The Landlord and Tenant Board Annual Report: Progress but still a long way to go
Tribunals Ontario has finally released its Annual Report for the period April 1, 2024 – March 31, 2025. Tribunal Watch has reviewed the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) section of the Annual Report and offers the following comments.
Overall, the Annual Report confirms that, despite a significant reduction in the backlog, landlords and tenants are still waiting about three times as long for a hearing as was the case before the LTB came under Tribunals Ontario. Small landlords continue to risk financial disaster from a non-paying tenant, and tenants continue to live for many months in dangerous housing.
In this analysis, we have used data from 2018-2019 as a comparator for some of the data in the 2024-2025 Annual Report. This is because that was before the LTB was moved to Tribunals Ontario, and before Tribunals Ontario removed in-person services at its tribunals. The case load of the Board at that time was only somewhat less than the current case load. Comparisons with the pandemic years can be misleading because the case load was significantly lower.
Backlog
The reported backlog has been reduced from 53,057 to 41,465. A reduction of 12,000 is a notable accomplishment, particularly since the Board received a record number of cases. However, the still large backlog continues to mean long processing times. In the fiscal year covered by the Annual Report (April 2024 – March 2025) these were between three and seven months. This is significantly longer than in the past. In 2018, processing times were between three and seven weeks. The LTB says that processing times have been further reduced but concedes that they are still longer than in the past.
Adjudicator Complement
The reduction in the backlog by 12,000 cases has required millions of dollars in increased funding, including an increase in the number of adjudicators. As of March 2025, the LTB had 133 adjudicators (81 full-time and 52 part-time). In 2018-19, before the LTB came under Tribunals Ontario, the LTB had 51 adjudicators. The addition of this many adjudicators requires a corresponding increase in administrative costs and a significant investment in training.
There also appears to be an adjudicator retention problem. In the last two years, over 20 adjudicators appointed to the LTB left before the end of their term.
Productivity
The data about the productivity and efficiency of adjudicators reflects another problem. The 2024-25 Annual Report indicates that 108,146 applications were resolved. Of these, only 47% or 50,828 were resolved following a hearing. This means that the average case resolution following a hearing for the 133 adjudicators was 382.1
In 2018-19, when there were 51 adjudicators, 79,476 applications were resolved. 61% or 48,480, were resolved following a hearing, for an average of 950 applications per adjudicator.
The 2018-19 LTB adjudicators were thus almost three times more efficient as the 2024-25 adjudicators and resolved almost as many cases. In 2018-19, when in-person hearings were the norm, 51 adjudicators resolved 48,480 applications through a hearing. In 2024-25, with almost entirely virtual hearings,133 adjudicators resolved 50,828 applications through a hearing.
It is also important to consider what happens to the applications that are not resolved through a hearing. The 2024-25 Annual Report indicates that 29% of applications were withdrawn. This contrasts to a 12% withdrawal rate in 2018-19. There is no explanation provided for why almost one third of applications filed with the LTB now are withdrawn or why there has been such a dramatic increase in the withdrawal rate. However, it may be speculated that the long delays at the LTB are the main reason. During a delay of multiple months, a non-paying tenant may move out. A tenant living in an unsafe unit may decide to move. Others may simply give up. While these things may resolve the immediate issue, they are clear examples of delay as a barrier to resolution of the rights of landlords and tenants.
There has also been a decline in the percentage of cases that are resolved through mediation. In 2018-19, 13.5% of cases were settled through mediation. In 2024-25, 6% were settled through mediation.2
In person hearings
The Annual Report acknowledges that “some individuals may face barriers in accessing the necessary technology to participate in electronic hearings.” However, Tribunals Ontario continues to do what it can to avoid an in-person hearing. According to the Annual Report, there were 291 requests for in-person hearings at the LTB and only 17 of these were granted. 42 other people were provided with “alternate supports, which includes a phone with limited minutes. Almost half of the requests for an in-person hearing were withdrawn or abandoned. Some of these may have been because people were prepared to proceed with other solutions, but some are likely because people give up.
The lack of in-person hearings is largely responsible for the decline in the proportion of cases that are settled through mediation noted above. When parties are able to meet in-person, animosity can be reduced, hallway conversations can take place, mediators are more available and can help resolve several cases at the same time. Resolution of an application through an agreement between the parties has many advantages. In a rent arrears case, it may, for example, allow the tenant to remain housed. Settlement has proved much more difficult in virtual hearings than it was with in-person hearings.
There is no doubt that virtual hearings can be effective and convenient for many people. However, it is also clear that they are not an optimal solution for others. The “digital divide” is an on-going reality, especially for people in the still many parts of the province where affordable broadband internet is not available, or for those who lack the equipment or skills to access the internet.
Progress has been made to help people who lack the technology to participate in virtual hearings. According to the Annual Report, in 140 cases, arrangements were made for a party to attend one of five Tribunals Ontario locations. In 24 cases, arrangements were made to attend a different location such as a community centre or public library. Parties can file documents at Service Ontario offices. As noted the LTB can provide temporary access to the internet by providing a phone.
In many virtual hearings, the landlord and tenant have a different hearing experience. The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario found that 56% of tenants participate by phone without video while 74% of landlords participate by video. In these situations, the landlord will be able to access documents during the hearing while the tenant cannot, giving rise to procedural unfairness.3
This is not equal access to justice.
A growing number of organizations have called for a return to in-person hearings at the LTB. These include organizations representing small landlords, tenant groups, and municipalities.
Conclusion
While there has been a notable decrease in the backlog at the LTB, there is still a long way to go. According to the Annual Report, the LTB expects to reduce the backlog to a manageable size by the end of the year. It may well be able to do that, as new adjudicators develop the necessary expertise, if experienced adjudicators are retained and if one third of cases continue to be withdrawn. However, the backlog and the problems that it causes is only part of the picture. The LTB needs to re-commit to ensuring that its processes are fair and work well for all those who need its services.
- For some reason, the 2024-25 Annual Report references 2023-24 information about how cases are resolved. We have assumed that the 2023-24 percentages apply at least approximately to 2024-25. ↩︎
- The 2024-24 Annual Report does not disclose the settlement rate for that year, but again provides only the 2023-24 settlement rate. There is a reference to a 10% rate of settlement through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) but this likely includes cases settled between the parties after the application is filed but without LTB involvement. ↩︎
- See, for example Zaltzman v. Kim, 2022 ONSC 1842 ↩︎