Review of an Order Interpretation Guideline 8

(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 LTB 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.

Introduction

Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decisions are final and binding but may be appealed to the Divisional Court , which is a branch of the Superior Court of Justice, on questions of law. Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA) ss. 209(1), 210(1). LTB orders may also be subject to applications for judicial review at the Divisional Court.

In accordance with s. s. 209(2) of the RTA and O. Reg. 178/26 under the RTA, effective July 1, 2026, the LTB may exercise its discretion to review a final order or decision only if it is satisfied that one or more of the following circumstances are present:

  1. The person making the request was a party to the proceeding but was not reasonably able to participate for one of the following reasons:
    1. The party did not receive adequate notice of the hearing or of the issues to be decided at the hearing.
    2. The party’s inability to participate was wholly or partly attributable to the LTB.
    3. The party was misled by another party to the proceeding.
    4. The party was affected by a serious emergency, such as:
      1. a serious illness, a serious injury or hospitalization, or
      2. the serious illness, serious injury, hospitalization or death of an immediate family member.
    5. The party was incarcerated or incapable.
    6. The occurrence of a natural disaster or other similar circumstance.
  2. The decision or order is the consequence of one of the following serious errors:
    1. The LTB acted outside of its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness.
    2. The LTB made an error of law, fact or mixed fact and law.
    3. The LTB ordered a remedy that is significantly outside of the range of usual and proportionate remedies for the type of proceeding.
    4. The terms of the order are unenforceable.
  3. The person making the request has obtained evidence that:
    1. was not before the LTB during the proceeding,
    2. could not have been obtained by the person before the decision or order was made, and
    3. would likely have affected the result of the proceeding had it been before the LTB.

In determining a review request, the LTB considers the public interest in preserving the finality of its decisions together with the opportunity to correct a serious error, consider material evidence that was not and could not have been before the LTB at the time of the hearing, or address a party’s inability to participate in the proceeding without the need for the person to appeal or seek judicial review.

A review is not an appeal or an opportunity to change the way a case was presented. It is a discretionary process to allow parties to challenge a final LTB order in specific circumstances: So v. Canadian Mental Health Association, Toronto Branch, 2024 ONSC 3371 (Div.Ct.).

The LTB has explained the review process as follows:

The purpose of the review process is not to provide parties with an opportunity of presenting a better or different case than they did at first instance. There is nothing in the record or in the request for review to support a determination that the Member applied improper principles in assessing the evidence introduced or that there was insufficient evidence before the Board to support its conclusions. I would not interfere with the assessment of the evidence by the Member of first instance, who had the opportunity of observing the witnesses and of hearing the evidence in its totality.

TSL-51694-14-IN-RV (Re), 2015 CanLII 23959 (ON LTB) at para 10.

See also Forest Quarter Family Residences c/o M.F. Arnsby Property Management Ltd. v Carter, 2025 ONLTB 53956 (CanLII); Nabovati v Abbasi, 2024 ONLTB 65429 (CanLII); TEL-25281-12-RV (Re), 2012 CanLII 45139 (ON LTB).

Only Final Orders May be Reviewed

Requests for review must be about a final order or an interim order which makes a final decision about a party's rights (Rule 26.1). For example, an interim order terminating a tenancy is a final decision about a party's rights. See for example: TST-00075-18-RV (Re), 2019 CanLII 134430 (ON LTB); TET-81705-17-IN2-RV (Re), 2017 CanLII 59908 (ON LTB); TSL-60151-15-IN-RV (Re), 2015 CanLII 25679 (ON LTB).

An interim order that merely requires parties to disclose evidence, orders an interim payment or makes a finding that a person should be added as a party are examples of orders that do not make a final decision about a party's rights, and therefore cannot be the subject of a review request. See for example: Klepacz v Ogbonna, 2025 ONLTB 37454 (CanLII); Pham v Deschambeault, 2021 CanLII 148005 (ON LTB).

Only One Review Request is Permitted

A requestor may not make more than one request to review the same order. If the LTB issues a review order, the party who made the request to review cannot make a second review request to challenge the review order. If a party attempts to file a second review request it may be dismissed by the LTB without consideration of the merits. See for example: Mahiny v Myers, 2026 ONLTB 17472 (CanLII); DUpont/Lansdowne Holdings Inc. v Reis, 2026 ONLTB 16694 (CanLII).

A different party may request a review of the same order for different reasons (Rule 26.18-26.19).

