If a landlord proves their application to evict a tenant at a hearing, the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”) must then review and consider all the circumstances to determine whether the eviction should be refused or delayed. The LTB may refuse to order eviction where it is not unfair to do so. Eviction may be delayed if the parties at the hearing agree or where it would not be unfair to the landlord or other tenants of the residential complex. In cases where the tenant is at “fault” there must also be compelling reasons to delay the eviction. In some cases, the Board must refuse the eviction. These powers are referred to as "relief from eviction".
Legislation
Section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the "RTA") states:
Upon an application for an order evicting a tenant, the LTB may, despite any other provision of this Act or the tenancy agreement,
refuse to grant the application unless satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it would be unfair to refuse; or
subject to any prescribed limitations or conditions order that the enforcement of the order of eviction be postponed for a period of time.
If a hearing is held, the Board shall not grant the application unless it has reviewed the circumstances and considered whether or not it should exercise its powers under subsection (1).
Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), the Board shall refuse to grant the application where satisfied that:
the landlord is in serious breach of the landlord's responsibilities under this Act or of any material covenant in the tenancy agreement;
the reason for the application being brought is that the tenant has complained to a government authority of the landlord's violation of a law dealing with health, safety, housing or maintenance standards;
the reason for the application being brought is that the tenant has attempted to secure or enforce his or her legal rights;
the reason for the application being brought is that the tenant is a member of a tenant's association or is attempting to organize such an association; or
the reason for the application being brought is that the rental unit is occupied by children and the occupation by the children does not constitute overcrowding.
In addition, subsections 83(4)-(5) of the RTA provide that the LTB must refuse to grant an application for eviction if the landlord has not paid any required compensation to the tenant.
Application of Section 83
The authority to grant relief from eviction under section 83 arises where a hearing of an application for an order to evict a tenant is held. This authority does not arise where an application is resolved without a hearing (e.g., in the issuing of an ex parte order under subsection 78(6) of the RTA) or where a hearing is held for another purpose (e.g., at a hearing of a set aside motion under subsection 74(11) of the RTA).
Section 83 must still be considered by the LTB even if the tenant does not attend the hearing or where the application would normally be resolved without a hearing by an ex parte order but it has been sent to a hearing (subsection 77 (1) or 78 (1) applications). The LTB must also consider the circumstances regardless of whether the tenant requests relief from eviction and may pose questions to the landlord or tenant to better understand the circumstances.
Further, subsections 83(3), 83(4) and 83(5) provide for mandatory denial of eviction in certain situations. If the LTB finds that any of those provisions apply, the LTB cannot issue an order for eviction.
Discretionary Refusal of an Eviction
Where a hearing of an application for eviction is held, the LTB must review and consider all the circumstances to determine whether to exercise its discretion to refuse an eviction. For example:
in a case involving an allegation of an illegal act, the LTB must consider whether the reason is serious enough to justify eviction,
in a case involving a landlord's allegation of interference with reasonable enjoyment, the LTB must consider whether refusing to evict the tenant would result applications against the landlord by other tenants for interference with their reasonable enjoyment, and
in an application for arrears, the LTB must consider whether refusing to evict the tenant would result in an unreasonable financial hardship to the landlord.
In "having regard to all the circumstances" the Member shall consider the relevant circumstances of the tenant and the landlord and the impact on other occupants in the residential complex. The tenant may present reasons why they should not be evicted. The landlord may explain why the refusal to evict would be unfair to them or to other occupants in the residential complex.
Where the LTB exercises its discretion to refuse to evict a tenant, the LTB may attach conditions to such an order that one or both parties must follow.
Circumstances Justifying Discretionary Refusal
The tenant's conduct has been an important consideration in many past decisions. For example:
Where a tenant fell far behind in their rent, but has recently made extra payments to catch up, and now owes relatively little, discretion to refuse eviction may be exercised. However, the tenant will not be excused from paying their arrears or new rent that comes due until the arrears are paid in full, and any order will generally require payment of both of these amounts or eviction may result,
If a tenant persistently failed to pay rent on the date it became due because they lost their job, and the tenant recently found a new job, eviction may be refused on the condition that rent is paid in full and on time for a number of months following the hearing.
