Understanding "Bad Faith" Evictions in Ontario

What "bad faith" actually means here

Most of Ontario's eviction grounds are about something a tenant is alleged to have done — unpaid rent, damage, interference with others. A small but significant category works differently: it lets a landlord end a tenancy for something the landlord intends to do. The N12, used when a landlord, a purchaser, or a close family member says they intend to move into the unit, and the N13, used when a landlord says the unit needs to be demolished, converted, or extensively renovated, both rest on a claim about the future. The law does not require that claim to be proven true at the moment the notice is served — it requires it to be genuine.

"Bad faith" in this context does not mean the landlord broke a promise or changed their mind for an understandable reason. It means the stated reason was not the landlord's real reason at all — the notice was used as a device to end the tenancy for some other purpose, such as re-renting the unit at a higher rent, avoiding a difficult tenant relationship, or clearing a unit ahead of a sale without any real intention to have anyone move in. The distinction matters enormously, because the law treats a good-faith plan that later falls through very differently from a plan that was never real to begin with.

The N12 and N13: notices built on intention

An N12 requires the landlord (or the purchaser, or a specified family member) to intend, in good faith, to occupy the rental unit for a minimum period set out in the notice requirements. An N13 requires a genuine intention to demolish, repair, or convert the unit in a way that requires vacant possession, generally supported by matters like required permits. In both cases, the Landlord and Tenant Board does not simply take the stated intention at face value forever — the RTA anticipates that a tenant who is displaced on this basis, and who later discovers the stated plan was not carried out, has a route to raise the question after the fact.

This is a deliberate design choice. Requiring proof of a completed renovation or a landlord's move-in before an eviction order would make these grounds almost unusable, since plans legitimately change and timelines slip. But allowing landlords to invoke these grounds with no consequence for a plan that was never genuine would gut tenant protections. The bad-faith framework, and the T5 remedy described below, is the balance the legislature struck between those two problems.

How the LTB tries to assess intention

At the original hearing on the eviction application, an adjudicator generally looks at the landlord's evidence about the plan — who is moving in and why, what the relationship is to the landlord, or what renovation work is contemplated and how it has been documented. Because intention is a state of mind, the LTB often relies on circumstantial signals: whether the landlord has taken concrete steps consistent with the stated plan, whether the timeline and other details hold together, and whether anything in the surrounding facts suggests a different motive, such as an attempt to reset the rent on the unit or remove a tenant who recently raised a maintenance complaint.

None of this means every N12 or N13 is treated with suspicion — the great majority reflect real plans. But because the consequence of a bad-faith notice can be serious for a displaced tenant, adjudicators are generally expected to scrutinize the evidence rather than accept a bare assertion, particularly where a tenant raises specific reasons to doubt it.

The tenant's remedy: a T5 application

If a tenant has already moved out because of an N12 or N13, and later has reason to believe the landlord did not actually follow through — no one moved in, the named person moved in only briefly, or no genuine renovation or demolition took place — the RTA gives that former tenant the right to file a T5 application with the LTB. A T5 asks the Board to find that the landlord gave the notice in bad faith, or did not have the genuine intention required at the time, and to order a remedy as a result.

This is distinct from disputing the original notice at the time it was served. A T5 is generally filed after the fact, by someone who has already left the unit, and it puts the landlord's actual conduct after the eviction under scrutiny — did what was promised actually happen, and within a reasonable time.

Timing and what a former tenant needs to show

Evidence in a T5 case often comes from ordinary, everyday sources: a new listing for the unit at a higher rent shortly after the tenant left, a lack of any permits or contractor activity where renovations were the stated reason, or information suggesting the person named as the intended occupant never lived there or moved out again almost immediately. None of this is easy for a former tenant to gather once they no longer have access to the unit, which is part of why documenting the circumstances around the move-out — the notice itself, communications with the landlord, and anything observed afterward — tends to matter a great deal if a T5 becomes necessary.

The LTB weighs this evidence against whatever explanation the landlord offers. A plan that changed for a genuine, documented reason — a family member's circumstances shifted, a renovation was delayed by permitting — is treated differently from a pattern that looks, on the whole, like the stated reason was never real.

What the LTB may order

Where the LTB finds that a notice was given in bad faith, it has a range of remedies available. These can include ordering the landlord to compensate the former tenant for costs associated with the move and the loss of the tenancy, and in some circumstances the LTB may order other relief it considers appropriate to the facts of the case. The specific outcome in any individual case depends heavily on the evidence presented, and a former tenant should not assume a particular dollar figure or result — the Board decides remedies case by case.

Because a T5 can also intersect with a landlord's broader rights and obligations, it is worth reading our overview of landlord rights in Ontario alongside this piece — good-faith use of the N12 and N13 remains a legitimate and commonly used part of the eviction framework, and most landlords who rely on them do so honestly.

What tenants and landlords can each do to protect themselves

For tenants, the most useful habit is simply documenting the move-out itself: keep a copy of the notice, any related correspondence, and photos of the unit's condition when you leave. If you later have reason to suspect the stated plan wasn't carried out, checking whether the unit has been re-listed, asking neighbours what they've observed, or watching for permit filings tied to the address can all help build the kind of evidence a T5 application relies on. None of this requires special expertise — it mainly requires paying attention in the months after moving out, which is often when the strongest signs of bad faith actually surface.

For landlords, the practical lesson runs the other way: paperwork and follow-through matter. A landlord who genuinely intends to move in, or who genuinely plans a renovation, generally benefits from keeping records that reflect that — permit applications filed promptly, a documented timeline, or evidence of the family member's change in address. These records serve a dual purpose: they support the original application, and they're exactly what would be needed to defend a T5 application later if a former tenant raises questions about whether the plan was real. A landlord who relies on an N12 or N13 without any of this is taking on meaningfully more risk than one who treats the paperwork seriously from the outset.

Why this issue keeps coming up

Bad-faith eviction claims have become one of the more closely watched corners of Ontario tenancy law, largely because "own use" and renovation-based evictions sit at the intersection of two things tenants and landlords both care about: security of tenure and a landlord's legitimate interest in their own property. Understanding how the LTB actually evaluates intention — and that the law gives tenants a real, if time-limited, way to revisit a notice after the fact — is useful both for tenants weighing whether to challenge a notice and for landlords who want to be sure their own paperwork and conduct will hold up if questioned later. For a broader sense of how LTB orders are enforced once issued, see our piece on LTB orders and enforcement, and for definitions of the forms and terms used throughout this piece, see our glossary.

Frequently Asked Questions

Related reading

Reviewed by Ryan J. Manilla, BA, JD

Legal Reviewer · Landlord Tenant Ontario