Who May Request a Review

Any party to the proceeding at the LTB or any other person who is directly affected by a final order is considered a party and may request a review; RTA s.187, Rule 26.1-26.2. For example:

A person who was a party to the proceeding at the LTB, or who claims they should have been a party to the proceeding, may file a review request on the ground that they were not reasonably able to participate in the proceeding for reasons outside of their control. For example:

Request Form

The LTB's Request to Review an Order form and the instructions are available at tribunalsontario.ca/ltb.

Reference to an ‘Order’ in the LTB’s Request to Review form includes other types of final decisions that may be contained in Endorsements or Member Directions.

The person requesting the review must provide the following information:

If additional pages are attached to the LTB’s form they cannot exceed 10 double-spaced pages in length. This page limit does not apply to any evidence and cases that are being relied upon and have been attached to the form.

Where the LTB’s form is not used, the request to review must be in writing, be clearly identifiable as a request for review and include all of the above information.

The LTB may refuse to accept a review request that does not contain the required information (Rule 26.7 - 26.8.1).

Rule 4 explains how to file the request with the LTB. The request to review is not served on the other parties unless the LTB makes this direction.

Fee

The fee for a request to review must be paid at the time the request is filed unless the requestor is granted a fee waiver. If the request to review is granted after a hearing is held the LTB may refund the fee.

Time for Review

If the order being reviewed was issued by the LTB on or after July 1, 2026, the request for review must be made within 15 days of the day it was issued: RTA s. 209(3). If you intend to request a review you must do so without delay.

If the order being reviewed was issued by the LTB before July 1, 2026, the request for review must be made within 30 days of the date it was issued (Rule 26.4-26.6).

If the deadline for filing a review falls on a Saturday, Sunday or another day on which the LTB is closed, the review request may be filed on the next business day (Rule 1.14).

If the request is late the requester must also ask the LTB to extend the time and provide reasons explaining the delay. The Request to Extend Deadline form must be filed together with the request for review (Rule 16.2). The LTB will not consider a request to extend time unless it is made together with the request for review.

In deciding whether to extend time for review the LTB may consider the requestor's reasons for the delay, the length of the delay, any prejudice caused by the delay, whether the request is made in good faith, the merits of the review request, and any other factor the LTB determines is relevant. See Rule 16.4. See for example: Coish v Red Leaf Investment, 2025 ONLTB 29669 (CanLII); Homeland Non-Profit Housing Complex Inc. v Mclean, 2024 ONLTB 93579 (CanLII).

In Kim v. Leung, 2025 ONSC 6585, the Divisional Court confirmed that the LTB has broad discretion with respect to its consideration of a request to extend time to file a review and is not required to address all of the factors identified in Rule 16.4 in every case. See also: Magno v. Lakhany, 2025 ONSC 5235; Jedadiah Drummond v. Ridgeford Charitable Foundation, 2024 ONSC 4658.

The Review Process

There are two stages to the LTB's review process. The first stage is a preliminary review conducted without a hearing. After conducting a preliminary review, the LTB may dismiss the request or send it to the second stage: the review hearing. See for example: 1720658 Ontario Inc. v Williams, 2025 ONLTB 89350 (CanLII).

Preliminary Review

The preliminary review is normally conducted by a designated LTB Member, Vice-Chair or the Associate Chair.

The LTB conducts the preliminary review by considering the contents of the review request and the LTB’s record without holding a hearing. At the preliminary review stage the adjudicator determines if the requestor has established one or more of the following:

  1. the requestor may not have been reasonably able to participate in the proceeding;
  2. the order may be a consequence of a serious error or
  3. the requestor may have obtained new evidence that could not have been obtained before the decision was made, and would likely have affected the result of the proceeding had it been before the LTB.

If the adjudicator determines that one or more of these grounds may be established, a review hearing will usually be scheduled to provide the parties with an opportunity to provide evidence and submissions about the review request.

The request may be dismissed at the preliminary review stage if the adjudicator is not satisfied that any of the grounds for review have been established. See for example: Lemoncorp Investments Inc v Staton, 2026 ONLTB 14328 (CanLII); Wen v Benson, 2026 ONLTB 6723 (CanLII); Cardabikis v Palmer, 2026 ONLTB 16798 (CanLII); 1256528 Ontario Inc. v Court, 2026 ONLTB 7012 (CanLII); Laurin v Underwood, 2026 ONLTB 14591 (CanLII).

The request may be also dismissed at the preliminary review stage if it was not filed in time, all the information required by Rule 26.8 has not been provided, the request does not provide enough detail in its support, or it does not meet the tests for review (Rule 26.9).

