May 1, 2026
1. Introduction
In November 2025, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) provided feedback on Bill 60: Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 and its Schedule 12, which amended the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA).
The OHRC welcomes the opportunity to offer submissions on four proposed regulations implementing Bill 60 amendments to sections 58(1.1), 77 (8)(b) and 94.10(8)(b); 82(2); and 83(1)(b) and 94.12(1)(b) of the RTA. These proposed regulations, if passed, would
- require the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) to find that a tenant/non-profit housing co-operative member has persistently paid rent late if at least three rent payments were late within a six-month period;1
- set limits on when the LTB can set aside an eviction order where the landlord and tenant have come to an agreement to end the tenancy;2
- limit when the LTB can postpone the enforcement of an eviction order;3 and
- require a tenant to pay 50% of rent arrears at least 7 days before a rent-arrears hearing to raise certain issues at the hearing.4
The proposed regulatory changes, alone and cumulatively, create additional barriers for tenants at the LTB and constrain the LTB’s discretion to consider a tenant’s circumstances, potentially leading to avoidable or unnecessary evictions. This is likely to adversely affect tenants who identify by Code grounds including persons with disabilities, Indigenous persons, racialized persons, lone parents (who are predominantly women), newcomers and public assistance recipients.
The government should use a human rights based approach to regulations that may disproportionately affect these groups and create or contribute to systemic discrimination.
This submission identifies human rights concerns and provides human rights-based recommendations on the Regulatory Proposal to Clarify “Persistent” Late Payment of Rent.
Rental Housing and human rights
Housing is a necessity and essential to human dignity and is recognized as a human right under international law and Canadian federal law.5 The Ontario Human Rights Code (Code) has primacy over other provincial legislation, including the RTA. The Code prohibits discrimination in housing and services. Therefore, the RTA must comply with the Code, and the LTB must consider and apply the Code when exercising its authority under the RTA. This includes when deciding to refuse or postpone an eviction6 for example by considering whether the tenant’s conduct was connected to a disability and/or whether the landlord has met their Code obligations.7
The LTB is also required to ensure its processes are procedurally fair, accessible and provide accommodation up to the point of undue hardship. This is necessary to ensure all persons have adequate opportunity to know the issues to which they must respond and be heard before the LTB.8
Not all tenants are aware of their rights under the Code and may face overlapping barriers asserting their rights before the LTB. Persons with mental health or physical disabilities may lack pre-hearing support or advocacy resources. Newcomers and tenants with language barriers may be unable to submit evidence or understand procedural requirements. Indigenous tenants may face systemic disadvantages, including limited access to legal counsel or culturally appropriate services. Many groups may face challenges accessing legal advice or meeting tight or inflexible timelines. Removing flexibility from LTB proceedings entrenches systemic disadvantage by disproportionately affecting those who already face additional barriers in housing and legal processes.9
In addition, the substantive changes to the RTA and in the proposed regulations have the potential to adversely affect individuals protected under the Code who are more likely to be tenants, experience poverty or have lower average incomes than the general population. Low income is connected to grounds such as age, ancestry, disability, ethnic origin, family status, gender identity, place of origin, race, or being in receipt of public assistance.10 There is a link between poverty and increased eviction filing rates likely due to the heightened chance of arrears when tenants have low incomes.11 For instance, people with disabilities are more likely to miss a rent payment, and financial hardship is a main reason they are forced into homelessness, which they are four times more likely to experience than the total population.12
People with disabilities are also more likely to live in rented accommodation in need of major repairs than the total population.13 Similarly, new immigrant groups and racialized minorities, including ‘Black’ Africans, are more likely than non-immigrants to live in poor-quality housing.14 Tenants are often unable to hold landlords accountable for the state of the property until they raise these issues at a rent arrears hearing.15
In addition to being more likely to face evictions,16 certain Code-protected groups are more likely to be discriminated against in securing rental housing17 and experience homelessness as a result.18 For example, Black communities experience the highest rate of homelessness of any racialized (non-Indigenous) community in Canada19 and also disproportionately experience evictions.20 Indigenous people are overrepresented among people experiencing homelessness21 and are more likely to be part of the “outdoor” or “unsheltered” homeless populations.22 They experience unique barriers to access to justice due to the impact of colonialism and trauma. 23 Therefore, Bill 60 amendments to the RTA and associated regulatory changes which increase the risk of eviction or eviction into homelessness, raise significant human rights concerns.
