Can an Eviction Notice Be Withdrawn Once It's Been Served?

The short answer: generally yes, informally

A landlord can generally choose to stop pursuing a notice they've already served, and in that sense a notice can effectively be "withdrawn" at the landlord's own discretion, since nothing in the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 forces a landlord to act on a notice once it's issued. If a landlord decides, for whatever reason, not to proceed — a dispute has been resolved informally, the underlying issue was fixed to the landlord's satisfaction, or circumstances simply changed — they can simply choose not to file an application and let the notice lapse without consequence to the tenant.

What's worth understanding is that this isn't really a formal legal "withdrawal" process in the way, say, withdrawing a filed application with the LTB is. Before an application is filed, a termination notice is essentially a one-sided communication: it exists because the landlord served it, and the landlord can simply decide not to act on it further. There's no requirement to file a formal retraction, though doing so clearly and in writing is good practice.

A notice isn't an order — why that matters

It helps to keep the stages of an eviction process distinct: a notice (N4, N5, N12, and so on) is the landlord's statement of grounds and the start of a required waiting period; an application (L1, L2, etc.) is a request to the LTB to act on those grounds if the notice period passes without resolution; and an order is the Board's actual decision, which is the only thing that can terminate a tenancy. A notice by itself has no binding legal force beyond starting the clock on when an application could be filed — it doesn't compel anything to happen, and a tenant doesn't have to do anything in response to a notice that's never acted upon beyond its stated period. This structure is exactly why a landlord can let a notice simply expire unused, functionally withdrawing it, without any special procedure.

How a landlord actually withdraws or abandons a notice

In practice, a landlord "withdraws" a served-but-unfiled notice simply by not filing the corresponding application, or by telling the tenant directly (ideally in writing) that they don't intend to proceed. Some landlords send a short written confirmation — an email or letter stating the notice is no longer being pursued — which is a reasonable and recommended practice even though it's not a strict legal requirement at this stage. Because there's no LTB form specifically for "withdrawing a notice" before any application exists, the practical approach is simply clear communication and, ideally, a written record both sides can rely on.

What changes once an application has been filed

Once a landlord has actually filed an application with the LTB based on the notice, the situation becomes more formal. At that point, withdrawing generally means withdrawing the application itself, which the LTB has a specific process for — the landlord notifies the Board, generally in writing, that they wish to withdraw the application, and the Board's file is closed accordingly (sometimes with a hearing still proceeding on any remaining issues, such as outstanding arrears, if the landlord wants those addressed separately). Once an application is withdrawn, the tenancy generally continues as though the application hadn't been filed, at least with respect to the grounds raised in that specific notice.

What if a tenant has already relied on the notice?

A notice being withdrawn, formally or informally, doesn't typically create ongoing obligations on the tenant's side, but it can matter if the tenant took concrete steps in reliance on it — for example, if a tenant receiving an N12 had already started making arrangements to move, or incurred costs doing so, before being told the notice was being withdrawn. While this is a fact-specific situation rather than something with one universal rule, a tenant who has reasonably relied on a notice and suffered a loss as a result of a landlord's later change of position may have grounds to raise that, particularly if the notice was withdrawn only after the tenant had already taken significant, reasonable action based on it.

Can a withdrawn notice be served again later?

Generally, yes — withdrawing or abandoning a notice doesn't typically prevent a landlord from serving a new, valid notice later if the underlying grounds still exist or recur, provided the new notice meets all the normal requirements (correct form, accurate information, proper notice period) at the time it's served. For an N4, this might mean a fresh non-payment notice reflecting a new arrears balance. For conduct-based notices, this might mean responding to a new or repeated incident. What generally can't happen is treating an old, previously withdrawn notice as if it were still live and could simply be revived with its original dates — a landlord who wants to proceed again generally needs to serve something that's accurate and current.

Why tenants should get a withdrawal in writing

From a tenant's perspective, if a landlord says informally that a notice is being dropped, it's worth asking for that confirmation in writing and keeping it. This matters because memories and informal understandings can diverge later, especially if the relationship becomes contentious again down the road. A simple email exchange confirming the notice won't be pursued is enough in most cases, and it protects both sides from confusion about whether a notice is still technically "live."

A few practical scenarios

A landlord serves an N5 for noise, the tenant promptly addresses it, and the landlord simply never files an L2 — the notice is effectively abandoned by inaction, and in most cases nothing further happens unless the behaviour recurs. A landlord serves an N4, the tenant pays the arrears in full within the notice period, and the notice becomes void by operation of the cure rule rather than needing a separate "withdrawal" at all. A landlord files an L2 based on an N12, then changes their mind about moving in and formally withdraws the application with the LTB — the tenancy continues, though the tenant may want written confirmation for their own records. Each scenario resolves a little differently, but in all of them, the key fact is that a notice or application, unless and until acted on to a final order, doesn't by itself end anything.

A fourth scenario worth noting: a landlord and tenant reach an informal settlement mid-dispute — perhaps the tenant agrees to a payment plan, or agrees to correct a conduct issue on a specific timeline — and the landlord agrees to hold off on filing or to withdraw an application already filed, conditional on the tenant following through. These informal arrangements can work well, but they carry some risk precisely because they exist outside the LTB's formal mediation process. If the tenant doesn't follow through, the landlord's options depend on what was actually agreed to and how it was documented, which is part of why formalizing a settlement through the LTB's own mediation process, where available, is often a more reliable path than a purely private, informal arrangement for anything involving significant money or a serious conduct issue.

Formal mediation as an alternative to withdrawal

Rather than simply walking away from a notice or application, many landlords and tenants resolve disputes through mediation offered as part of the LTB process, which can produce a written, binding agreement — sometimes called a Mediated Settlement Agreement — covering payment schedules, behaviour commitments, or other terms both sides agree to. A mediated agreement is generally more robust than an informal verbal understanding, because it can be filed and, if necessary, enforced through the LTB if one side doesn't follow through. Our guide to mediation versus a hearing explains how this process compares to simply withdrawing a notice or letting it lapse informally.

Frequently Asked Questions

Related reading

Reviewed by Ryan J. Manilla, BA, JD

Legal Reviewer · Landlord Tenant Ontario