A request which simply alleges the order is wrong will usually be dismissed at the preliminary review. See for example: Sun v Lodhi, 2026 ONLTB 1256 (CanLII); TNL-09252-RV (Re), 2008 CanLII 82457 (ON LTB).

If the request is dismissed following the preliminary review stage the LTB will issue an order but is not required to provide reasons for its decision.

Where the request is not dismissed, the LTB will issue a notice of hearing to all parties for the review hearing, together with a copy of the review request.

Stay of the Order

At the preliminary review stage the reviewing adjudicator will decide whether the original order should be stayed (suspended) while the review request is being considered by the LTB. All submissions about the stay should be included in the request. The LTB rarely asks parties for more submissions or holds a hearing on this issue because reviews are processed quickly.

The LTB will order a stay when it is satisfied a party will suffer harm that cannot be undone if the order is enforced before the review proceeding is completed. For example, an order for eviction may be stayed to allow the review to be considered before the eviction is carried out, or a landlord may be ordered to not re-rent the tenant’s unit until the review request is decided if the tenant has already been evicted.

The LTB may include conditions to address any prejudice to a party resulting from the stay. For example, if the dispute is about arrears of rent the tenant may be required to pay some or all of the arrears into the LTB or to the Landlord as a condition of receiving or maintaining the stay.

The stay remains in force until the review is decided unless the LTB decides it is no longer appropriate or required. See for example: Hewitt v Byam, 2026 ONLTB 4509 (CanLII); Arora v Abbs, 2025 ONLTB 92502 (CanLII).

Note: The party who benefits from the stay must provide a copy of the stay order to the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) if the order is about eviction (Rule 25.3). LTB staff may also notify the Sheriff directly that a stay has been issued if the order is subject to enforcement in the near future.

Where an appeal or judicial review has been filed at the Divisional Court and there is a stay in place, the reviewing adjudicator will decide whether to lift any stay that may be in place in order to proceed with the review hearing.

The Review Hearing

Who hears the review?

A review hearing will normally be heard by a designated LTB Member, Vice Chair or the Associate Chair. The Member who issued the original order under review may be assigned to conduct the review hearing (Rule 26.13). In Decosse v. Miklos, 2019 ONSC 6034, the Divisional Court confirmed that there is no breach of procedural fairness or natural justice in having an LTB Member review their own decision.

Form of Hearing

In accordance with the Tribunals Ontario updated Practice Direction on Hearing Formats, review hearings will be conducted electronically and/or in writing with two exceptions:

  1. An in-person hearing may be held if a party can establish that it is required as an accommodation for an Ontario Human Rights Code-related need; or
  2. A party can establish that the hearing format will result in an unfair hearing.

A party to a review hearing may request that the hearing format be changed on the basis that the hearing format will result in an unfair hearing. More information about requesting a change to the hearing format is available on the Tribunals Ontario website.

At the review hearing the LTB considers the parties' evidence and submissions and decides the request to review. The request to review may then be dismissed or the LTB may decide to re-hear some or all of the application, ask the parties to provide additional evidence or submissions on a particular issue, or provide the parties with the opportunity to make further written submissions on a legal point.

The Re-Hearing

The LTB may make its decision on the request to review immediately after the review hearing or it may reserve its decision, meaning the adjudicator will make their decision on a later date. If the review is granted, the LTB will normally conduct a re-hearing of some or all of the issues in the application. The re-hearing may occur immediately after the review hearing has been completed or it may be conducted on a later date. Therefore, parties should disclose and file all relevant evidence prior to the review hearing and ensure their witnesses are available to testify at the review hearing in case the re-hearing proceeds on the same day.

Where appropriate, the LTB may consider changes in the relevant facts occurring after the date of the original hearing. For example, the LTB may consider whether a tenant has made new payments or a landlord has completed repairs.

After the re-hearing the LTB may:

See Rule 26.17 for more information.

If the original order is varied, suspended or cancelled the LTB may also order a refund of the filing fee paid to request the review. See s. 182 of the RTA.

Ground for Review: Not Reasonably Able to Participate

In order for the LTB to have the authority to grant a review on the ground of not reasonably able to participate, the requestor must establish on a balance of probabilities they were a party to the LTB’s proceeding but were not reasonably able to participate for one of the following reasons contained in O.Reg. 178/26:

  1. The party did not receive adequate notice of the hearing or of the issues to be decided at the hearing.
  2. The party’s inability to participate was wholly or partly attributable to the LTB.
  3. The party was misled by another party to the proceeding.
  4. The party was affected by a serious emergency, such as:
    1. a serious illness, a serious injury or hospitalization, or
    2. the serious illness, serious injury, hospitalization or death of an immediate family member.
  5. The party was incarcerated or incapable.
  6. The occurrence of a natural disaster or other similar circumstance.