2. The OHRC’s Submissions
Human rights-based concerns with definition of “persistent” late payment of rent
Under the RTA, a landlord may evict a tenant for persistently failing to pay their rent on the day it is due. Currently, the RTA does not prescribe how many late payments will result in a finding that the tenant has persistently paid late. The proposed regulation provides that if the LTB determines that at least three rent payments were late within a six-month period, it shall find that a tenant has persistently paid late.
The proposed regulation would constrain the LTB’s discretion to inquire into all the circumstances to determine whether rent payments are persistently late. These could include Code-related as well as other extenuating reasons. For example, a tenant’s payment might be late because of a delay in their receipt of their social assistance benefit. Under the Code, the LTB would have to consider whether the landlord could accommodate a flexible or adjusted payment schedule.24
Although the primacy of the Code would require the LTB to consider whether the late payment is related to a Code-ground such as a disability, the prescriptive language in the proposed regulation does not make it clear that the definition of “persistent” late payment is subject to the Code.
Even if a Code ground is not directly engaged, the proposed regulation may have an adverse effect on certain groups. Currently, the LTB can consider the number of late payments having regard to the tenant’s history; length of the tenancy; extenuating circumstances such as when a tenant has financial problems due to a job loss or temporary inability to work due to illness; and whether the late payment is unlikely to be ongoing because the tenant has been able to find another job and resume paying on time.25 Removing this flexibility entrenches systemic disadvantage by disproportionately affecting those who are at greater risk for financial hardship and already face higher rates of eviction.26
The potential adverse impact of this proposed regulation is exacerbated by its interrelationship with the proposed regulation under s. 83(1)(b) which would limit the LTB’s discretion to postpone “at-fault” evictions. That proposed regulation includes persistent late payment of rent as an example of an “at fault” eviction. This means that someone evicted for persistent late payment would need to show “compelling grounds” for postponement of the enforcement of an eviction order (in addition to demonstrating that postponement would not be unfair to the landlord or other tenants).27
3. The OHRC’s Recommendations
1. Do not prescribe what must be found to be “persistent” late payment of rent and continue to leave it open to the LTB to determine this on a case-by-case basis based on all the circumstances.
2. In the alternative, define “persistent” exhaustively as being presumed to be three late payments within a six-month period unless it is demonstrated that there are Code-related reasons or other extenuating circumstances for the late payment.
1 Ontario Regulatory Registry, “Seeking Feedback on Regulatory Proposal to Clarify "Persistent" Late Payment of Rent” (April 10, 2026), online: <https://www.regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca/proposal/53776>.
2 Ontario Regulatory Registry, “Seeking Feedback on a Regulatory Proposal to Set Limits to the Landlord and Tenant Board's Ability to Set Aside an Eviction Order” (April 10, 2026), online: <https://www.regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca/proposal/53775>.
3 Ontario Regulatory Registry, “Seeking Feedback on a Regulatory Proposal to Set Limits to the Landlord and Tenant Board's Ability to Postpone the Enforcement of an Eviction Order” (April 10, 2026), online: <https://www.regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca/proposal/53773>.
4 Ontario Regulatory Registry, “Seeking Feedback on a Regulatory Proposal to Set a Timeframe for Tenants to Pay a Threshold of Arrears to Raise Issues at a Rent Arrears Hearing” (April 10, 2026), online: <https://www.regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca/proposal/53774>.
