Filing a complaint about maintenance issues, reporting bylaw violations, or asserting your rights as a tenant should be straightforward exercises in responsible tenancy. Unfortunately, our analysis of recent Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decisions reveals a troubling pattern: landlords who respond to legitimate tenant complaints not with repairs or compliance, but with retaliation. From retaliatory eviction notices to harassment campaigns, some landlords treat tenant advocacy as a declaration of war rather than an opportunity to address legitimate concerns.
The Anatomy of Retaliation
The Classic Retaliation Pattern
The case of CAL-v-RL-20190219 provides a textbook example of landlord retaliation. When the tenant complained to the City about maintenance issues, which resulted in a work order against the landlord, the landlord's response was swift and punitive. The landlord "served N12 Notice shortly after Tenant complained about air conditioning" and refused "to address maintenance issues until Tenant moves out."
The LTB found that "the Landlord is pursuing eviction in retaliation for the Tenant asserting the Landlord's maintenance obligations." The application was dismissed because "the Landlord's daughter does not genuinely intend to move into the rental unit, and the Landlord is pursuing eviction in retaliation for the Tenant asserting the Landlord's maintenance obligations."
This case demonstrates the classic retaliation pattern: tenant makes legitimate complaint, landlord responds with eviction notice, and the timing reveals the true motive.
The Bylaw Complaint Trigger
Another clear example appears in TT-v-LN-20200221, where the tenant "first alerted landlord to repair issues in November 2018 but landlord failed to respond. Tenant then contacted city bylaw enforcement who found numerous issues with the rental unit." The landlord's response was immediate and retaliatory: serving an N13 notice.
The LTB found that the "Landlord's service of N13 notice was in retaliation for tenant's complaint" and that the "Landlord's conduct in serving N13 notice in retaliation for tenant's complaint was found to substantially interfere with tenant's reasonable enjoyment." The landlord was ordered to pay the tenant $2,790 for rent abatement and costs.
This case illustrates how landlords often escalate their retaliation when tenants involve government authorities, treating external oversight as a personal affront requiring punishment.
The Threat and Intimidation Campaign
Legal Threats as Weapons
Some landlords go beyond simple eviction notices to outright intimidation. In DG-v-RT-2018-TSL-91059-17, the landlords' response to tenants filing a T2 application was to send a threatening letter demanding they "cease their 'false allegations' and withdraw their T2 application" while threatening "to sue Tenants for $500,000 if they did not cease their 'false allegations' and withdraw their T2 application."
The LTB found that the landlords "failed to demonstrate good faith in their intention to have their son occupy the unit" and that "the application was brought in retaliation for the Tenants' attempts to enforce their legal rights." The timing was particularly damning: "Tenants' T2 application and complaints to city prompted retaliatory action from Landlords."
This case shows how some landlords use the threat of expensive litigation to silence tenants, treating legal intimidation as a legitimate business strategy.
The Harassment Escalation
The case of AP-and-TP-v-KS-and-KT-20211201 demonstrates how retaliation can escalate into systematic harassment. The landlords "served invalid N12 notice in retaliation for Tenants' conduct" and the LTB found that "Landlords harassed Tenants by serving N12 notice."
The tenants were awarded significant compensation: "The Tenants' T2 application was granted in part, with the Landlords ordered to pay a rent abatement of $3,360 for harassment. The Tenants' T6 application was also granted in part, with the Landlords ordered to pay a rent abatement of $4,160 for failing to maintain the kitchen cabinets and countertop."
This case illustrates how retaliation often involves multiple forms of landlord misconduct, with harassment and maintenance failures working in tandem to pressure tenants.
The Subtle Forms of Retaliation
The Communication Cutoff
Not all retaliation involves dramatic eviction notices. Some landlords employ subtler tactics, as seen in N.H.-v-R.A.-20190131, where the landlord's son "made unreasonable demands and threats of eviction against the Tenant" and "engaged in a campaign of harassment against the Tenant, making unreasonable demands and threats of eviction."
The LTB found that "The Landlord's Son's actions constituted harassment of Tenant" and that "Landlord's demands and threats of eviction were unreasonable and invalid." The tenant was awarded $850 for rent abatement, and the landlord was ordered to "refrain from certain actions and to properly measure and address the heating issue."
The Noise Complaint Weaponization
Sometimes retaliation takes the form of weaponizing other tenants' complaints. In VD-v-OP-2017-TST-83937-17, the landlords repeatedly communicated "unsubstantiated noise complaints to the Tenant without proper investigation" against a 97-year-old tenant who had been living peacefully in her unit for almost five years.
The LTB found that "The Landlords' actions of repeatedly communicating unsubstantiated noise complaints to the Tenant without proper investigation amounted to harassment and substantial interference with the Tenant's reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit." The landlords were ordered to "cease communicating noise complaints to the Tenant or her caregivers without first conducting a reasonable investigation."