The onus is on the requestor to demonstrate they were not reasonably able to participate for one of the specific reasons contained in O. Reg. 178/26 which are set out above. The request must provide a detailed explanation of why the requestor was unable to participate in the proceeding and satisfy the LTB they genuinely intended to participate. This may include evidence about whether the requestor was aware of the original hearing, the requestor's actions in preparing for the hearing, contacts with the LTB or other parties before the hearing, or seeking advice from a legal representative.

The Divisional Court has made a number of decisions addressing the issue of whether a party was reasonably able to participate in an LTB proceeding. However, these decisions were made before O.Reg 178/26 came into force on July 1, 2026, and therefore may no longer be applicable.

Examples of where the LTB found a party was "not reasonably able to participate" that concern the above grounds include:

Ground for Review: Serious Error

In order for the LTB to have the authority to grant a review on the ground of serious error, the requestor must establish on a balance of probabilities that the decision or order is the consequence of one of the following serious errors contained in O.Reg. 178/26:

  1. The LTB acted outside of its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness.
  2. The LTB made an error of law, fact or mixed fact and law.
  3. The LTB ordered a remedy that is significantly outside of the range of usual and proportionate remedies for the type of proceeding.
  4. The terms of the decision or order are unenforceable.

Errors of Jurisdiction or Material Breach of Procedural Fairness, and Unenforceable Terms

A review may be granted if the LTB finds that it did not have the authority to consider the application or exceeded its jurisdiction. This could include circumstances where there was not a residential tenancy relationship between the parties subject to the RTA or the LTB lacked the authority to include a specific term contained in the order. See for example: Himes v Boyd, 2026 ONLTB 4398 (CanLII); 2784335 Ontario Limited c.o.b. Greek Market Corner Ltd. v Yawo, 2026 ONLTB 4393 (CanLII); Nguyen v Veintimilla, 2025 ONLTB 57638 (CanLII).

The LTB has an obligation to conduct its proceedings in a procedurally fair manner. What is required to ensure a fair proceeding varies depending upon the circumstances. LTB Members have broad authority under ss. 23 and 25.0.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (SPPA), s. 201 of the RTA, and Rule 1.6, to control the proceedings before them, and make any orders necessary. In making procedural decisions the LTB is guided by s.183 of the RTA which requires the LTB to adopt the most expeditious method of determining the questions arising in a proceeding that affords all parties directly affected an adequate opportunity to know the issues and be heard on the matter. The Divisional Court has confirmed that the LTB’s procedural decisions are entitled to considerable deference: Hatzitrifonos v. City Park Co-operative Apartments Inc., 2026 ONSC 1590.

Under section 15 of the SPPA the LTB may exclude evidence that is not relevant or is unduly repetitious. Therefore, a Member is not required to place on the record all evidence offered at a hearing: TST-45943-13-RV (Re), 2015 CanLII 69353 (ON LTB); Johnson v Sayed-Ahmad, 2025 ONLTB 95990 (CanLII). However, a Member’s failure to allow a party to provide relevant, non-repetitious evidence on a central issue may be a material breach of procedural fairness. See for example: JFL Realty Inc. v Parr, 2025 ONLTB 77408 (CanLII).

Errors of Law, Fact, or Mixed Fact and Law

A request to review based on an alleged error of fact must include specific details of the alleged error and explain how a different finding of fact would change the result.

The original hearing Member's findings of fact and determinations are entitled to considerable deference. A request will not be granted simply because the reviewing adjudicator might have come to a different conclusion about the evidence. Even where it finds a factual error, the LTB may not exercise its discretion to review if the error is trivial, does not relate to a material issue in dispute or would not change the result. See for example: Free v Xia, 2025 ONLTB 93824 (CanLII); Lu v Morgan, 2025 ONLTB 38138 (CanLII).

In Browne v. Henley Crescent, 2026 ONSC 455 the Divisional Court found that a review request should not be granted simply because the adjudicator who conducted the review disagrees with a finding of fact or an exercise of discretion contained in a reasonable order.

The LTB must be satisfied that there appears to be no rational connection between the findings of fact and the evidence in the original hearing. See for example: Ramlochun v Diouf, 2026 ONLTB 11245 (CanLII); Margolin v Tallari, 2025 ONLTB 70152 (CanLII); LES IMMEUBLES MAJE v Barton, 2023 ONLTB 46833 (CanLII).