5 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 3, art 11 (entered into force 3 January 1976, accession by Canada 19 May 1976); National Housing Strategy Act, SC 2019, c 29, s 313.
6 Walmer Developments v Wolch; 2003 CanLII 42163 (ON SCDC), online: <canlii.ca/t/5z8k>.
7 The Ontario Divisional Court has found that where a landlord’s eviction application is based on the tenant’s conduct, the LTB must consider whether the conduct has been directly caused by the tenant’s disability and whether the landlord has accommodated the disability to the point of undue hardship; Connelly v Mary Lambert Swale Non-Profit Homes, 2007 CanLII 52787 (ON SCDC), at para 8, online: <canlii.ca/t/1v2hp>. Even if the Code is not directly engaged, the LTB can also consider factors such as a tenant’s disability and similar circumstances when deciding whether to relieve from eviction; Sterling Karamar Property Management Inc v Horning, 2025 ONLTB 86556, online: <canlii.ca/t/khwxp>.
8 Landlord and Tenant Board, “Human Rights, Interpretation Guideline 17” (December 15, 2018), online: <tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Interpretation%20Guidelines/17%20-%20Human%20Rights.html>.
9 Toronto Community Housing Corporation v Michael, 2024 ONLTB 20082, online: <canlii.ca/t/k76w4> [Michael].
10 National Advisory Council on Poverty, We Can Do Better: It Is Not a Safety Net if the Holes are This Big (Ottawa: Employment and Social Development Canada, 2025) at 25, online: <www.canada.ca/content/dam/esdc-edsc/documents/programs/poverty-reduction/national-advisory-council/reports/2025-annual/NACP_2025_Annual_Report-EN.pdf>.
11 Scott Leon & James Iveniuk, Forced Out: Evictions, Race, and Poverty in Toronto (Toronto: Wellesley Institute, 2020) at 11, online: <www.wellesleyinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Forced-Out-Evictions-Race-and-Poverty-in-Toronto-.pdf>.
12 Canadian Human Rights Commission, “Joint news release – New data highlights troubling housing inequalities for people with disabilities” (3 December 2024), online: <www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/resources/newsroom/joint-news-release-new-data-highlights-troubling-housing-inequalities-people>.
13 See for example Jeff Randle & Zachary Thurston, Housing experiences in Canada: Persons with disabilities (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2022) at 9, online: <www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/46-28-0001/2021001/article/00011-eng.pdf>.
14 Statistics Canada, “Housing conditions among racialized groups: A brief overview” (23 January 2023), online: <www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230123/dq230123b-eng.htm>.
15 See Alexandre v Jones, 2022 CanLII 82028 (ON LTB), online: <https://canlii.ca/t/jrtz0>; Landlord and Tenant Board, “Brochure: Issues a Tenant Can Raise at a Hearing about a Landlord’s Application for Non-Payment of Rent,” (last updated June 2021), online: <tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Brochures/Issues%20a%20Tenant%20Can%20Raise%20at%20a%20Hearing%20about%20a%20Landlords%20Application%20for%20Non%20Payment%20of%20Rent.html>; Sarah Buhler, The Right to Counsel for Tenants Facing Eviction: Security of Tenure in Canada (Ottawa: Office of the Federal Housing Advocate, 2022) at 6-9, online: https://homelesshub.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Buhler-the_right_to_counsel_for_tenants_facing_eviction-security_of_tenure.pdf. People who are the most vulnerable and most in need of affordable housing are more likely to be at risk of eviction due to planned renovations or redevelopment. In at least some cases, these evictions are caused by landlords’ intentional neglect of the property which forces tenants to move out; Sarah Zell & Scott McCullough, Evictions and Eviction Prevention in Canada (Winnipeg: Institute of Urban Studies, 2020) at 76, online: <eppdscrmssa01.blob.core.windows.net/cmhcprodcontainer/sf/project/archive/research_6/evictions-and-eviction-prevention-in-canada.pdf>; Harrison Samphir, “Financialized landlords are targeting Black and Arab neighbourhoods across Canada,” (23 October 2025), online: <breachmedia.ca/financialized-landlords-are-targeting-black-and-arab-neighbourhoods-across-canada/> at 29.
