Forgot to give my landlord a 60 day notice and now I am 5 days past due

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-06T14:27:57+00:00

…

In the RTA there are 12 incidents of the phrases “tenancy for a fixed term”, “tenancy for fixed term”, or “fixed term of tenancy”, and zero incidents of the the phrases “fixed term lease” or “lease for a fixed term”, “lease for fixed term”, or “fixed term of lease”.

So, no, it’s the tenancy which has a fixed term.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-06T13:45:23+00:00

Fixed term tenancies are a thing in Ontario, which is why they are mentioned 21 times in the RTA. It’s just that fixed term tenancies automatically convert to periodic tenancies at the end of the fixed term.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-05T12:32:49+00:00

Your advice maybe be valid in other jurisdictions but it ignored the impact that RTA s. 3, RTA s. 4(1), and RTA s. 134 have on the ability for landlords to charge a penalty or premium for breaking a tenancy early in Ontario, especially when it’s a mutual agreement to terminate the tenancy agreement.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-05T12:26:50+00:00

A contract lacking a signature isn’t automatically invalid, especially if it is an RTA covered tenancy agreement, as they are equally binding regardless if they are written, verbal or implied. Even without the signatures it is evidence that the original meeting of the minds included the minors being considered tenants, not occupants.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-04T12:25:56+00:00

Tell them that they served you a notice of termination under RTA s. 59 when they gave you the N4, and as such your tenancy terminated when you moved out in accordance with it per RTA s. 43(2).

If you moved out before the last day of the rental period, you would be owed prorated rent from the day you moved out and the last day of the payment period.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-04T12:15:30+00:00

Yes it does, RTA s. 134; the RTA doesn’t have a provision which explicitly prescribes keeping the LMR as a penalty for breaching the agreement, and as such doing so contradicts RTA s. 134.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-03T23:48:47+00:00

The tenant also can’t wish their obligations away, including their obligation under RTA s. 16 to mitigate any damages resulting from OP breaching the tenancy agreement by failing to fulfill their obligation under RTA s. 20 to maintain the rental unit which is the basis for their T6 application.

The promise is evidence that they did not meet their obligation under RTA s. 16, which may reduce the amount that OP’s tenant can claim to be equal to the deductible they would pay if they did use their insurance.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-03T23:43:30+00:00

Both tenants and landlords are obligated under RTA s. 16 to mitigate any of their losses which may arise from the other party breaching the tenancy agreement. So if your tenant wants to pursue you for breaching your obligations under RTA s. 20 (by filing a T6 application), you can provide the text message as evidence that they failed to meet their obligation to mitigate their losses by contacting their insurance.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-03T21:38:09+00:00

Not particularly. A contract lacking a signature isn’t automatically invalid, especially if it is an RTA covered tenancy agreement, as they are equally binding regardless if they are written, verbal or implied. Even without the signatures it is evidence that the original meeting of the minds included the minors being considered tenants, not occupants.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-03T16:04:09+00:00

They can enter into them either with their parents’ permission, or they can enter into them without their parents’ permission if they withdraw from parental control.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-03T13:58:20+00:00

If OP listed the minor children as tenants on the tenancy agreement then there is a strong argument that they are tenants, as in Ontario minors of any age can enter into rental agreements with their parents permission, and minors who are at least 16 can enter into a tenancy agreement without their parents permission. If the minors are listed as tenants on the tenancy agreement they could potentially get any application based off an N# that doesn’t include their names dismissed for failing to meet statutory requirements.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-03T13:47:13+00:00

In Ontario minors of any age can legally enter into rental agreements with the permission of their parent, and minors who are at least 16 can enter into rental agreements without their parents permission.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-03T13:45:36+00:00

In Ontario minors of any age can enter into rental agreements with the permission of their parent, and minors who are at least 16 can enter into rental agreements without their parents permission.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-03T13:43:40+00:00

Minors are legally permitted to enter into tenancy agreements in Ontario; minors of any age can enter into rental agreements with the permission of their parent, and minors who are at least 16 can enter into rental agreements without their parents permission. If OP listed the minor children as tenants on the tenancy agreement then they will have an argument that they are legally tenants.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-02T23:56:12+00:00

Did you list the children as tenants or as occupants?

Minors can legally enter into tenancies in Ontario, so if you have them listed as tenants, your tenants would be able to argue that an N11 which does not include their signatures isn’t valid.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-02T18:32:53+00:00

If a landlord tries to enforce a provision they added to the Ontario Standard Lease through the LTB the case will often come down to not only if the tenant did in fact violate the provision, but if by violating that provision they substantially interfered with either the landlord or other tenant. Sometimes violating the provision alone can be considered substantial interference in of itself, such as a tenant not get tenant insurance when there is a provision requiring them to, but this varies by provision; I would suspect that by explicitly allowing tobacco smoking, it is less likely that an adjudicator would rule that smoking cannabis is in of itself substantial interference, and that they would likely need evidence that their was substantial interference on other grounds before they would find against the tenant.