Other relevant factors may include whether the reason for eviction has been repeated, the impact the tenant is having on the landlord or other tenants, whether the tenant has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate the reason for the eviction, and other indications of good faith on the part of the tenant.
A landlord's actions or conduct which led to the eviction should also be considered in determining whether to grant relief from eviction. For example where:
the landlord unreasonably prevented a tenant from repairing damage done by a guest or child,
the landlord has not accepted or deposited rent paid in a timely fashion, or
the landlord excused other tenants for the same minor breach but is pursuing eviction of this tenant for the same breach.
Discretionary Delay of an Eviction
The LTB must also review and consider the circumstances to determine whether to exercise its discretion to delay an eviction.
Effective September 21, 2026, section 8.4 of O.Reg, 516/06 under the RTA provides the LTB can only exercise its authority to delay an eviction under subsection 83(1)(b) if the landlord consents or the following conditions are met:
In the case of an application for an order evicting a tenant based on a notice of termination given under section 48, 49 or 50 of the Act (landlord’s own use, purchaser’s own use or demolition/conversion/repair), the LTB is satisfied that it would not be unfair to the landlord or other tenants of the residential complex to postpone the enforcement of the eviction order.
In the case of any other application for an order evicting a tenant, the LTB is satisfied that,
it would not be unfair to the landlord or other tenants of the residential complex to postpone the enforcement of the eviction order, and
there are compelling grounds to postpone the enforcement of the eviction order.
If the LTB is not satisfied these conditions are met it does not have the authority to delay an eviction.
The date the landlord is entitled to file an eviction order with the Court Enforcement Office (“Sheriff”) for enforcement – the eviction date - is always specified in an LTB order.
Although the time period is not set out in the RTA, LTB orders commonly provide that the eviction date is 11 days after the date of the order. Therefore, in most cases a decision by the LTB to postpone the enforcement of an eviction order under clause 83(1) (b) of the RTA means the order cannot be filed with the Sheriff until a date that is more than 11 days after the date the order is issued.
Where an order for arrears of rent and termination of the tenancy is issued, section 74 of the RTA provides that a tenant has the opportunity to void the order and continue the tenancy if they pay all of the rent arrears and costs owing to the landlord by the eviction date. If the tenant does not make the necessary payment, the landlord may then file the order at the Sheriff for enforcement. In these cases, the 11-day period takes into account the time it may take for a tenant to receive an order from the LTB and acquire the rent money to pay to the landlord.
If the eviction order issues for a reason other than rent arrears and so cannot be voided by the tenant, the 11 days gives the tenant time to vacate the rental unit before the landlord can file the order with the Sheriff. A shorter period of time may be provided where the LTB finds there has been serious misconduct by the tenant, their guests or other occupants of the rental unit.
Generally, the Member would take into account the time that it will normally take the landlord to enforce the order through the Court Enforcement Office.
Even if "all of the circumstances" did not justify refusal of the eviction, the Member may look at the same issues of unfairness to each party, and decide whether or not to delay the eviction. Eviction may appear to be unfair if no other accommodation is available to the tenant (e.g., a social housing tenant). However, a case in which the landlord is in a better financial position than the tenant does not justify refusal of the eviction. Ordinarily, the tenant's lack of resources will be considered as a reason to delay an eviction, not to refuse it. However, all circumstances must be considered.
The following are some examples of tenant circumstances where a delay has been considered; however, these examples are based on decisions that were made before section 8.4 of O.Reg. 516/06 came into effect on September 21, 2026, and therefore may no longer be applicable:
The tenant asserts local market conditions are unusually "tight" and that it will take some time to find suitable accommodation.