16 See for example Leon & Iveniuk, supra note 11 at 11; Canadian Human Rights Commission, Race and Security of Housing: Security of Tenure in Canada (Ottawa: The Office of the Federal Housing Advocate, 2022) at 15-16, online: <homelesshub.ca/resource/race-and-security-housing-security-tenure-canada/>; and Prentiss Dantzler, Khalil Martin & Abigail Meza, “Visible Minorities, Visible Risk: Toronto’s Unequal Eviction Burden” (16 September 2025), online: <metropolitics.org/Visible-Minorities-Visible-Risk-Toronto-s-Unequal-Eviction-Burden.html>.
17 For example, newcomers trying to secure rental housing are 11 times more likely to face discrimination than non-newcomers; Megan Earle, Gordon Hodson & Sophie O’Manique, Measuring Discrimination in Rental Housing Across Canada (Ontario: Canadian Centre for Housing Rights, 2025) at 5, online: <housingrightscanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Report-Measuring-Discrimination-in-Rental-Housing-Across-Canada-M.Earle_G.Hodson_S.OManique-March-2025.pdf>.
18 Taranco v Michedes, 2010 HRTO 128 at para 29, online: <canlii.ca/t/27swv>; AB v Havcare Investments Inc, 2014 HRTO 1087 at para 128, online: <canlii.ca/t/g86mw>.
19 Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation, Evictions in Canada: Populations Experiencing Vulnerabilities (Ottawa: Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation, 2025) at 2, online: <assets.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/sites/cmhc/professional/housing-markets-data-and-research/housing-research/research-reports/2025/evictions-canada-populations-experiencing-vulnerabilities-en.pdf>.
20 Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres, “Written Submission to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs on the Effects of the Housing Shortage on Indigenous Peoples Across Canada” (25 March 2022), online: <www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/INAN/Brief/BR11678666/br-external/OntarioFederationOfIndigenousFriendshipCentres-Updated-e.pdf>. The LTB has found that the unique situation of Indigenous persons must be considered in the context of administrative decision-making, including when the LTB considers “all of the circumstances” to decide whether to grant relief from eviction. This includes the overrepresentation of Indigenous persons in the homeless population and the impact of colonialism and trauma on Indigenous Peoples; Michael, supra note 9.
21 Kandace Bond Wileman, Heather Butt & Annandi Diaram, Searching for Indigenous Access to Justice in Ontario Tribunals, 2025 CanLIIDocs 1620, online: <canlii.ca/t/7nntt>.
22 Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres, supra note 20. The LTB has found that the unique situation of Indigenous persons must be considered in the context of administrative decision-making, including when the LTB considers “all of the circumstances” to decide whether to grant relief from eviction. This includes the overrepresentation of Indigenous persons in the homeless population and the impact of colonialism and trauma on Indigenous Peoples; Michael, supra note 9.
23 Wileman, Butt & Diaram, supra note 21.
24 TSL-05692-19 (Re), 2019 CanLII 134513 (ON LTB), at para 23, online: <canlii.ca/t/j6vw9> [TSL-05692-19].
25 EAL-59006-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 88069 (ON LTB), online: <canlii.ca/t/gw4pf>; TSL-05692-19, supra note 24; Zalcman v Medicoff, 2018 ONSC 4618, at para 8, online: <canlii.ca/t/ht7qm>.
26 One study found that 75 per cent of formal eviction applications over the study period were rooted in late or non-payment of rent; Leon & Iveniuk, supra note 11 at 11.
27 See OHRC Submission on Regulatory Proposal to Limit the Landlord and Tenant Board's Ability to Postpone the Enforcement of an Eviction Order.