order is issued, the tenant pays the landlord all of the arrears, the application fee and any additional rent that is owed as of the date of payment by the tenant, the application is discontinued. If the tenant has discontinued the L1 Application, the landlord should file a completed Request for a Discontinuance Order Without a Hearing form with the LTB as soon as possible. The LTB may then issue an order and cancel the hearing (see “Amount Payable to Prevent an Eviction – Before the order is issued” in Guideline 11: Rent Arrears).

Where no discontinuance order has issued in advance of the hearing, the tenant may still be permitted to raise issues under section 82 at the hearing, even if the application was discontinued. Similarly, where a landlord attends at a hearing to withdraw their application, the tenant may still be permitted to raise issues under section 82 (see section “Tenant Issues Raised during Rent Arrears Hearings” in Guideline 11: Rent Arrears).

Where a tenant has not paid the amount required to discontinue the application before the hearing, the landlord must complete the "L1/L9 Information Update as of the Hearing Date" form containing complete and accurate information about the tenancy and any arrears of rent owed as of the day of the hearing. A copy must be provided to the tenant and the LTB at least 5 days before the hearing.

Under Rule 10.3 of the LTB’s Rules of Procedure, where a landlord has not provided their completed L1/L9 Update form to the tenant and LTB five days in advance of the hearing, the LTB may:

  1. direct that the L1/L9 Update form be completed during the hearing;

  2. proceed with other matters until the L1/L9 Update form has been completed; and/or,

  3. decline to award the landlord their costs of filing the application.

Payment Made after the Order Becomes Enforceable

See section “Amount Payable to Prevent an Eviction – After the order is issued”, in Guideline 11: Rent Arrears.

Expiry of the Eviction Order

Under section 81 of the RTA, an order of the LTB that evicts someone expires 6 months after the date the order takes effect unless it is filed with the appropriate Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) before that time. Once an eviction order expires, the landlord cannot apply at the LTB for another eviction order based on the same issue.

The 6-month period in section 81 for a landlord to file an eviction order with the Sheriff does not continue to run while the order is subject to a stay as a result of an appeal to the Divisional Court or a proceeding at the LTB such as a review request or set aside motion. See: Elguindy v. Galaxy Real Estate Core Ontario LP, 2024 ONSC 5911 and Nickoloff v. Sniderman, 2024 ONSC 6121. In addition, under section 190(2) of the RTA, the LTB may have the authority to consider extending the deadline for filing an order with the Sheriff if the request is made before the LTB issues an eviction order.

Ontario Rule of Civil Procedure 60.10(4) provides that once filed with the Sheriff an LTB eviction order continues to be enforceable for one year from the date it takes effect. Parties can also seek an order from the Court extending the one-year time period.

If a party believes that the Sheriff has failed to correctly enforce an eviction order issued by the LTB, they must pursue this concern directly with the Sheriff. This is because, once the LTB issues a final order it cannot provide additional direction to the Sheriff.

1Notices are not required for eviction applications filed under sections 77-79 and 94 of the RTA.