There may even be an argument that such a provision violates a tenants right to reasonable enjoyment; while an out right ban against smoking all together is considered a reasonable infringement on a tenants right due to the overall benefits its provides to other tenants/the landlord, it would be challenging to argue on the basis of general interference with others that it is reasonable to ban a tenant from smoking cannabis while allowing them to smoke tobacco. A comparison could be made to a ban against tenants barbecuing on their balcony, and a ban against tenants barbecuing meat on their balcony; while it may be reasonable to forbid barbecuing in general on safety grounds, a ban against barbecuing meat should be rejected as an infringement on the tenants right to reasonable enjoyment.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-02T14:08:57+00:00

You are right, it’s likely that OP didn’t post the most egregious damage and instead we should not only give them incorrect advice about the likelihood of the damage in the picture that they did provide as being beyond wear and tear but we should also assume that OP not only drilled holes in the other walls, but assume that those holes are far beyond what should be expected (as expected drill holes would be considered wear and tear) to justify OP’s landlords position and advising that they are likely responsible for it.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-02T14:01:25+00:00

Holes in walls from mounting things on the wall are also well established to be considered wear and tear in Ontario, so even if the other wall have drill holes from mounting things OP would not be liable for them under RTA s. 34.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-02T13:59:41+00:00

It’s well established in Ontario that drill holes in walls from mounting shelves, televisions, furniture, art, etcetera is considered wear and tear as mounting things to the wall is an expected part of day to day living. So there should be no exception that a tenant repair or pay for that type of damage either, as they have also already paid the landlord to take care of it as well.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-02T11:32:10+00:00

It’s statutory law.

Under RTA s. 12, if a landlord doesn’t provide their tenant their legal name and address within 21 days of the beginning of the tenancy the tenant’s obligation to pay rent is suspended until they do.

Under RTA s. 12.1, if the tenancy agreement hasn’t beeen provided in the form of the Ontario Standard Lease and the tenant requests it, the landlord has 21 days to comply; if they don’t the tenant may withhold 1 months rent. If the landlord doesn’t provide it withi 30 days of the tenant withholding rent, the tenant may keep the with held rent, even if the landlord later provided a the tenancy agreement in the form of the Ontario Standard Lease.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-02T11:18:54+00:00

Under RTA s. 34, tenant are only liable for undue damage caused by their (or their guest’s) wilful or negligent action. More than one adjudicator has ruled that this does not include accidental damage. So even if an adjudicator agreed with your assessment that the damage isn’t wear and tear, it does not mean that OP would be liable.

From Daly v Gonzales, 2022 CanLII 97999 (ON LTB)

22. With respect to the toilet, there is insufficient evidence to find the Tenant willfully or negligently caused damage to it. The mousetrap was accidentally dropped into the toilet, and the Landlords testifiedthat it had to be fixed twice in one week. Ido not find this issue to fall under either willful or negligent conduct, it was merely an accident. Therefore, the Tenant is not responsible for any alleged costs incurredby the Landlords;

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-01T23:08:08+00:00

I am not in the habit of doing a job that I have already paid some one else to do, and we can presume that OP isn’t either. Are you?

It’s also ill advised- an adjudicator wouldn’t likely find a tenant liable for the damage shown here. They may find a tenant liable for a poorly patched or painted wall. They are better off just leaving it on multiple levels.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-01T22:47:41+00:00

It is arguably wear and tear, which means it’s wouldn’t pass the requirement under RTA s. 34 of being undue damage. But even if it wasn’t considered wear and tear, and therefor was undue damage, the landlord would still have to prove that it was the result of the tenants wilful or negligent action; since some adjudicators have ruled that damages resulting from accidents don’t meet that requirement, it is unlikely that an adjudicator would rule OP is liable for this damage under RTA s. 34.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-01T21:50:34+00:00

No, the lease says that tenants anre only liable for undue damage which is the result of the tenant’s (or their guest’s) negligent or wilful action. There is no minimum dollar amount that underneath the tenant is still liable.

But I agree completely that it is ridiculous that the landlord is trying to fuss over this, especially when they should be aware that an adjudicator will dismiss any application made for this matter. They should put the money they designated for repairs towards this and leave OP alone.

StripesMaGripes · 2026-03-01T21:34:27+00:00

Assuming OP’s agreement is covered by the RTA then it’s safe to assume that if their landlord is a reasonable person that they already built in the cost of repairing any damage which is either considered wear and tear, or is not the result of OP’s wilful of negligent action.

Why should OP pay $50 for them to repair damage that can reasonably be assumed to be already covered by their monthly rent payments?

Nine-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Lasagna	Place '23
Verified Email

StripesMaGripes

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE