01/21/2026
RECENTLY AT THE LTB…..Volume 3 November 28 2025 Case LTB-L-076909-25
Guo v Glenn, 2025 ONLTB 91976 (CanLII),
WHAT IS SUFFICIENT INFORMATION IN AN N8 NOTICE OF TERMINATION?
“I know it when I see it” appears to be the standard at the LTB and it is indeed a moving target, although we can hope that clarity will be coming.
In this case, the Chair, Panagiotis P. Roupas, had initial concerns expressed at the start of the hearing about the adequacy of the Notice. This case was for an N8, persistent late payment of rent and the Landlords were ultimately unsuccessful.
The Chair raised issues under section 43.2 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, (hereafter the “RTA”), emphasising “...shall also set out the reasons and details respecting the termination…”
That, in itself, is a pretty vague section. How does a party know when they have complied with the section?
The Chair assists, using the seminal case of Ball v Metro Capital Management Inc. (2002) OJ No 5931 (Div Crt) which determined that the purpose of section 43.2 of the RTA was to allow the tenant to know the case to be met, decide whether or not to dispute the allegations and, if applicable, to stop the conduct or correction the omission as set out by the Landlord.
In a recent case, 2024 ONLTB 94471, Ghanbari v Hernandez, (Dec 17, 2024, LTB-L-037953-24), The Chair, Colin Elsby, found that even listing the dates the rent was paid late is insufficient, at paragraph 9 the Chair stated that “...an N8 must provide the date on which the Landlord asserts that tenant paid the rent late….”
I believe that this apparent "requirement" is in error and no longer valid, particularly in light of the recent divisional court case of Parousis v Centurion Property Associates Inc., 2025 ONSC 6864, which found that arrears and/or partial payments are ALSO late payments. It would be impossible for the Landlord to supply late payment dates for unpaid rent.
Back to our case, GUO v GLEN, where the Chair found the N8 notice was insufficient, in that it simply stated the tenants had been late since August of 2021. It indicated an attached rental summary, but apparently testimony revealed that the summary had not been provided with the notice to the tenant. There was also some evidence of issues with service of the N8, although the Chair had made a factual finding in paragraph 3 that the N8 had been served with a termination date of November 30, 2025, which would be within the rules depending on the rental periods, i.e. from the 1st of each month and without a fixed term.
In every case at the LTB, a Chair has a compressed timeline to hear evidence and a party may compress months or years of events into a few minutes of testimony, from which a Chair makes a determination. Not an easy undertaking.
In this instance, we don’t see any consideration or discussion around if or when the tenant came into possession of the rental ledger or if the tenant had knowledge of these facts. One would assume that the tenants would be in possession of the knowledge of when rent was paid and could refute any allegation of late payment with proof of payment on time. It should not matter whether the rent was two days late or 12 days late, the only legal defence to an N8 should be proof of payment on time and in full.
That is never discussed. Instead the Chair focused on what the Chair considered the requirements for a notice of termination and the specifics involved. In doing so, the Chair did not reference section 212 and look for sufficient compliance and evidence of actual prejudice.
The Chair also imported (from the 2024 LTB case Ghanbari v Hernandez referenced earlier) the requirement in paragraph 8 that “...N8 must provide the date on which the Landlords assert that the rent was actually paid in the months that the Landlords assert that Tenants paid the rent late…..”
Given the subsequent Divisional case also referenced above, Parousis v Centurion Property Associates Inc., 2025 ONSC 6864, which holds that arrears or partial payments are ALSO late payments, the requirement for a fixed date is now an apparent absurdity at law and should no longer be a proper consideration.
The Landlord, however, failed to raise the proper legal issues - substantial compliance and the need to show actual prejudice under 212 and the evolving caselaw set out in Parousis which changed the landscape significantly.
The Chair apparently relied on other evidence and considerations. The decision to dismiss the Landlord’s application was never fully before the Board, as these key elements were not considered or applied. Depending on the evidence, the decision may well have been in favour of the Landlord. Instead, now, all parties before the Board have one more piece of case law that refutes section 212 and Parousis, making subsequent decisions more difficult and less clear.
Key Takeaways
You may have a strong legal position but it needs to be argued correctly. The Chair cannot be expected to know or consider everything, particularly in light of limited timelines and a heavy caseload. As a litigant, it is your responsibility to present your best case. Even a strong legal case can lose if not properly presented.
Chairs can make decisions that are questionable in law, and if you fail to bring up issues and/or file reviews, those cases can be reported in Canlii and cloud jurisprudence. The review and appeal processes are in place because Chairs have large workloads, limited time and other resources and are human.
When filing an N8, if you don’t have a strong legal background, you need to hire competent representation. In fact, that goes for all notices of termination.
