Under Ontario’s Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, a landlord can end a tenancy so that the landlord, a close family member, or a caregiver can move into the unit. This is the “own use” notice, served on Form N12, and when it is genuine it is entirely legitimate. The Act requires that the landlord act in good faith and genuinely intend the stated use. The problem arises when that requirement is not met, when a notice is used to remove a tenant so the unit can be re-rented at a higher price or sold vacant, and the “own use” was never real. This piece explains how bad faith is established, and what a lawful investigation can contribute.
What the law actually requires
At a hearing, a landlord relying on an own-use notice must satisfy the Board, on a balance of probabilities, that they genuinely and in good faith intend the use they claimed. The Board does not simply take the assertion at face value. It can weigh the surrounding conduct: whether the landlord has served similar notices before, what actually happened to the unit after the tenant left, and whether the timing and communications are consistent with the stated intention.
That last point is the crux of most bad-faith cases. The intention exists in the landlord’s mind at the time, but it is tested by what happens afterward. A unit that is advertised for rent at a higher price weeks after a tenant vacated “for the landlord’s own use” tells its own story.
Why bad-faith cases are hard to prove, and where evidence comes in
Bad faith is difficult to prove precisely because it turns on intention and on events that unfold after a tenant has already moved out and lost sight of the property. A former tenant may suspect the truth but have no way to document it. This is the gap a lawful investigation can close.
The evidence that matters is contemporaneous and specific: whether the unit was actually occupied by the person named in the notice, or instead re-listed, re-rented, or sold vacant; when that happened; and how it can be documented in a way that stands up. Public rental and sale listings, timestamped observation of who is genuinely occupying the unit over a period, and a clear, dated record are the kinds of material the Board can weigh. Locating and confirming the current occupant is often the pivotal fact. None of it requires anything unlawful; it is documentation of what is observable and lawfully available, held to the same evidentiary standard we describe in LTB evidence that holds up.
The remedies that make it worth pursuing
The Act gives the Board real remedies where bad faith is established. A former tenant may be awarded a substantial amount, including up to twelve months of the rent they had been paying, compensation for increased rent at a new home, and moving and storage costs, and the Board may also impose a fine. These are not token amounts, which is why a properly documented case is worth building rather than abandoning to a hunch.
The honest caveat
Not every own-use eviction is bad faith, and an investigation is not a way to manufacture a grievance. Many landlords genuinely need their units. The purpose of documentation is to distinguish the real cases from the suspected ones, so that a genuine wrong can be proven and a genuine intention is not maligned. Where the facts support it, evidence turns a suspicion into a case the Board can act on.
Not legal advice
This article is general information about Ontario law and is not legal advice. Bad-faith and LTB matters turn on their specific facts; consult a lawyer or licensed paralegal for your situation.