LTB, Disputes & Enforcement
Defending T1, T2, T5 & T6 Tenant Applications: An Ontario Landlord's Guide
How Ontario landlords prepare evidence and respond when a tenant files a T1, T2, T5, or T6 application at the LTB, and how to avoid the conduct that triggers each one.
When a tenant files a T1, T2, T5, or T6 application, the landlord’s response — not the initial notice or interaction — decides the outcome. A T1 challenges an illegal deposit, a T2 alleges harassment or interference with reasonable enjoyment, a T5 alleges bad faith behind an N12 eviction, and a T6 alleges a landlord failed to meet maintenance obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act. In every case, the landlord who wins is the one who can produce a clear, dated, written record of what actually happened.
What Each T-Application Alleges — and How a Landlord Responds
Each T-form targets a different category of landlord conduct, and each calls for a different kind of evidence in response.
| Application | What the tenant alleges | How a landlord defends |
|---|---|---|
| T1 | The landlord collected an illegal deposit — more than first and last month’s rent, or a key/fob deposit above actual replacement cost | Show exactly what was collected and why; if the deposit exceeded what the RTA permits, there is little defense beyond returning it — prevention is the real remedy |
| T2 | The landlord harassed the tenant or interfered with their reasonable enjoyment of the unit | Produce a record of single, professional communications rather than a repeated pattern of messages on the same issue; show any formal notice (e.g., an N4) was served properly and separately from informal reminders |
| T5 | The landlord acted in bad faith — most often issuing an N12 for personal use, then re-renting or re-listing the unit instead | Show genuine occupancy: the landlord or family member actually moved in and stayed for the required period, with no advertisement or re-rental of the unit |
| T6 | The landlord failed to maintain or repair the property under the RTA’s maintenance obligations | Produce a documented response timeline — written acknowledgment, contractor reports, receipts — showing prompt action to mitigate the issue |
A tenant can file more than one of these against the same landlord for the same underlying dispute — a maintenance complaint that turns into repeated follow-up messages, for example, can generate both a T6 and a T2. Each application is assessed on its own evidence, so a landlord needs a distinct, dated file for each issue, not one general email thread.
Defending a T2: Harassment and Reasonable Enjoyment
A T2 defense turns on the difference between one clear notice and a pattern of repeated contact about the same issue.
Contacting a tenant about a legitimate issue — including unpaid rent — isn’t harassment on its own, even if the tenant objects: the LTB’s guidance recognizes communication for a proper purpose. What tips conduct into a T2 is when it becomes coercive or threatening, or a sustained barrage a tenant reasonably experiences as harassment. The defensible pattern is simple: communicate about the issue clearly and for a genuine purpose, keep copies, then move to the correct formal notice (an N4 for non-payment, for example) rather than leaning on a pile of repeated informal chasers. When a T2 does get filed, the landlord’s file should show that single-message discipline, plus proof the formal notice was served through the proper channel.
Beyond communication style, a T2 can also be filed over other interference with a tenant’s reasonable enjoyment — entry without proper notice, for instance. The defense in any T2 scenario is the same: a record showing the landlord’s conduct stayed within what the RTA and the tenant’s tenancy agreement actually permit.
Defending a T6: Maintenance and Repair Obligations
A T6 defense rests on showing the landlord responded to a maintenance report promptly and took real steps to fix the problem — not on proving nothing was ever wrong.
The RTA’s maintenance obligations are broad — furnace filters, appliances, mold, and structural repairs squarely fall under a landlord’s duty to keep the property in a good state of repair. A few items are less clear-cut: responsibility for burnt-out light bulbs is contested in LTB case law (some decisions treat it as part of the tenant’s ordinary-cleanliness duty), and a landlord’s snow-and-ice-clearing duty runs to the exterior common areas of a complex, not necessarily a tenant’s own exclusive-use driveway or walkway — so confirm who’s responsible before a dispute rather than assuming it always falls on the landlord. What matters at a hearing isn’t just whether the issue eventually got fixed; the LTB looks specifically at what the landlord did to mitigate the problem once it was reported. That means:
- Acknowledge the report in writing, even briefly — “Got it, I’m sending someone out” is enough to timestamp that the landlord took the report seriously.
- Get a qualified contractor, not an informal fix from a friend or relative, and keep any report or invoice they provide.
- Document the outcome — what was found, what was repaired, and when.
- Keep the full communication trail between the landlord, any property manager, the contractor, and the tenant, especially if the tenant delayed access or scheduling.
A landlord (or a property manager acting on their behalf) who can produce this kind of file walks into a T6 hearing with the evidence an adjudicator is specifically looking for.
Defending a T5: Bad-Faith N12 Applications
A T5 defense depends on proof the personal-use claim behind an N12 was genuine — not on an explanation offered after the fact.
A T5 typically follows an N12: a landlord tells a tenant they need the unit for personal or family use, the tenant moves out, and the landlord is required to move in (or have their family member move in) for a minimum period set by the RTA. If the landlord instead re-rents the unit — especially at a higher rent — that’s the fact pattern a T5 is built to catch, and it’s also the easiest one for a tenant to prove. Tenants can set an alert on the property address and get notified the moment it reappears on a listing site, then use that screenshot as evidence of bad faith.
Because the evidence a tenant brings to a T5 is usually external and hard to dispute (an active listing, an ad, a re-rented unit), the only real defense is not creating that evidence in the first place: follow through on the stated personal-use plan, occupy the unit for the full period the RTA requires before considering any change in use, and confirm the current occupancy requirement before issuing an N12 to begin with.
Defending a T1: Illegal Deposits
There is very little to “defend” in a T1 once an illegal deposit has actually been collected — the strongest position is never collecting one.
A T1 alleges the landlord took money the RTA doesn’t permit: anything beyond first month’s rent, a last month’s rent deposit, and a key or fob deposit that reflects actual replacement cost. Even a deposit the tenant offered voluntarily — multiple months of prepaid rent, or an inflated “key deposit” — doesn’t hold up, because a landlord and tenant cannot contract around the deposit rules. If a T1 is filed, the landlord’s practical options are limited: explain exactly what was collected and why, and be prepared for an order requiring the money to be returned. Requesting only the amounts the RTA actually permits is what prevents the application from having grounds in the first place.
Building an Evidence File Before You Need One
The landlords who defend T-applications well aren’t the ones who scramble after being served — they’re the ones who already had the file.
A useful ongoing record, whether kept personally or through a property manager, includes:
- Dated, timestamped copies of every tenant communication, organized by issue rather than as one long thread
- Contractor and professional reports for any repair, with receipts
- Copies of every formal notice served (N4, N12, etc.) and proof of service
- Records confirming any personal-use occupancy actually happened and lasted the required period
- A clear record of exactly what deposits were collected, from whom, and when
This is also where professional property management earns its cost: software that logs every ticket, message, and contractor visit produces exactly the kind of dated record an adjudicator wants to see in a T2 or T6 hearing — though good records support a defense, they don’t excuse conduct (like a bad-faith N12 or an illegal deposit) that actually violated the RTA. Whatever the size of the portfolio, treating each tenant interaction as something that might one day need to be reconstructed for a hearing is what separates landlords who defend applications successfully from those who don’t.