What Actually Happens at an LTB Hearing

Before anyone speaks: check-in and format

Long before an adjudicator says anything substantive, there's a more mundane process of simply establishing who has shown up. Hearings are generally conducted by video or telephone, though in-person hearings still happen for some matters, and the first step is usually a check-in process where the LTB confirms which parties and representatives are present and ready to proceed. This stage can feel anticlimactic after the anxiety of preparing for a hearing, but it matters: if a party doesn't check in and isn't present when the hearing is called, the matter may proceed without them, sometimes resulting in an order made in their absence.

Many hearings are scheduled in blocks, with several matters set for the same time slot and heard in sequence or assigned to different adjudicators as the day goes on. This means there can be real waiting involved even after check-in, and a hearing that was scheduled for a particular time may not actually begin until later in that window.

Who's actually running the hearing

The person hearing the case is an adjudicator — a decision-maker appointed to the Landlord and Tenant Board, not a judge in the traditional courtroom sense, though the hearing is still a formal legal proceeding and the adjudicator's decision is legally binding. The adjudicator's role is to run the hearing fairly, make sure both sides get a genuine opportunity to be heard, apply the Residential Tenancies Act to the facts presented, and issue a decision. Adjudicators generally are not there to advocate for either side or to fill in gaps in either party's case — the burden of presenting evidence and making the legal argument rests with the parties (or their representatives, where one has been retained).

This is a useful thing to internalize going in: the adjudicator is not on anyone's side, and a hearing rewards a party who has organized their evidence and can explain, clearly and specifically, what they're asking for and why. Vague grievances, however legitimate they may feel, are harder for an adjudicator to act on than a specific, documented account of what happened and when.

How each side presents its case

Once a hearing formally begins, the applicant — the party who started the case, often the landlord in an eviction matter or the tenant in a maintenance or interference matter — generally goes first, explaining what they're asking for and why. This typically involves describing the relevant events, referring to any documents that were filed in advance (leases, notices, photos, communication records, repair requests, ledgers of rent payment), and connecting those facts to the specific legal ground being relied on. The responding party then generally gets their own opportunity to respond, presenting their own version of events and any evidence supporting it.

Because LTB hearings move through a real caseload, adjudicators generally expect parties to be reasonably organized and to focus on what's relevant to the specific application — the legal test at issue, not the entire history of a difficult relationship between landlord and tenant. Evidence that wasn't disclosed to the other side in advance, where advance disclosure was required, may not be considered, which is one of several reasons preparation well before the hearing date matters more than anything said in the room.

Being questioned — and questioning back

After each side presents its case, there is generally an opportunity for questions — the adjudicator may ask clarifying questions of either party, and each party (or their representative) generally has a chance to ask questions of the other side, sometimes called cross-examination, though LTB hearings are considerably less formal about this than a courtroom. The purpose is to test the other side's version of events, point out inconsistencies, or draw out details that weren't covered in the initial presentation.

This stage can be uncomfortable for someone unfamiliar with the process, particularly when facing a landlord or tenant with a paralegal or lawyer. It generally helps to have thought in advance about what's actually in dispute — the facts both sides agree on rarely need much attention, while the facts in genuine conflict are where careful, specific answers matter most.

Settling "at the door"

It's common — arguably more common than many first-time participants expect — for a case to settle before an adjudicator ever rules on the merits. This can happen through a mediator made available on the hearing day, or through direct discussion between the parties (or their representatives) once everyone realizes what a likely outcome might look like. A settlement reached this way, often called settling "at the door," typically gets written up as a formal agreement and can generally be filed with the LTB to become an order with the same legal force as one the adjudicator would have issued after a full hearing.

Settling isn't a lesser outcome — for many disputes, it produces a result both sides can live with faster than waiting for a written decision, and it avoids the uncertainty of an adjudicated result. Our piece on mediation versus a hearing goes deeper into when this kind of resolution tends to make sense.

How and when a decision arrives

Not every decision is announced the day of the hearing. Some straightforward matters are decided orally at the end of the hearing, with a written order to follow; many others are taken under reserve, meaning the adjudicator needs more time to consider the evidence and legal arguments before issuing a written decision. There's no fixed universal timeline for how long that takes — it depends on the complexity of the case and the Board's caseload at the time — but parties are generally notified of the decision and receive a written order setting out what was decided and why.

The written order is the operative document. It's what defines the parties' rights and obligations going forward, and it's what would be relied on if either side needs to enforce or, in limited circumstances, challenge the outcome.

What the order actually changes

An LTB order is legally binding once issued, but it doesn't enforce itself. If an order requires a party to pay money, comply with a condition, or vacate a unit, the other side generally has to take further steps — sometimes through the Board itself, and in the case of an eviction order, through the Sheriff's office, which is the only party legally authorized to carry out a physical eviction in Ontario. Our guide to LTB orders and enforcement explains what happens after a decision is issued in more detail, and our LTB hearing guide covers the practical preparation steps — evidence deadlines, disclosure, what to bring — that come before the day described here. If a term used in this piece isn't familiar, our glossary and tools section are good places to start.

Video, phone or in-person: does the format change anything?

A growing share of LTB hearings are conducted remotely, by video or telephone, with in-person hearings reserved for certain matters or locations. The underlying process — check-in, presentation of evidence, questioning, and a decision — is generally the same regardless of format, but remote hearings bring their own practical wrinkles. A stable internet connection or phone line matters more than people expect; a dropped call partway through testimony can be disruptive, and it's worth having a backup plan, such as a phone number to call in from if video fails. For a video hearing, being in a quiet, well-lit space with any documents organized and within reach, rather than buried in a folder somewhere, makes a noticeable difference in how smoothly the hearing goes.

One thing remote hearings don't change is the seriousness of the proceeding. It's still a formal process with a legally binding outcome, and treating it that way — showing up on time, dressed and prepared as though attending in person, with a clear head and no distractions — tends to serve parties better than treating a video or phone hearing as something less formal than a courtroom appearance.

Common mistakes that weaken a party's position

A few patterns come up repeatedly at LTB hearings. One is arriving with a general sense of grievance rather than a specific, organized account tied to dates and documents — adjudicators work from evidence, and a vague narrative is hard to act on even when the underlying complaint is legitimate. Another is failing to share evidence with the other side in advance where disclosure was required, which can mean that evidence simply isn't considered when it matters most. A third is talking past the legal issue actually in front of the adjudicator — relitigating the entire history of a difficult relationship rather than focusing on the specific ground the application is based on.

None of these mistakes are fatal on their own, and adjudicators generally try to help unrepresented parties understand the process. But preparation — organizing documents, sharing them when required, and being able to state clearly what's being asked for and why — consistently makes the difference between a hearing that goes smoothly and one that doesn't.

Frequently Asked Questions

Related reading

Reviewed by Ryan J. Manilla, BA, JD

Legal Reviewer · Landlord Tenant Ontario