The tenant has a severe medical condition which makes it difficult to find other accommodation, and there is no one who can help them search for a vacant unit.
The tenant's family is very large and they require at least five-bedroom unit, similar to their current unit, there are very few such units in the local market, and none are currently available.
Rent Arrears that Arose During COVID-19
On July 21, 2020, the following provision was added to the RTA:
83(6) Without restricting the generality of subsections (1) and (2), if a hearing is held in respect of an application under section 69 for an order evicting a tenant based on arrears of rent arising in whole or in part during the period beginning on March 17, 2020 and ending on the prescribed date, in determining whether to exercise its powers under subsection (1) the Board shall consider whether the landlord has attempted to negotiate an agreement with the tenant including terms of payment for the tenant's arrears.
What this means is that when deciding whether to grant discretionary relief from eviction for an application about rent arrears on or after March 17, 2020, the LTB must consider whether the landlord tried to reach a payment agreement with the tenant before the hearing. Therefore, at the hearing the parties or their representatives must be prepared to discuss whether the landlord and the tenant tried to reach an agreement. If the parties tried to reach an agreement but were not successful, the details of the negotiations should not be discussed during the hearing.
Subsection 83(6) applies to rent arrears that arose, at least in part, starting on March 17, 2020, and ending on a date to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor. As of September 21, 2026, the ending date had not been proclaimed.
Mandatory Refusal of Eviction
Mandatory refusal applies to situations which the RTA provides are serious enough to justify refusal - regardless of any other circumstances. If a tenant raises circumstances which might fall into subsections 83(3), 83(4) or 83(5), the Member must decide whether it applies. Further, if it is found that any of those subsections apply, the Member must refuse the eviction. Divisional Court decisions which address this provision include: Kim v. Leung, 2025 ONSC 6585; Vorobyev v. O’Shanter Development Company Ltd., 2025 ONSC 1251; Stirling v. 399527 Ontario Ltd., 2020 ONSC 1098; Loc Le v. O’Grady, 2018 ONSC 6387.
83(3)(a) - Serious and Ongoing Breach of Landlord Obligations
The LTB must refuse an eviction if the landlord is in serious and ongoing breach of the landlord's responsibilities under the RTA or the tenancy agreement.
For the LTB to consider denying eviction on this ground, it must be established at the hearing that there is a serious breach and that it relates to a significant provision of the tenancy agreement. In addition, the wording in s. 83(3)(a) is in the present tense meaning the serious breach must be ongoing at the time of the hearing. See: Frolov v. Shakori, 2026 ONSC 4320; Shearer v. Oz, 2024 ONSC 1723.
The RTA does not define “serious breach”. Many claims under section 83(3)(a) of the RTA are related to the landlord's maintenance obligations. In Puterbough v. Canada (Public Works and Government Services), [2005] O.J. No 5727, the Divisional Court considered what a serious breach meant in the context of a landlord’s maintenance obligations. The Court explained it means more than a rental premises being in poor condition or in need of significant work and that extensive repairs, by themselves, do not establish a serious breach. The purpose of section 83(3)(a) is to ensure that landlords do not use eviction to avoid statutory obligations. The inquiry is contextual and focused on current, ongoing noncompliance.
A serious health or safety concern due to lack of repair may be enough to justify refusal. Conditions which deprive the tenant of the full use of the premises may also be considered serious, particularly if it affects the kitchen, bathroom, or sleeping areas.
Members must decide whether other repair problems constitute a "serious breach" of obligations, considering the landlord's actions to resolve the problems as well. Other factors such as how long the breach was ongoing or the level of risk to the tenants may also be relevant. Similarly, the tenant's conduct may also be relevant. For example, if the tenant never complained to the landlord about the problem, they may not have considered it serious. Additionally, the tenant should not have contributed to the problem by obstructing the landlord’s repair efforts. Further, if the landlord was not aware or could not reasonably have been expected to be aware of the problem, the Member may find that the landlord is not in serious breach.
