Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board Review Request Changes Effective July 1, 2026

Introduction

Many Ontario landlords have experienced the frustration of obtaining an order from the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”), only to learn that the matter may not be over.

Following the issuance of an order, a party may seek to challenge the outcome through a Request to Review. In most circumstances, the filing of a review request can delay enforcement proceedings, stay the original order, and prolong an already lengthy dispute.

On May 19, 2026, we wrote about the changes in the law affecting parties’ Request to Review an order at the Landlord and Tenant Board. This article aims to outline the conditions which will dictate when a Request to Review an order is permissible as of July 1, 2026.

Why This Change Matters

Historically, section 209(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 specifically stated that the Board’s review power could be exercised where a party was not reasonably able to participate in the proceeding.¹

Over time, review requests became a common feature of LTB litigation. Some review requests raised legitimate concerns regarding participation, procedural fairness, or errors in the proceeding. Others were unsuccessful. Regardless of the outcome, review requests often resulted in additional proceedings, additional delay, and additional uncertainty.

Landlords who had already completed a hearing and obtained an order frequently found themselves facing another stage of litigation before enforcement could proceed. Beginning July 1, 2026, the legislative framework governing review requests will change substantially.

What Is Changing on July 1, 2026?

The Existing Rule

Prior to July 1, 2026, section 209(2) of the RTA provides:

“Without limiting the generality of section 21.2 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Board’s power to review a decision or order under that section may be exercised if a party to a proceeding was not reasonably able to participate in the proceeding.”¹

This provision expressly identifies inability to reasonably participate as a basis upon which the Board’s review power may be exercised. Though it did not limit the Board’s power to review a decision for other reasons, where the Board determined it was appropriate to do so, such as an existence of a “serious error”. Neither of the circumstance were clearly defined.

The New Rule

Effective July 1, 2026, section 209(2) will be replaced with the following:

“The power of the Board to review all or part of its decision or order under section 21.2 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act is subject to any prescribed limitations or conditions.”²

This change is significant. The legislation and regulation now identify specific circumstances in which the Board may review its own orders.

The New Regulation

The Province has enacted Ontario Regulation 178/26, entitled Limits on Board’s Review Powers.³ The regulation significantly restricts the circumstances in which a party may request a review of an LTB decision or order.

Circumstance #1 – Inability to Reasonably Participate

Beginning July 1, 2026, a party requesting a review must satisfy prescribed requirements set out in the regulation.

A review may be requested where a person was a party to the proceeding but was not reasonably able to participate due to one or more of the following reasons:⁴

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

In other words, the tenant or landlord seeking a review must demonstrate that at least one of the prescribed circumstances prevented them from reasonably participating in the proceeding that resulted in the order they wish to challenge.

Circumstance #2 – Serious Error

Prior to July 1, 2026, the Board’s Rules permitted a review where the Board made a serious error. The new regulation now provides a statutory definition of what constitutes a serious error.⁵

A review may be requested where:

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

The regulation therefore provides significantly more guidance regarding what may constitute a serious error than previously existed.

Circumstance #3 – New Evidence

The regulation also creates a third category that did not previously exist in this form, though sometimes argued by the legal professionals.

A review may be requested where the person seeking the review has obtained evidence that:⁶

• Was not introduced during the hearing;
• Could not reasonably have been obtained before the decision or order was issued; and
• Would likely have affected the outcome of the proceeding had the evidence been available at the hearing.

This new evidence provision may become particularly important in cases where relevant information only becomes available after an order has been issued.

Why These Changes Matter?

Many would argue that these changes are consistent with the broader legal principle of finality in residential tenancy proceedings and the circumstances in which decisions of the Board may be challenged within the Board itself. However, the itemized list of circumstances under which a review may be granted is not as precise as it may initially appear.

What constitutes a “serious illness”?

What level of evidence would a party need to provide to establish a serious illness?

What does it mean to have been “misled by another party to the proceeding”?

What constitutes being “incapable”?

All of these questions remain unanswered.

It is likely that landlords will continue to see a variety of approaches among adjudicators after July 1, 2026 when determining whether a review request falls within one of the prescribed circumstances.

It is our hope that the amendments may reduce uncertainty surrounding post-hearing review proceedings and reinforce the principle that LTB orders should eventually become final and enforceable, as recognized by the Divisional Court in Ball v. Metro Capital Property.⁷

The Divisional Court recognized that while procedural fairness remains important, there is also a public interest in the finality of administrative decisions. Litigation cannot continue indefinitely. Administrative tribunals require mechanisms that balance fairness to the parties with the need for efficient and final resolution of disputes.

Practical Considerations for Ontario Landlords

Ontario landlords should be aware that review requests will not disappear after July 1, 2026. Parties will continue to have the ability to seek reviews in appropriate circumstances.

However, landlords may wish to consider the following:

• Review requests will be governed by new statutory and regulatory requirements;
• Existing assumptions about review proceedings may no longer be accurate;
• Orders issued before July 1, 2026 may be subject to different rules than orders issued afterward;
• Appeals and judicial review proceedings remain separate remedies governed by different legal principles.

Landlords should also be aware that separate legislative amendments affecting the timing of review requests came into force on July 1, 2026. Those changes were discussed in a previous article and may affect the deadlines applicable to review proceedings.

Landlords who receive a review request after July 1, 2026 should carefully consider which legislative framework applies and what procedural requirements govern the request.

The July 1, 2026 changes to the Request to Review process highlight the importance of ensuring that landlords are familiar with the applicable legislation and procedures, or obtain competent legal representation to either advance or defend a Request to Review.

Conclusion

Effective July 1, 2026, Ontario’s review request framework will undergo a significant transformation.

The previous provision primarily focused on a party’s inability to reasonably participate in a proceeding and did not provide detailed statutory guidance regarding the circumstances under which a review might be granted.

The new regulation subjects review requests to prescribed limitations and conditions and provides greater direction regarding the circumstances in which a review may proceed.

For Ontario landlords, these changes may have a substantial impact on post-hearing proceedings and the finality of Landlord and Tenant Board orders.

Whether these amendments ultimately reduce delay remains to be seen. Their effectiveness will depend largely upon how the Landlord and Tenant Board interprets and applies the new regulatory framework in the months and years following July 1, 2026.

Disclaimer

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every situation is unique and the outcome of any particular matter will depend upon its specific facts and circumstances. Reading this article does not create a paralegal-client, lawyer-client, or solicitor-client relationship. If you require legal advice regarding your situation, you should obtain professional legal assistance.

Footnotes

1. Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, SO 2006, c 17, s. 209(2), as it existed prior to July 1, 2026.
2. Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, SO 2006, c 17, s. 209(2), as amended by the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025, SO 2025, c 14, Sch 12, s. 11.
3. O Reg 178/26, Limits on Board’s Review Powers.
4. O Reg 178/26, s. 1(2).
5. O Reg 178/26, s. 1(3).
6. O Reg 178/26, s. 1(4).
7. Ball v. Metro Capital Property, 2002 CanLII 49413 (ON SCDC).