May 1, 2026
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 Set a Timeframe for Tenants to Pay a Threshold of Arrears to Raise Issues at a Rent Arrears Hearing.
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 eviction[6] 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 housing[17] and experience homelessness as a result.[18] For example, Black communities experience the highest rate of homelessness of any racialized (non-Indigenous) community in Canada[19] and also disproportionately experience evictions.[20] Indigenous people are overrepresented among people experiencing homelessness[21] 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.
The OHRC’s Submissions
Human rights-based concerns with requiring tenants to pay 50% of outstanding arrears seven days prior to a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) hearing to be able to raise issues
Bill 60, the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025, amended the RTA to require that a tenant pay 50% of the outstanding arrears to be permitted to raise issues at a rent arrears hearing (s. 82(4)). In November 2025, the OHRC provided submissions about human rights-based concerns raised by this amendment. The amendment does not come into force until a supporting regulation is made.
The proposed regulation would require that the 50% payment be made to the landlord at least seven days before the hearing. Bill 60 amendments to the RTA also shortened timelines for when a landlord can apply for an eviction if rent is not paid from 14 days to seven days. The combined effect of the amendments and the proposed regulation is to shorten the time tenants must identify their rights, obtain legal advice or gather the funds to pay 50% of outstanding arrears before a hearing.
Preventing tenants who cannot meet these procedural and financial requirements from raising legitimate issues undermines access to justice, procedural fairness, and the right to be heard. It adversely affects tenants from Code-protected groups who are more likely to fall into arrears, including for reasons related to a protected ground such as disability, and who lack the financial resources to meet this financial threshold.
At the same time, members of Code-protected groups are more likely to live in housing in need of repairs, experience landlord harassment and discrimination and failures in the duty to accommodate.[24] In other words, tenants from Code-protected groups are simultaneously more likely to experience the conditions that s. 82 of the RTA was intended to address but be less likely to meet the requirements in the proposed regulation to raise them at an LTB hearing. The result is that they may be evicted despite having a legitimate defence to the landlord’s application.
Self-represented tenants may only identify Code-related issues on or close to a hearing date. This can be due to lack of access to timely legal advice, disability, language barriers, trauma or other reasons connected to Code-grounds.
The primacy of the Code means that the Code must always be considered.[25] However, tenants may not be aware that they are entitled to raise human rights concerns even if they cannot pay outstanding arrears in advance. The requirement creates a chilling effect on the assertion of legitimate maintenance, harassment, and discrimination issues at the LTB.
The amendments to Bill 60 and proposed regulation heighten the risk of evictions for vulnerable populations. These individuals face additional challenges in relocating and securing alternate accommodation and may face homelessness as a result.
The OHRC’s Recommendations
Repeal the 50% pre-payment requirement as a precondition for raising issues in a rent-arrears hearing or do not bring this provision into force.
In the alternative, clarify that Code-related reasons or other extenuating circumstances for falling into arrears or Code-related defences for non-payment of rent can be raised without advance notice or advance payment to the landlord and grant the LTB the discretion to waive any pre-payment requirement in appropriate circumstances.
[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> [LTB Guideline 17].
[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> [Alexandre]; 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> [LTB Brochure]; 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] Randle & Thurston, supra note 13; Statistics Canada, supra note 14; Alexandre, supra note 15; LTB Brochure, supra note 15; Buhler, supra note 15; Zell & McCullough, supra note 15; Samphir, supra note 15.
[25] LTB Guideline 17, supra note 8 at paras 2-3.