With respect to errors of law, the LTB will not exercise its discretion to review an order interpreting the RTA unless the interpretation conflicts with a binding decision of the Courts or is clearly wrong and unreasonable.

An error of fact or law made in the original order must have a material impact upon the outcome of the proceeding to be considered a serious error resulting in the review being granted. See for example: Villa Nova Apartments v Al-Mousawy, 2026 ONLTB 4577 (CanLII); Capizzano v Neal, 2026 ONLTB 1589 (CanLII); Harkamal v Moncada, 2025 ONLTB 74193 (CanLII); TET-80164-17-RV (Re), 2017 CanLII 60238 (ON LTB).

Unreasonable Exercise of Discretion

Orders granting relief from eviction (RTA s. 83(1)) or awarding specific remedies involve an exercise of the original hearing Member's discretion and are entitled to deference. The LTB will not exercise its discretion to review these types of decisions where the result is within the range of reasonable, acceptable outcomes. See for example: Hilton v Samuels, 2025 ONLTB 94829 (CanLII); Stam v Walicht, 2026 ONLTB 14770 (CanLII); Somfalvi v Zheng, 2026 ONLTB 8109 (CanLII); DADABHOY v NADARAJAH, 2025 ONLTB 90420 (CanLII); Lam v Tu, 2025 ONLTB 90223 (CanLII).

Ground for Review: New Evidence

In order for a review to be granted on the basis that a party has obtained new evidence, the requestor must establish on a balance of probabilities that all of the following circumstances are satisfied (s. 1(1) of O. Reg 178/25):

  1. The evidence was not before the LTB during the proceeding;
  2. The evidence could not have been obtained by the person before the decision or order was made; and
  3. The evidence would likely have affected the result of the proceeding had it been before the LTB.

Parties are expected to make every effort to produce all relevant evidence in support of their positions in the original hearing. The review will be dismissed unless the LTB is satisfied the new evidence could not have been produced at the original hearing, is material to the issues in dispute and its consideration could change the result: Steubing v. Drewlo Holdings Inc., 2025 ONSC 6481; Bassily v Greek Market Corner LTD, 2026 ONLTB 18478 (CanLII); Stam v Walicht, 2026 ONLTB 14770 (CanLII), NOL-16865-14-RV(Re), 2014 CanLII 78539 (ON LTB).

A review will not be granted in order to provide the requestor with an opportunity to submit and rely upon evidence that could have been submitted prior to the original hearing. See for example: Vincent v Mafe, 2026 ONLTB 4587 (CanLII).

Evidence of events that occurred after the LTB’s hearing will not satisfy this test and will not result in a review being granted. LTB orders are made based upon submissions and evidence provided by the parties about issues and events that occurred prior to the hearing. See for example: Sivaraj v Macwana, 2025 ONLTB 90871 (CanLII).

Requests to Review Consent Orders

Requests to review consent orders will rarely be granted if the LTB is satisfied the terms of the consent order accurately reflect what the parties agreed to and there is no evidence of fraud, coercion or duress. See for example: Gill v Pezzo, 2025 ONLTB 90622 (CanLII); Francis v Amri, 2024 ONLTB 62395 (CanLII); Singh v Gray, 2024 ONLTB 80169 (CanLII).

The Divisional Court stated in Trust Construction Corporation v. McKie, 2017 ONSC 4702 that “parties ought not to be easily able to revisit Board orders that have been made on consent. The effective resolution of matters that come before the Board will be greatly impaired if parties can continually seek to revisit issues that they have earlier agreed to resolve.” See also: Gent v. IMH Pool III LP, 2017 ONSC 7230 (Div.Ct.).

Board Initiated Reviews (BIR)

The LTB may review an order on its own initiative where it considers it appropriate. This happens most frequently where the LTB becomes aware that a party was not properly served with notice of a hearing and could not reasonably participate in the proceeding, or there was some other type of serious error. See for example: Barbosa v Avdeev, 2025 ONLTB 90810 (CanLII); TSL-50630-14-RV-IN (Re), 2014 CanLII 61347 (ON LTB); EAL-47728-15-RV2 (Re), 2015 CanLII 51518 (ON LTB).

The LTB will not consider a request from a party to initiate a review. A BIR is not intended as a second or third opportunity for a party to review an order. See for example: DUpont/Lansdowne Holdings Inc. v Reis, 2026 ONLTB 16694 (Rule 26.3).