Even when an Ontario landlord proves the legal grounds for eviction, the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) still has discretion to grant relief from eviction to the tenant. However, legislative changes effective September 21, 2026, introduced important restrictions on the Board’s powers to postpone eviction.
Landlords dealing with substantial rent arrears, persistent late payments or repeated breaches of payment arrangements should know these new rules.
Why Can the LTB Refuse Eviction When the Landlord Has Proven the Case?
Under section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, the LTB must consider the circumstances of the case before granting an eviction application after a hearing. The Board must do that even when the landlord has established valid grounds for terminating the tenancy.
For example, a landlord may prove that the tenant owes several months of rent or has persistently failed to pay rent when due. Nevertheless, the Board must consider whether eviction should be refused or its enforcement postponed. This requirement is set by section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.
However, section 83 does not mean that a tenant is automatically entitled to remain in the rental unit because of financial hardship or personal circumstances. The Board must consider the interests of both parties.
What Is the Difference Between Refusing and Postponing Eviction under section 83?
Refusing eviction
The Board may refuse to grant an eviction application unless satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that refusing eviction would be unfair. Where the Board refuses eviction, the landlord does not obtain an enforceable eviction order through that application.
Postponing eviction
The Board may grant an eviction order but postpone its enforcement. The tenancy is terminated under the order, but the landlord cannot enforce the eviction until the specified date.
Conditional orders
In appropriate cases, the Board may also issue an order containing conditions, such as payment of outstanding rent by a specified date or instalments and continued payment of current rent.
The tenant’s failure to comply with these conditions may permit the landlord to evict the tenant without starting the entire eviction process again.
What Changed on September 21, 2026?
Ontario’s Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 (Bill 60) amended section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, making the Board’s powers to postpone eviction subject to prescribed limitations or conditions. The corresponding amendments to Ontario Regulation 516/06 introduced section 8.4, effective September 21, 2026.
Under the new regulation, where the landlord does not consent to postponement, the Board must be satisfied that postponement would not be unfair to the landlord or other tenants of the residential complex. In cases like non-payment or persistently late payments of rent, the Board can postpone eviction only in cases where there are compelling grounds to postpone enforcement.
The updated LTB Interpretation Guideline 7: Relief from Eviction explains the new requirements.
Does the New Legislation Eliminate the Board’s Discretion to Refuse Eviction?
The September 2026 amendment restricts the Board’s discretion to postpone eviction but does not eliminate it. It does not eliminate the Board’s separate authority to refuse eviction under section 83.
Nevertheless, the Board must still consider whether refusing eviction is appropriate.
Can the LTB Order a Payment Plan Instead of Eviction?
Yes. In appropriate circumstances, the Board may permit the tenancy to continue subject to payment conditions.
For example, a tenant may be required to pay:
- The current monthly rent in full and on time;
- Specified instalments toward outstanding arrears; and
- Any additional amounts required under the Board’s order.
Proposed payment conditions must be evaluated in light of the tenant’s payment history, financial circumstances, outstanding arrears and ability to comply with the proposed terms. A plan that merely postpones the accumulation of further arrears should not be accepted.
For additional information about repeated late payments, see our article N8 Notices in Ontario: New Rules for Persistent Late Payment of Rent.
What If the Tenant Previously Failed to Follow a Payment Plan?
A history of unsuccessful payment arrangements may be important evidence when the landlord opposes a payment plan.
For example, if the landlord previously agreed to accept instalment payments, but the tenant failed to follow the arrangement, the landlord may reasonably question whether the new payment plan is realistic and can be accepted.
The source and reliability of anticipated payments, the amount of outstanding arrears and whether the tenant can pay both current rent and the proposed instalments are also relevant considerations to decide whether the Board can accept a tenant’s proposed payment plan and allow the tenant to stay.
What If Social Services Promise to Pay the Arrears?
Financial assistance from a social service agency or another third party may be relevant to the Board’s decision.
