When Mediation Makes Sense Before an LTB Hearing
Not every landlord-tenant dispute needs an adjudicator's decision. Mediation offers a faster, more flexible path — but it isn't the right fit for every kind of case.
Insights · LTB Hearings & Process
On this page
- What LTB mediation actually is
- How mediation differs from a hearing
- When mediation tends to fit a dispute
- When a hearing is generally the better fit
- What happens to a mediated agreement
- If mediation doesn't resolve things
- How to prepare for mediation
- What to expect during the session itself
- Deciding which path to try first
What LTB mediation actually is
Mediation at the Landlord and Tenant Board is a process where a neutral mediator — an LTB staff member trained for this role, not the adjudicator who would otherwise decide the case — helps the landlord and tenant try to work out their own resolution to a dispute, rather than having an outcome imposed on them after a hearing. It's generally voluntary and can happen on the same day a hearing is scheduled, before the hearing itself begins, or in some circumstances separately.
The mediator doesn't decide who's right. Their role is to help both sides identify what they actually want, clarify where there's room for compromise, and put any agreement they reach into a clear, workable form. If no agreement is reached, the matter generally proceeds to a hearing in front of an adjudicator as it otherwise would have.
How mediation differs from a hearing
A hearing is adjudicative: each side presents evidence and argument, and a decision-maker applies the law to the facts and issues a binding order, whether or not either side is satisfied with it. Mediation is negotiated: nothing is imposed, and the outcome — if there is one — is whatever both sides actually agree to. That difference shapes almost everything else about the two processes. A hearing can end with the LTB ordering a party to do something they never agreed to; a mediated resolution, by definition, only happens because both sides said yes.
Mediation also tends to allow for creative outcomes that a hearing's more binary structure often doesn't. An adjudicator deciding an application is generally limited to the legal remedies available for the specific application in front of them. Two people negotiating directly can agree to a repayment schedule, a compromise on a maintenance timeline, or an arrangement that addresses the underlying relationship rather than just the narrow legal question — as long as what they agree to doesn't conflict with the RTA's minimum protections.
Key point
Mediation isn't a lesser or informal substitute for "real" LTB process — a mediated agreement, once filed, generally becomes a binding order with legal force much like one issued after a full hearing.
When mediation tends to fit a dispute
Mediation tends to work best where the underlying relationship between landlord and tenant is expected to continue, and where both sides have some genuine interest in an ongoing arrangement working out. A tenant who wants to stay in their unit and a landlord who wants reliable rent going forward, for example, may both be better served by a repayment plan for arrears than by an eviction that leaves the landlord searching for a new tenant and the tenant searching for new housing. Disputes that are narrow and largely factual — a specific disagreement over a repair timeline, or a one-off communication breakdown — can also be well suited to mediation, since there's often more common ground than the conflict initially suggests.
Mediation can also suit situations where both sides would rather control the outcome themselves than leave it to an adjudicator, or where privacy and a less adversarial process matter more than getting the fullest possible legal remedy.
When a hearing is generally the better fit
A hearing tends to be more appropriate where the relationship has broken down to the point that negotiation isn't realistic, where one side is unwilling to engage in good faith, or where there's a genuine legal dispute about facts or rights that needs a decision-maker's ruling rather than a compromise. Cases involving allegations of bad faith, safety concerns, or a significant power imbalance between the parties may also be poorly suited to mediation, since a negotiated outcome depends on both sides being able to advocate for themselves on reasonably equal footing.
It's also worth remembering that trying mediation first doesn't forfeit the right to a hearing — if mediation doesn't produce an agreement, the case generally proceeds to a hearing regardless.
What happens to a mediated agreement
When landlord and tenant do reach an agreement through mediation, it's generally written down in specific terms and signed by both parties. That agreement can then generally be filed with the LTB, at which point it becomes an order the Board can enforce in much the same way as an order issued after a hearing. This is an important detail: informal verbal understandings reached outside the LTB process don't carry the same weight, which is one reason going through mediation, rather than trying to negotiate entirely outside the process, tends to produce a more durable resolution.
Common misconception
Some people assume a mediated agreement is somehow less enforceable than an adjudicated order because no one "won." Once filed as an order, the LTB and, where necessary, the Sheriff's office can generally enforce it the same way they would any other Board order.
