How Ontario’s Bill 60 Impacts Landlords and Tenants
The following is not and should not be construed as legal advice. If you are looking for legal assistance with a housing matter, you can book a free 15 or paid 60 minute consultation here. And if you just want to keep up with our work (including posts like this one), subscribe to the Green Economy Law Monthly Newsletter here.
On November 24, 2025, the Ontario Legislature passed Bill 60, the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025. With respect to housing law, the bill aims to reduce delays at the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”) by amending several provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”).
Though interested parties on all sides have made much noise about the bill, below we’ve provided a concise, honest, and practical breakdown of how the bill will actually impact Ontario landlords and tenants.
Shorter Waits for Non-Payment Eviction Application Filings (N4/L1)
Under the previous rules, a landlord serving a notice to end a tenancy for non-payment of rent (N4) had to wait 14 days before applying to the LTB for eviction. During this time (aka the ‘notice period’), the tenant could pay off their arrears and void the notice, which would bar the landlord from filing for eviction on non-payment grounds. Now, that notice/waiting period will be cut in half to 7 days.
Practical Implications
Landlords will be able to file for eviction quicker, and tenants will have one week less to void an N4. Though practically speaking, even if an application is filed, it will be months before a hearing is scheduled, during which time arrears can be paid off, and parties can still negotiate a resolution.
If rent is paid off before the hearing, and it's the first time that a tenant has gone to the LTB regarding the issue of arrears, the LTB is extremely unlikely to order an eviction. What's more likely is the LTB will make a s. 78 order stating that if the tenant falls into arrears again within the next 12 months, the landlord can apply again to evict them, but this time without a hearing (though the tenant can file a motion if that happens, and basically still get a hearing).
Stricter Rules Around Tenants’ Counter Claims
Historically, at LTB arrears hearings, tenants could raise maintenance or harassment claims against the landlord (aka ‘s. 82 issues’). Bill 60 restricts this somewhat; under the new rules, a tenant wishing to raise these issues must pay at least 50% of the alleged arrears before their “counter issues” will be considered by the LTB.
Practical Implications
This will make it more difficult for tenants to use substandard living conditions and other grievances as leverage (or, if one is more cynical, delay tactics) against arrears-related evictions.
Ideally, it will reduce what the LTB can hear in an arrears hearing, potentially reducing adjournments. However, it may also limit tenants’ ability to defend themselves against non-payment of rent claims before the LTB.
Shortened Time to Seek LTB Review
Prior to Bill 60’s enactment, landlords and tenants unhappy with a final LTB order had 30 days to request an internal LTB review of an order. Bill 60 shortens the window to request a review to 15 days. Though it does still allow the LTB to extend this period where “just and appropriate”.
Practical Implications
Parties dissatisfied with an LTB order now have roughly half the time to identify grounds for review, assemble documentation, and file a request for review. This will be the case for both landlords and tenants on the losing side of an order.
And while it’s true that in some cases, a tenant will seek review to try and delay eviction, it is also true that LTB reviews are a crucial element of the system. Because sometimes adjudicators literally just forget what happened at a hearing and make up new facts, or the LTB will fail to even provide a party notice of their hearing.
That being said, 15 days is sufficient for a party to file for review. And in our experience, we find parties often delay action to the last minute regardless of the limitation period’s length.
However, it will make it more difficult for a party who was self-represented at an initial hearing to obtain legal assistance with a review request, since finding legal counsel, booking a consultation, engaging their services, paying a deposit, bringing them up to speed on the case, and having them file a request for review within such a short time period may be impractical.
Bill 60 does not shorten the 30-day time period for a party to file an appeal to Divisional Court, but this is an inferior option when compared to the option of filing for LTB review of an order. Not only is the Divisional Court extremely limited in terms of the grounds upon which they can review an order, but the process is much longer, complicated, and more costly, especially since only lawyers can act before Divisional Court (paralegals are not permitted). We’ve written more about the difference between these options here.
Changes Regarding Personal Use Eviction (N12) Compensation Requirements
Under the old rules, if a landlord (or their family member) wanted to reclaim a unit for personal use, they had to provide advance notice and compensate the tenant in the amount of one month's rent or offer them another unit. Following Bill’s 60 passage, if a landlord provides 120 days’ notice to their tenant, the compensation or alternative-unit requirement will be waived.
Practical Implications
The greatest practical implication of this change is that it is likely to reduce non-payment of compensation within the applicable time period as a procedural means of getting N12/L2 applications dismissed.