However, there is a distinction between a received and confirmed payment and a proposed or anticipated payment. For example, a statement that an agency intends to pay the arrears does not necessarily establish when payment will be made, whether the entire balance will be covered or how the tenant will pay future rent.
Even if the arrears are eventually paid, persistent late payment may remain an independent ground for eviction.
What Circumstances Must the Board Consider?
Under section 83, the Board must consider all relevant circumstances of the case.
These may include:
- The amount and duration of outstanding rent arrears;
- The tenant’s history of paying rent late;
- Previous payment arrangements and whether they were followed;
- The tenant’s present financial circumstances;
- The tenant’s efforts to correct the problem;
- The landlord’s financial hardship;
- The impact of the tenant’s conduct on the landlord or other occupants; and
- Whether continued tenancy is likely to result in further breaches.
The landlord’s financial circumstances are also relevant. For example, prolonged non-payment may affect the landlord’s ability to meet mortgage obligations, property taxes, maintenance expenses and other financial commitments. The Board should not assess the tenant’s hardship while disregarding the consequences of continued non-payment for the landlord.
When Must the LTB Refuse Eviction?
Section 83 also contains mandatory grounds for refusing eviction.
These include certain circumstances involving serious and ongoing breaches of the landlord’s obligations, retaliatory eviction applications and failure to provide compensation required by the Act.
However, not every maintenance complaint establishes such a breach. The Board must examine the seriousness of the alleged violation, whether it remains ongoing and the surrounding circumstances.
How Should a Landlord Oppose a Request for Further Relief?
Landlords should approach section 83 submissions as a separate part of their eviction case. It may not be sufficient to establish the amount of rent owing or prove repeated late payments. The landlord should also explain why refusing eviction would be unfair in the circumstances.
Useful evidence may include:
- A complete rent ledger;
- Previous payment plans and records of compliance;
- Communications concerning promised payments;
- Evidence of continued late or missed payments;
- Financial consequences of the tenant’s conduct; and
- Evidence showing that proposed arrangements are unlikely to prevent further breaches.
For rent arrears and persistent late payment applications, the landlord may argue that postponement would be unfair and that the circumstances do not establish compelling grounds to give the tenant more time to pay rent arrears or stay in the unit.
For more information about hearing preparation, see Evidence Landlords Need to Win an Eviction at the LTB.
What Happens If the Tenant Breaches a Conditional Order?
Some LTB orders permit the tenancy to continue provided the tenant complies with specified conditions.
If the tenant breaches a qualifying conditional order, the landlord may be entitled to file an application under section 78 of the Residential Tenancies Act to obtain an eviction order without a further hearing. However, the tenant may have the right to bring a motion to set aside that order. It should be noted that this is not a motion for a new hearing. The issues the Board will consider are whether the tenant breached conditions of the previous order and whether the eviction order should be set aside in the circumstances.
Landlords should therefore carefully review the terms of the original conditional order, the nature of the alleged breach and the applicable enforcement procedure.
Why the 2026 Changes Matter to Ontario Landlords
The September 2026 amendments do not remove the Board’s obligation to consider the circumstances of an eviction application. However, they establish additional requirements for postponing enforcement of eviction orders.
In rent arrears, persistent late payment and other tenant-fault proceedings, postponement without the landlord’s consent now requires compelling grounds, together with a finding that the delay would not be unfair to the landlord or other tenants.
Nevertheless, landlords should not assume that proving the grounds for termination guarantees eviction.
Representation Before the Landlord and Tenant Board
Eviction proceedings often involve more than establishing the original grounds for termination.
Landlords may also need to address requests for payment plans, discretionary relief, postponement of eviction and allegations concerning their own statutory obligations.
Spectrum Paralegal represents Ontario landlords in Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings, including rent arrears applications, N4 and N8 notices, eviction hearings and enforcement-related matters. You can submit your inquiry through our website.
Spectrum Paralegal — Toronto, Ontario