If mediation doesn't resolve things
Nothing said or offered during mediation that doesn't result in an agreement is generally supposed to be used against a party later at the hearing — the process is meant to be a safe space to explore compromise without it weakening either side's position if talks fail. If no agreement is reached, the case proceeds to a hearing in front of an adjudicator, generally following the same process described in our piece on what actually happens at an LTB hearing.
How to prepare for mediation
Preparing for mediation looks different from preparing for a hearing, but it isn't lighter work — it's a different kind of work. Rather than organizing evidence to prove a legal point, it generally helps to go in with a clear sense of what outcome would actually be acceptable, and some flexibility about how to get there. For a tenant facing arrears, that might mean working out beforehand what a realistic repayment schedule looks like given actual income and expenses, rather than discovering the number for the first time in the room. For a landlord, it might mean deciding in advance what level of compromise — on timing, on amount, on future conduct — is genuinely workable before being asked to agree to something on the spot.
It's also worth bringing the same core documents that would matter at a hearing — the lease, relevant notices, payment records, or correspondence — even though mediation is less formal. Having the facts organized makes it easier to propose specific, concrete terms rather than vague ones, and specific terms tend to produce agreements that are easier to honour and, if necessary, easier to enforce later.
What to expect during the session itself
A mediation session generally starts with the mediator explaining the process and confirming both sides understand that nothing is being decided for them. Each side typically gets a chance to describe the issue from their perspective, often separately from the other party at different points, with the mediator moving between them to test proposals and narrow the gap. This back-and-forth can take anywhere from a short conversation to a more extended session, depending on how complex the dispute is and how far apart the parties start.
If an agreement is reached, the mediator generally helps put it into specific written terms before anyone signs, which is the point at which vague verbal understandings get turned into the kind of concrete commitments that can actually be filed and enforced. If the gap between the parties turns out to be too wide, the mediator will generally say so rather than pushing for an agreement that isn't realistic, and the matter moves to a hearing without any penalty for having tried.
Deciding which path to try first
Because mediation is generally voluntary and doesn't foreclose a hearing, there's often little downside to at least exploring it when it's offered, particularly in disputes where an ongoing relationship or a narrow, fact-specific disagreement makes a negotiated outcome plausible. Where the dispute involves serious allegations, a breakdown in trust, or a genuine legal question that needs a ruling, moving toward a hearing more directly may be the more realistic path. Our tools section and glossary can help with preparing for either route, and our overview of LTB orders and enforcement explains what happens once either a mediated agreement or an adjudicated order is in place.
This article provides general information about Ontario landlord and tenant law.
It is not legal advice. For advice about a specific situation, consult a licensed
paralegal or lawyer, or contact the Landlord and Tenant Board.
Frequently Asked Questions
Mediation is generally offered as an option rather than forced on either party — both sides typically need to agree to try it, though the LTB may encourage it as a first step in many cases.
Generally, discussions during mediation are treated as without prejudice, meaning they're not normally used as evidence if the matter proceeds to a hearing. Confirm the specific confidentiality practices with the LTB.
This varies by case, but mediation sessions are often shorter than a full hearing, since the goal is a mutually agreeable resolution rather than a contested decision.
If the parties can't reach an agreement, the matter generally proceeds to a hearing before an adjudicator, who will decide based on the evidence presented.
Generally, yes — a mediated agreement can typically be filed with the LTB and treated similarly to an order, meaning it can generally be enforced if one side doesn't follow through.
Generally, yes. Having representation or support during mediation is usually permitted, though many people also attend on their own.
Mediation generally requires both sides to participate voluntarily. If one party declines, the matter typically proceeds toward a scheduled hearing instead.
In some cases, yes — mediation may be offered shortly before a scheduled hearing date, giving the parties a chance to resolve the matter before it's heard by an adjudicator.
Generally, disputes involving an ongoing relationship (such as continuing tenancies) or narrower disagreements — like a payment plan or a specific repair timeline — tend to suit mediation well, since both sides have room to compromise.
Related reading
Reviewed by Ryan J. Manilla, BA, JD
Legal Reviewer · Landlord Tenant Ontario