Though the 120-day notice period seems long, landlords can file an L2 application on an N12 right after it’s served, and a hearing is unlikely to held before 120 days anyways.
While our firm has certainly used non-payment of compensation to get N12/L2s dismissed against our clients on numerous occasions, frankly, it is kind of a ridiculous procedural issue that constantly trips up landlords seeking eviction for personal use, thereby exacerbating the LTB’s backlog.
Reduced Adjudicator Discretion Powers
LTB adjudicators have broad discretionary powers under s. 83 to consider “all the circumstances” to refuse or delay evictions. Bill 60 narrows the scope of this discretion, and limits decision-making power to a specific set of criteria (which will be defined in future regulations).
Practical Implications
While the real implications of this legal change will become more evident once these regulations are actually promulgated, the extreme breadth of discretion afforded LTB adjudicators generally is a real problem at the LTB.
Such broad discretionary powers make every hearing an unpredictable game of chance, where the applicable “law” largely depends on the idiosyncratic perspectives of the presiding adjudicator. And the fact that LTB precedents are non-binding on other LTB adjudicators exacerbates this problem, especially since adjudicators typically accord very little weight to their peers’ precedents.
It would generally benefit both landlords and tenants for LTB rules and regulations to be more clearly defined.
“Persistent” Non-Payment of Rent to be Defined
Under the current framework, a landlord may terminate a tenancy if the tenant has “persistently failed” to timely pay their rent (per subsection 58(1) of the RTA), and a housing co-operative may terminate a member’s occupancy of a member unit if the member has “persistently failed” to timely pay their regular monthly housing charges (per subsection 94.2(1)). However, what constitutes “persistent failure” to pay on time is never defined.
Bill 60 introduces a new subsection 58(1.1) to the RTA. Under this amendment, a tenant’s “persistent failure to pay rent on the date it becomes due and payable” must now be determined in accordance with forthcoming regulations. Section 94.2 of the RTA is amended in parallel with respect to a member’s “persistent failure” to timely pay their monthly housing charges.
Practical Implications
LTB adjudicators have had considerable discretion with respect to what constitutes a tenant’s or a co-op member’s “persistent failure” to pay rent. One adjudicator may view just a few late payments as “persistent”, while another may require a longer pattern of delinquency.
By requiring that the meaning of “persistent” be defined through regulation, Bill 60 should result in more consistent, predictable eviction hearings centered on this issue.
Narrowed Discretion to Overturn and Set Aside LTB Orders
Bill 60 narrows the scope of the LTB’s authority to set aside or overturn LTB orders on review.
Subsection 209(2) of the RTA is amended so that the Board’s power to review its own decisions and orders will now be subject to “prescribed limitations or conditions.”
Similarly, clause 77(8)(b), which empowered the LTB to make an order setting aside an order to terminate a tenancy is now amended so that the Board may set aside an order only when the “prescribed circumstances, conditions or tests” have been satisfied.
Practical Implications
The current statutory language grants the LTB broad discretion to decide when orders may be overturned or set aside. While LTB Guideline 8 provides helpful suggestions, these guidelines are non-binding, leading to inconsistency in how review requests are assessed, and how LTB review hearings are conducted.
Bill 60 attempts to address this lack of clarity for those challenging (or defending) LTB orders. It may accordingly increase procedural fairness, as parties will know in advance the grounds for overturning an order. However, depending on the ultimate regulations promulgated, it may eliminate certain avenues for challenging orders.
However, the rules should also take into account that where a defective interim review order is issued, it is basically impossible to seek review of it. For example, if a tenant was evicted, seeks review, and then the reviewing adjudicator overturns the eviction order on spurious grounds and orders a new hearing, the LTB will not allow any review of that interim order because it is not a ‘final’ order regarding parties’ rights. This effectively gives an adjudicator in this position carte blanche to issue whatever order they want based on whatever grounds they come up with, with or without “prescribed limitations or conditions.”
What Landlords and Tenants Should Do Now
Landlords: Begin reviewing your standard practices, including eviction notice templates, rent arrears tracking procedures, lease renewal protocols, and any N12 plans, to ensure compliance with the new rules. It is not entirely clear to us at this time when all these new rules will take effect, so proceed cautiously and double check things with legal counsel and/or the LTB.
Tenants: Be proactive. If you are experiencing maintenance problems in your unit, or have any other grievances against your landlord, consult legal or community resources as soon as possible.
And if you’re interested in booking a 15 minute free or 60 minute paid consultation with the firm to discuss engagement, you can do so using the button below.