Finally, the age of the property and the landlord's intentions for the property may be factors for the Member to consider. For example, if the landlord is intending to demolish the property and the tenant was served a notice to terminate for that reason, the Member would consider this factor before deciding to refuse to evict: Puterbough v. Canada (Public Works and Government Services), [2005] O.J. No 5727.
The tenant may also raise breaches of other obligations of the landlord under the RTA. For example, the RTA imposes on landlords the obligation not to illegally enter a unit, or harass a tenant. The Member must decide the issue and, if satisfied that the facts presented show a serious breach that is ongoing, they must refuse the eviction.
Even if the breach is not found to be serious and ongoing such that there is no mandatory refusal, the lack of repair or other breach of obligation is still considered as part of all the circumstances in deciding whether discretionary refusal is appropriate under section 83(2) of the RTA.
83(3)(b)-(e) - Retaliatory Actions by the Landlord
The LTB must refuse eviction if the reason the landlord applied for eviction is described in clause (b) to (e) of subsection 83(3). It must be established that the reason for the application is one of the above motivations. It is difficult to prove another person's state of mind. The landlord may assert that the reason stated in the application was the reason for the application. See: Faruk v. The Landlord and Tenant Board, 2023 ONSC 2191; Loc Le v. O’Grady, 2018 ONSC 6387; Okoye v. De Melo, 2021 ONSC 6201.
The tenant may try to show from the landlord's conduct that the motivation was retaliatory. For example, the tenant may be able to show that the landlord has evicted other tenants who asserted their rights. The tenant might also show that the landlord ignored the same issue that is the basis for this eviction, for other tenants. A pattern of conduct may be considered by the Board, but it may also be explained by the landlord.
Even if the tenant does not establish that the reason for the application was retaliation and, thus refusal is not mandatory, the facts that support the tenant's claim will be part of the circumstances considered under section 83(2) of the RTA.
83(4)-(5) - Compensation owing by the Landlord
In most cases, when a landlord gives a tenant a notice of termination under sections 48-50 of the RTA, the landlord must also pay the tenant a specified amount of compensation or provide another rental unit that is acceptable to the tenant. Section 55.1 of the RTA provides that this compensation must be paid by the termination date on the notice of termination and subsections 83(4) and (5) state that the LTB cannot issue an eviction order until the compensation is paid. For more information on this issue see LTB Interpretation Guideline 12: Eviction for Personal Use, Demolition, Repairs and Conversion.
Applications Under Section 77
Under subsection 77(4) of the RTA, the LTB may make an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant without notice to the tenant and without a hearing (ex-parte), if the landlord has filed an application (Form L3) with the LTB under subsection 77(1).
Decisions Made Ex Parte
A L3 application (L3) is based on either an agreement between the landlord and tenant to terminate the tenancy or a notice of termination given by the tenant and is generally resolved by an ex parte order issued pursuant to subsection 77 (4).
The tenant may file a motion under subsection 77(6) to set aside the ex parte order. The LTB then holds a hearing to consider the tenant's motion. As the hearing is to consider the motion to set aside and is not a hearing to consider an application for an order to evict a tenant, subsection 83 does not apply. Instead, the Board exercises similar discretionary relief under subsection 77(8), which provides:
If the respondent makes a motion under subsection (6), the Board shall, after a hearing,
make an order setting aside the order under subsection (4), if:
the landlord and tenant did not enter into an agreement to terminate the tenancy, and
the tenant did not give the landlord notice of termination of the tenancy;
make an order setting aside the order under subsection (4), if the prescribed circumstances, conditions or tests have been satisfied; or
make an order lifting the stay of the order under subsection (4), effective immediately or on a future date specified in the order.
Effective September 21, 2026, the prescribed circumstances, conditions, or tests for the purposes of s. 77(8)(b) are set out in section 8.2 of O.Reg.516/06.
