New LTB Changes Proposed. Here’s My Take.

Reading Time: 6 minutes

Yesterday, the Provincial Government introduced the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025—a new bill proposing several legislative changes.

Among them are some notable updates to how the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) operates.

So, I’ve summarized the proposed LTB related changes that I believe will have the biggest impact, along with my personal thoughts.

– –

1. Remove Ability to Raise New Issues on The Day of a Rent Arrears Hearing
   
   Explanation: Tenants will no longer be allowed to introduce new issues at a rent‑arrears eviction hearing unless they had given prior notice of those issues. In other words, surprise counterclaims or defences would not be allowed. 
   
   My Opinion: This one’s good, eliminating surprise issues means fewer adjournments and more decisions at the scheduled hearing. And it doesn't eliminate legitimate claims that a tenant may have.
   
2. Limit new issues raised at the LTB unless 50% of arrears is paid
   
   Explanation: This would amend the LTB rules so that when a landlord files a rent arrears application, a tenant wishing to raise new issues at the hearing (for example maintenance concerns or other tenant applications) would only be able to do so if they have already paid 50 % of the rent arrears claimed in the landlord’s application. 
   
   My Opinion: This is a sneaky good proposal, it requires a partial clearing of arrears and shifts some burden back onto the tenant to show good faith when entering the dispute process.
   
3. Persistent Late Payment Cases
   
   Explanation: The current law allows a landlord to evict a tenant who has been “persistently” late paying rent or monthly housing charges. But because the Act doesn’t define what “persistently” means, it's rarely enforced. The proposed change would allow the government to set a regulation that actually defines “persistent late payment of rent”. 
   
   My Opinion: Defining this term makes sense. Right now, “persistent late payment” is basically meaningless since adjudicators rarely enforce it for an eviction. By setting a clear test, it should turn an empty rule into something that might actually work.
   
4. Allow the government to prescribe the contents of notices of termination
   
   Explanation: The government wants the power to rewrite the official notice forms. The idea is to make these forms easier to understand for tenants, using plain language and emphasizing the seriousness of the notice. They believe by emphasizing the seriousness, a tenant will be more inclined to address problems, leading to fewer applications.
   
   My Opinion: I'm a big supporter of clear writing and simplifying documents. These forms are due for an update... but I don't believe this will actually lead to fewer applications.
   
5. Compensation Requirements for Landlord’s Own Use Evictions
   
   Explanation: The government is proposing that if a landlord gives 120 days (four months) notice to move into a unit under an “landlord’s personal use” eviction, they would no longer be required to pay the tenant one month’s rent as compensation. If the notice is shorter (60‑119 days), the old rules would still apply. 
   
   My Opinion: I see the logic, why not add an option for homeowners to reclaim the use of their own property without a payment penalty. The tradeoff is two (2) additional months of notice, in exchange for saving the cost of one month's rent payment to the tenant. Whether that's worth it is up to the landlord.
   
6. Shorten the Rent Arrears Eviction Notice Period
   
   Explanation: Right now, if a tenant misses rent, a landlord has to wait 14 days after serving the N4 notice before they can file for eviction at the LTB. The proposal would shorten that waiting period by 7 days, meaning landlords could start the formal process a week earlier than before.
   
   My Opinion: It’s a small change, but a good one. Shaving off a week isn't massive, since most of the waiting happens after the application is filed—but reducing wait times for legal remedies is a positive thing.
   
7. Tribunals Ontario to explore options for increasing access to final Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decisions and orders
   
   Explanation: The proposal would have the LTB explore options to increase public access to decisions and orders. The idea is to make more case outcomes available in searchable form, so landlords, tenants, and legal professionals can better understand how the LTB is applying the law.
   
   My Opinion: I like this one. As a legal professional working with real estate and rental issues, greater transparency in LTB decisions is a win. It gives us more insight into past outcomes, and how certain facts are treated. Even though LTB members are not strictly bound by precedent, having more accessible past orders strengthens strategy and advice.
   
8. Lease Agreement Expiry
   
   Explanation: This is a weirdly vague promise to review and potentially change how lease‑terms expire under the RTA by exploring “alternative options on lease agreement expiry.”  In other words, instead of a tenancy automatically converting into a month‑to‑month arrangement after a fixed‑term ends, the landlord might gain more control over whether to renew or end the tenancy when the term expires.
   
   My Opinion: This one is by far the most impactful proposed change. If implemented, it essentially eliminates rent control. You'll notice they don't use those words though. I see the upside for homeowners: more flexibility, more control, and an ability to respond to market conditions or personal needs.
   
   This one would be the most controversial proposal and, realistically, the least likely to pass unchanged, hence the vague language.

– –

Now remember, these are just proposed changes. This bill still needs to go through the formal legislative process before anything becomes law. Some parts may be changed or dropped entirely.

If you want to review the full list of proposed changes, you can find the official government summary here.

And as always, i'd love to hear your thoughts. Just Reply.