Can a Hearing Be Reopened After a Decision Is Made?

The general rule: decisions are meant to be final

Once an LTB adjudicator issues a written order, the general expectation is that the matter has been decided and the order is binding on both parties going forward. This finality serves an important purpose: without it, disputes could drag on indefinitely, with the losing side simply asking for another chance every time they're unhappy with an outcome. Because of this, reopening a decided matter is generally the exception rather than the rule, available only in specific, limited circumstances rather than whenever a party feels the result was wrong.

Understanding this going in helps set realistic expectations. A party who disagrees with an outcome, without a specific procedural or legal basis for revisiting it, generally has very limited options once the order has been issued. This finality applies to both landlords and tenants equally — a landlord unhappy with a dismissed application faces the same general limits as a tenant unhappy with an eviction order, since the rules governing finality and the narrow exceptions to it don't generally depend on which side of the dispute a party happens to be on.

Requesting a review of an order

One of the main avenues for revisiting an LTB decision is requesting a review of the order from the Board itself. This is generally a formal process, with a specific form and a limited window of time within which the request must be made. A request for review asks the Board to reconsider its own decision, generally on the basis that something went wrong with the process or that relevant information wasn't properly considered — not simply because one party disagrees with how the adjudicator weighed the evidence.

Filing a request for review doesn't automatically mean the original order is paused or that enforcement stops while the review is pending, so it's generally important to understand the practical implications of timing before assuming a review request buys time on its own.

What generally counts as a valid ground for review

Common grounds that may support a request for review include a party not receiving proper notice of the hearing, a serious error in how the hearing was conducted that affected fairness, or new evidence that genuinely could not have been discovered or presented at the original hearing despite reasonable effort. These grounds are generally narrow and specific, reflecting the idea that a review exists to correct a genuine problem with the process, not to give a dissatisfied party another opportunity to make a stronger version of the same argument.

Simply believing the adjudicator made the wrong call on the facts, without more, generally doesn't meet the bar for a review. The Board is generally looking for something that calls the fairness or integrity of the original process into question, not just an unfavourable outcome.

If you missed the hearing entirely

A common and specific scenario involves a party who didn't attend the original hearing — sometimes because of a genuine emergency, confusion about the date, or never having received proper notice in the first place. In these situations, there may be a path to request that the matter be reopened so the absent party can be heard, particularly where there's a reasonable explanation and the request is made promptly once the party learns of the order. This isn't automatic, and the strength of the explanation generally matters a great deal to how it's received.

If you've just discovered that a hearing happened without you, acting immediately — rather than waiting to see what happens next — is generally the most important thing you can do to preserve whatever options might be available.

Appealing to the Divisional Court

Separate from requesting a review by the Board itself, there's generally a limited option to appeal certain LTB decisions to the Divisional Court, but only on a question of law, not simply because a party disagrees with how the facts were assessed. This is a more formal and involved process than a review request, generally requiring legal argument about an actual error of law, and it comes with its own strict filing deadlines.

Because this option is narrow and procedurally demanding, it's generally advisable to consult a licensed paralegal or lawyer promptly if considering this route, rather than attempting it without a clear understanding of what qualifies as a genuine question of law.

Why time limits matter so much here

Every avenue for revisiting a decision — a review request, an appeal, or a request to reopen a matter heard in someone's absence — generally comes with a strict deadline measured from the date the order was issued or received. These deadlines are generally not flexible, and missing one can close off an option entirely, regardless of how strong the underlying grounds might otherwise have been. This makes acting quickly, as soon as a concern arises, far more important than carefully perfecting an argument over an extended period while the deadline quietly passes.

If there's any uncertainty about when a deadline falls, confirming it directly with the LTB or with a licensed paralegal or lawyer as soon as possible is generally far safer than assuming there's more time than there actually is.

What a review generally isn't

It's worth being clear about what a review generally isn't: it isn't a routine second hearing, it isn't an opportunity to introduce evidence that was simply overlooked or not prioritized the first time around, and it isn't a guaranteed path to a different outcome even where it's granted. In many cases, even a successful review results in the matter being reheard rather than automatically reversed, meaning the underlying dispute still needs to be argued again on the merits, just with the specific procedural problem addressed.

Setting realistic expectations about what a review can accomplish helps avoid the disappointment of treating it as an automatic do-over rather than the narrow, specific remedy it generally is.

Practical steps if you think you have grounds

If you believe you have genuine grounds to revisit a decision, the most important first step is generally to act quickly, given how strict the applicable deadlines tend to be. Gathering any documentation that supports your grounds — proof you didn't receive notice, evidence of a genuine emergency, or details about information that wasn't available at the time — strengthens the request considerably. Consulting a licensed paralegal or lawyer early in this process is generally worthwhile, given how narrow and procedurally specific these options tend to be.

It's also worth writing down a clear, dated account of what happened as soon as possible after discovering the issue, while the details are still fresh. If the grounds involve not receiving notice, for example, being able to explain exactly when you learned about the order, how, and what you did immediately afterward can matter a great deal to how credible the request appears. Waiting weeks to put together an explanation, even with good intentions, tends to work against a party compared to someone who moves decisively as soon as the problem comes to light.

Treating the original hearing and order with the seriousness they deserve, and preparing thoroughly the first time around, remains the best way to avoid ever needing to rely on these limited after-the-fact options in the first place.

Frequently Asked Questions

Related reading

Reviewed by Ryan J. Manilla, BA, JD

Legal Reviewer · Landlord Tenant Ontario