This bill amends the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 and related statutes to tighten controls on no-fault evictions (landlord personal occupation, purchaser occupation, demolition/repairs/conversion). It lengthens notice and eligibility timeframes, forces mandatory use of Landlord and Tenant Board forms, requires landlords to supply municipal or other approvals for demolition/renovation notices, and directs the Board and Minister to track and investigate these cases.
The bill also expands remedies for bad-faith notices: the Board must impose a monetary penalty when it finds bad faith and gains new powers to restore tenancies or require preferential re-housing at the previous rent. Separately, Legal Aid Ontario must provide representation at the Board to any tenant served a no-fault eviction notice who requests counsel, without applying standard income-eligibility tests.
Together, the changes raise the administrative and documentary bar for landlords while delivering stronger procedural protections and counsel for tenants facing displacement.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires landlords to use Board-approved notice forms and increases the waiting and notice periods tied to landlord- and purchaser‑occupied and demolition/repair evictions. It mandates that notices for demolition/renovation include all necessary approvals and gives the Board the power to impose a mandatory monetary penalty for bad-faith notices and expanded remedial orders to reinstate or re-house displaced tenants.
Who It Affects
Residential landlords (including purchasers who intend to occupy), property managers, municipal permitting offices, the Landlord and Tenant Board, Legal Aid Ontario, and tenants facing no-fault evictions—especially those displaced for renovation, demolition or owner/purchaser occupation.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts enforcement from a largely reactive dispute mechanism to a paper‑trail and oversight regime: mandatory forms, evidentiary approvals and a public register create new compliance burdens and potential liability for landlords while guaranteeing legal representation for affected tenants at the Board.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill tightens the paperwork and timing around evictions that do not relate to tenant conduct. First, it makes the Board’s approved notice forms mandatory for eviction notices that claim a landlord’s or purchaser’s personal occupation or for demolition/repair/conversion; if a landlord uses a different form, the law treats the notice as never given and the Board must refuse eviction applications based on it.
The Legislation Act’s usual allowance for harmless deviations from a form is explicitly removed for these notices, so the technical form becomes a substantive gatekeeper.
Second, the bill lengthens multiple timeframes tied to these no-fault notices. Where the Act previously used one-year or 60/120‑day thresholds to govern timing and eligibility, the bill replaces several of those benchmarks with longer windows (notably two years or six months in key provisions) and increases tenant compensation for certain notices.
That means landlords must plan further ahead to satisfy statutory timing requirements and tenants get longer notice periods to respond or pursue remedies.Third, for notices tied to demolition, conversion or renovations, the landlord must now attach copies of all necessary approvals (municipal permits, relevant statutory authorizations). Where renovations are cited as the reason for eviction, the approvals must cover work so extensive that vacant possession is required.
This shifts the evidentiary burden onto landlords at the time the notice is given and ties eviction rights to contemporaneous regulatory approvals.Fourth, the Board’s remedial toolbox is expanded. If the Board finds a landlord acted in bad faith when giving such a notice, the bill requires a monetary penalty equal to the greater of 12 months’ rent and $35,000 and authorizes orders that can restore the former tenant to the unit or give them priority for the landlord’s next available unit at the previous rent.
The Board must also keep a registry of these applications, publish an annual report with unit addresses and outcomes, and notify the Minister about orders.Finally, the bill changes administrative oversight and access to counsel: the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is tasked with taking steps to confirm good faith in notified cases and to notify former tenants when evictions appear presumptively bad faith; and Legal Aid Ontario must provide legal representation before the Board to any tenant served a no-fault eviction notice who requests it, without applying usual eligibility conditions or requiring client contributions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill makes Board-approved notice forms mandatory for landlord/purchaser occupation and demolition/repair notices; failure to use the approved form means the notice is treated as never given and the Board must refuse an eviction application.
It extends several timing thresholds—for example, changing certain one‑year windows to two years and replacing 60‑ and 120‑day periods with six‑month periods—raising the procedural hurdles for landlords.
Notices based on demolition, conversion or repairs must include copies of all valid approvals; renovations that require vacant possession must be supported by approvals authorizing work that extensive.
When the Board finds a landlord issued a qualifying notice in bad faith, it must order a monetary penalty equal to the greater of 12 months’ rent and $35,000 and may order reinstatement, priority re-housing at the same rent, or rent protections for successor tenants.
Legal Aid Ontario must provide legal representation before the Landlord and Tenant Board to any individual served a no‑fault eviction notice who requests it, without applying the usual eligibility conditions or requiring client contributions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Mandatory Board-approved notice forms and no deviations
The Act now says landlords must use the exact forms the Board approves when issuing notices under the landlord-occupation, purchaser-occupation and demolition/renovation provisions. If the landlord fails to use the approved form, the law treats the notice as never given and the Board must refuse any eviction application based on it. The bill also removes the Legislation Act exception that would allow harmless deviations in form, turning form compliance into a substantive requirement rather than a technicality.
Longer timeframes and higher tenant compensation for owner-occupation notices
Section 48—governing landlord personal occupation notices—has multiple timing changes: where the Act used one-year or shorter windows, the bill increases those to two years in specific provisions and extends notice/eligibility periods to six months in other places. Section 48.1 raises the prescribed compensation for certain notices from one month’s rent to three months’ rent. Practically, landlords who previously relied on shorter cutoffs must now preserve eligibility over a longer look-back period and budget larger payouts in some cases.
Purchaser-occupation notices: minimum occupancy period and longer notice
The purchaser-occupation provision is amended to require that the purchaser intend to occupy the unit for at least two years (added text) and extends the notice period from 60 days to six months in the relevant subsection. That creates a minimum ongoing use expectation for purchasers seeking to evict and gives tenants substantially more lead time to respond, challenge, or find alternate housing.
Demolition/repair/conversion notices must carry approvals; longer timelines
Notices alleging demolition, conversion or renovations must be accompanied by all valid approvals needed to carry out the work. For repairs/renovations that trigger eviction, the approvals must authorize work so extensive that vacant possession is necessary. The statutory notice period in this provision is also lengthened (from 120 days to six months in its relevant subsection), tying the right to evict to contemporaneous regulatory authorization rather than later permit seeking.
Mandatory monetary penalty and expanded remedies for bad-faith notices
If the Board determines a landlord issued a qualifying notice in bad faith, the bill requires it to order the landlord to pay the greater of 12 months’ rent and $35,000. The Board’s remedial options are broadened to include orders allowing the former tenant to regain the unit (if vacant) on their prior lease terms, priority allocation of the landlord’s next vacant unit at the same rent, or capping the rent charged to a new tenant in the former tenant’s unit. The bill also extends several limitation windows from one year to two years where those windows govern applications related to bad‑faith findings.
Board registry and annual reporting
The Board must maintain a register of all applications relying on landlord/purchaser-occupation or demolition/repair/conversion notices and notify the Minister of every order it issues in those cases. The Board must also publish an annual report (by April 1) showing the number of applications by notice type, the addresses involved and outcomes; party names are excluded but addresses are disclosed, creating a public trail of eviction activity at the unit level.
Guaranteed Board representation for no-fault eviction tenants
The bill obliges the legal aid corporation to provide legal representation before the Landlord and Tenant Board to any individual who receives a notice terminating tenancy for a reason unrelated to the tenant’s conduct, provided the individual requests representation. The usual eligibility conditions and client contribution rules do not apply to this service, so Legal Aid Ontario must offer representation irrespective of financial means.
Ministerial oversight and notifications on presumptive bad faith
The Minister must take measures he or she considers appropriate to confirm good faith in cases the Board notifies. If the Minister learns the landlord did things listed in the bad-faith provisions during the relevant look‑back period, the Minister must notify the former tenant that the notice is presumptively bad faith and that the tenant may apply to the Board within two years of vacating. This introduces an executive oversight layer tied to Board reporting.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Tenants served no‑fault eviction notices: They gain longer notice periods, higher statutory compensation in some cases, guaranteed legal representation at the Board without means testing, and statutory paths to reinstatement or priority re-housing if bad faith is proven.
- Tenant advocacy and legal clinics: The automatic legal‑aid entitlement should increase Board representation demand, creating more opportunities for clinics and legal aid lawyers to intervene in evictions and establish bad‑faith precedents.
- Municipal and provincial oversight actors: The Board registry and ministerial notification give municipal permitting offices and the Ministry better visibility into eviction-driven unit turnover and potential misuse of approvals.
Who Bears the Cost
- Landlords and property owners: They face stricter procedural compliance (mandatory forms, production of approvals), longer waiting periods, larger potential monetary penalties (minimum the greater of 12 months’ rent or $35,000), and increased litigation/administrative costs to defend legitimate evictions.
- Small-scale owners and purchasers converting units: Administrative and timing burdens—plus stricter proof requirements—may delay or increase the cost of renovations, purchases for owner-occupation, or conversions to other uses.
- Legal Aid Ontario and front-line services: LAO must supply Board representation without means testing, increasing demand for lawyers and duty counsel; if the bill lacks dedicated funding, the cost and capacity strain fall on LAO and its partners.
- The Landlord and Tenant Board and Ministry: They must build and maintain a register, publish annual reports, process increased evidence (permits/approvals) and handle ministerial follow-up, creating an administrative workload and potential need for resourcing.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits stronger tenant protections and deterrence against the procedural and financial burdens placed on landlords and administrative bodies: it seeks to stop bad‑faith displacement by raising proof and penalty thresholds, but in doing so it increases compliance costs, risks delaying legitimate renovations or occupations, and creates resource pressures for Legal Aid and tribunal administration—a trade-off between preventing abuse and preserving flexibility and supply in the rental market.
Several implementation and policy tensions arise. First, turning an approved form into a jurisdictional gate raises a high technical bar: a clerical or drafting error could defeat an otherwise justified eviction and flood the Board with form-challenge litigation.
The explicit removal of the Legislation Act’s tolerance for harmless deviations means compliance programs and notice workflows will need revision to avoid forfeiture risks.
Second, attaching municipal permits or other approvals to eviction notices ties housing law to municipal regulatory timelines. Municipal permit issuance is often iterative and slow; requiring that approvals already exist at the time of notice may delay legitimate demolition or renovation projects or push landlords to begin work without approved notices and risk larger penalties.
That dynamic could chill necessary repairs or conversions and complicate coordination between landlords and permitting authorities.
Third, the mandatory penalty (greater of 12 months’ rent or $35,000) is a blunt financial deterrent. It strengthens tenant remedies but also raises the stakes of each contested eviction, incentivizing aggressive procedural defenses and potentially encouraging landlords to seek out-of-court settlements.
Finally, the legal-aid expansion delivers meaningful access to counsel but creates a resource question: unless LAO receives matching funding and staffing, tenants might have entitlement but limited practical access to experienced Board advocates in the short term.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.