New to Toronto Renters Forum?

Our purpose is to enable renters to communicate with one another, and to make those informative conversations available, so that all renters can benefit from our collective knowledge. Click here to learn more about us...

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

May 28, 2024, 01:03:27 pm

Login with username, password and session length


Common Tenant Problems - Harassment by Landlord

This section is for renters to discuss issues regarding being harassed by their landlords.

You do not have to accept harassment from your landlord or their employees or representatives!  Harassment is something that you can apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board to have redressed, information regarding filing a T2 application at the Landlord and Tenant Board due to harassment is available here.

In addition to this forum there are some terrific information resources available on this topic:

• From Community Legal Education Ontario (CLEO), Landlord Harassment.

• From Steps to Justice, My landlord is harassing me. What can I do?

Author Topic: Adjudicator bias  (Read 12846 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Adjudicator bias
« on: March 20, 2023, 10:43:32 pm »
Today I had my first brush with the LTB. We were scheduled for 9 am but the adjudicator did not get to us til 3 pm.

It was a L2 “personal use” hearing based on a bogus N12. I had plethora of evidence including correspondence from the landlord and an affidavit she gave AFTER SIGNING THE DECLARATION THAT SHE WANTS TO SELL THE UNIT.

Evidence that included my landlord attempting to illegally enter the unit using the threat of cops in order to intimidate me into vacating the premises by the 1st of the month, her text before the cops showed up said I quote “I want to be clear, I will be taking the unit over on June 1st and after I fix it, it is going up for sale”

Yet the adjudicator was more interested in her circumstances rather than her clear egregious violation of the act. He kept on telling me that it’s N12 hearing, harassment is not the issue…how is intention to sell that ensued the harassment NOT RELEVANT. I swear to god, if he rules in her favour, I will make the whole charade public. My landlord would deliberately trigger my anxiety disorder almost every day for 3 months, which led to an attempt to self harm….HOW IS THAT OK? If he grants the application then he is setting case law; thereby signalling to other landlords that harass your tenants to the brink of breakdown as the tenant’s life has no standing against YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS.



  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Adjudicator bias
« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2023, 04:13:32 pm »
This is just so typical of the LTB.  The adjudicators are so often biased (I heard that many of them are landlords themselves).

Keep up the good fight!

In Solidarity!!


  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Adjudicator bias
« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2023, 07:39:49 pm »
I noticed that the original post does not mention legal advice - a lawyer, a paralegal, the duty counsel. You don't want to go in there alone.

I think that in recent years there has been a push towards mediation, eg. to reduce the backlog... if the parties agree then you don't actually go before the tribunal.

In a pinch if you try contacting, say, law firms x, y and z with no luck and you have notes about when you did this, that can be evidence towards asking for a postponement until you get your act together.


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Adjudicator bias (UPDATE)
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2023, 03:33:40 am »
Update from the author:

The bias adjudicator did rule in LL’s favour. The decision was released in May. Based on my experience at the hearing, I was certain that the review request would be denied EVEN THOUGH THE ADJ. ASSIGNED THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE TENANTS UNDER THE N12.

I appealed which was granted and the matter was remitted back to the LTB for a new hearing in front of a different member. Originally the Board had refused our request to come the T2 with the L2. However, at appeal I argued that decision was in violation of the principles of natural justice as having made a finding that the landlord in good faith requires the unit for residential occupancy, the Board frustrated our t2 application as they can no longer judge our complete evidence that the ensued harassment, illegal entries and abuse stemmed from the LL desire to sale the unit.

Now, within 8 days of Dc releasing its decision, LTB scheduled a new hearing BUT ONLY FOR THE N12 under “adjourned and seized matters” without so much as a word on our T2 application that has same determinative facts which was filed over a year ago. Then, I went into the portal and found that my access to request to combine or submit anything was suddenly BLOCKED.

After my emails went unanswered, I had to get the ombudsman involved. Then the Board combined my the two applications and matter is scheduled to be heared on Dec. 7, 2023 at 9 am.

Last time around the adj. did not let any observers into our hearing and did not state on record was is the hearing closed to the public. Neither I or the opposing side requested a closed hearing.

Along this troubled journey, I came to learn the shady practices being used (even during the appeal process) to promote the interests of the LL. I am not sure how Frank I can be from a liability standpoint to discuss what transpired but trust me fighting for my rights under legislation that supposedly has a tenant protection focus HAS BEEN AN UPHILL BATTLE.


Copyright Notice

Website Contents are Copyright © 2021-2022
Forum Posts are Copyright © 2021-2022 by the original author of each forum entry.
Software is Copyright © Simple Machines Forum (SMF) and TinyPortal. is an open forum; it is the responsibility of each author to ensure the accuracy of statements they make.

The opinions expressed in entries are those of the original authors; they do not necessarily reflect the opinions of or its management.

Member Agreement | Privacy Policy