Subsection 8.2(1) directs the LTB to set aside the order if it is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances that it would not be unfair to do so. However, subsection 8.2(2) further specifies that when making that determination the LTB cannot consider a change in the tenant’s circumstances that occurred after the landlord and the tenant agreed to terminate the tenancy or the tenant gave the landlord the notice of termination.
Decisions Made When a Hearing is Held
Where a L3 application filed under subsection 77(1) is sent directly to hearing and no ex parte order issues, section 83 applies.
In applying section 83 in these circumstances, Members will consider all the circumstances including those surrounding the signing of the agreement to terminate, the giving of the notice to terminate, and what has happened since.
Applications Under Section 78
Under subsection 78(6) of the RTA, the LTB may issue an order evicting the tenant without a hearing, if the landlord has filed an L4 application with the LTB under subsection 78(1) of the RTA.
Decisions Made Ex Parte
A L4 application (L4) is based on a tenant’s breach of a conditional order or a settlement agreed to under section 194 of the RTA (“mediated settlement”) and is generally resolved by an ex parte order under subsection 78(6). Where an ex parte order issues under subsection 78(6), and the conditional order or mediated settlement required the payment of arrears or the cost to repair or replace damaged property, the landlord may also ask for an order for payment under subsections 78(3) and (7).
The tenant may file a motion under subsection 78(9), to set aside an ex parte order. The LTB then holds a hearing to consider the tenant's motion. As the hearing is to consider the motion and is not a hearing to consider an application for an order to evict a tenant, section 83 does not apply. Instead, the LTB exercises discretionary relief under subsections 78(11) (b) & (c) of the RTA.
Under subsection 78(11)(b) the LTB may set aside an ex parte order if the LTB is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it would not be unfair to do so.
Members therefore have the discretion to grant relief to the tenant by setting aside the ex parte order, even where the tenant has breached a conditional order or mediated settlement. In considering whether to exercise their discretion, Members should take into account:
Circumstances that occurred after the date of the conditional order or mediated settlement that caused the party to be unable to meet the terms of the agreement or order. (Circumstances that occurred before the conditional order issued or the mediated settlement was signed should have been considered at the time the order or the agreement was signed),
The circumstances of both the landlord and tenant and the impact on other occupants in the residential complex in delaying or denying eviction.
Setting aside the ex parte order results in the original order or mediated settlement remaining in full force and effect. In some cases, it may be impossible for the tenant to fulfill the conditions contained in the conditional order or mediated settlement (i.e., the deadline for payments has passed), and/or the parties wish to consent to new conditions.
The matter may be resolved in one of the following ways:
The parties can consent to be bound by a new order to be issued by the LTB containing new terms or conditions,
The parties can consent to be bound by a new mediated settlement containing new terms or conditions, and the ex parte order is set aside by order which provided the L4 appilcation was resolved through a mediated settlement, or
The LTB may revise the terms of a conditional order or mediated settlement if the Member considers it appropriate to do so (e.g., a revised payment schedule). In exercising this authority, the Member may, consider imposing conditions that are as close as possible to the original conditions.
If the tenant's motion to set aside the ex parte order is denied and no discretion is exercised under subsection 78(11)(b), the LTB must still decide when to lift the stay. This permits the landlord to enforce the ex parte order. Under subsection 78(11)(c) the lifting of the stay may take effect immediately or on a future date. The Member therefore has the discretion to determine when to lift the stay. In considering this relief, the Member should take into account the same criteria set out for subsection 78(11)(b).
Decisions Made When a Hearing is Held
Where a L4 application filed under subsection 78(1) is sent to hearing for clarification, no ex parte order issues and section 83 applies, Subsection 83(2) provides that the Board shall not grant the application unless it has reviewed the circumstances and considered whether or not it should exercise its powers under subsection (1).
At a hearing of a L4 application, the LTB will consider all the circumstances including those surrounding the issuance of the conditional order, the signing of the mediated settlement, and what has happened since.