When Retaliation Claims Fail
The High Bar for Proving Retaliation
Not every claim of retaliation succeeds. The LTB maintains high standards for proving retaliatory intent, as demonstrated in several cases where timing alone wasn't sufficient.
In jensen-v-johnson-20220722, tenants argued that a non-payment application "was brought in retaliation for the Tenants' maintenance complaints." However, the court found that "the application was brought due to non-payment of rent and not in retaliation for the Tenants' maintenance complaints," noting that the landlords had "complied with a consent order to make repairs and pay a settlement amount for maintenance issues."
This case illustrates that landlords can still pursue legitimate applications even after tenant complaints, provided the applications are based on genuine grounds rather than retaliatory motives.
The Credibility Factor
In Yao-v-Szigeti-20220913, the tenant "felt he was being evicted in retaliation for his noise complaints about other tenants in the building." However, the LTB found that "The Tenant's issues with noise from other tenants are not sufficient to deny the eviction under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006."
The landlords successfully demonstrated that they "require unit for son's residential occupation for at least one year" and that the tenant's "noise complaints do not warrant denying eviction under s. 83."
The Legal Framework Against Retaliation
Section 83 Protections
The Residential Tenancies Act provides specific protections against retaliatory evictions under section 83, which allows the LTB to refuse or delay evictions when landlords are acting in bad faith or retaliation.
The Timing Test
Courts and the LTB pay close attention to timing when evaluating retaliation claims. The proximity between tenant complaints and landlord actions often provides the clearest evidence of retaliatory intent.
The Good Faith Requirement
For landlord-use evictions (N12 notices), landlords must demonstrate genuine good faith intent. When the timing suggests retaliation, landlords face a higher burden to prove their legitimate need for the unit.
Red Flags: Identifying Retaliatory Behavior
Immediate Response Pattern
Based on successful retaliation cases, tenants should be alert to:
- Eviction notices served shortly after complaints - Particularly N12 or N13 notices that appear within days or weeks of tenant complaints
- Escalating demands after complaints - Sudden increases in landlord demands or scrutiny following tenant advocacy
- Communication cutoffs - Landlords who stop responding to legitimate requests after tenants assert their rights
- Legal threats - Threats of expensive litigation designed to silence tenant complaints
- Harassment campaigns - Systematic efforts to make tenants uncomfortable through repeated contact or unreasonable demands
The Documentation Trail
Successful retaliation claims often depend on clear documentation showing:
- The timing of tenant complaints
- The landlord's response pattern
- Any changes in landlord behavior following complaints
- Evidence that purported reasons for eviction are pretextual
Defensive Strategies for Tenants
Before Making Complaints
Document Everything:
- Keep records of all maintenance issues
- Photograph problems before reporting them
- Save all communications with landlords
- Note dates and times of all interactions
Use Proper Channels:
- Follow lease requirements for reporting issues
- Use written communication when possible
- Keep copies of all complaints and requests
After Receiving Retaliatory Actions
Challenge Immediately:
- File T2 applications for harassment
- Contest eviction notices that appear retaliatory
- Gather evidence of the timing relationship
- Document any changes in landlord behavior
Seek Legal Advice:
- Consult with tenant advocacy groups
- Consider legal representation for complex cases
- Understand your rights under section 83
The Broader Impact of Retaliation
Chilling Effect on Tenant Rights
Landlord retaliation creates a chilling effect that extends far beyond individual cases. When tenants fear eviction for asserting their rights, the entire system of tenant protections becomes meaningless. This dynamic particularly affects vulnerable tenants who cannot afford to risk their housing security.
The Cost to Landlords
Ironically, landlords who engage in retaliation often face higher costs than those who address complaints directly. The cases examined here show awards ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars, plus legal costs and damaged relationships with tenants.
System-Wide Consequences
Retaliation undermines the cooperative relationship that effective property management requires. When landlords treat tenant complaints as attacks rather than opportunities for improvement, they create adversarial relationships that benefit no one.
Best Practices for Landlords
Responding to Complaints Professionally
Smart landlords understand that tenant complaints are valuable feedback that can prevent larger problems. Professional responses include:
- Acknowledging complaints promptly
- Investigating issues thoroughly
- Communicating repair timelines clearly
- Following through on commitments
Avoiding the Appearance of Retaliation
Even when landlords have legitimate reasons for eviction, timing matters. Landlords should:
- Document legitimate reasons for any actions
- Avoid serving notices immediately after complaints
- Maintain consistent communication patterns
- Seek legal advice when timing might appear suspicious
The Role of the LTB
Scrutinizing Timing
The LTB has shown increasing sophistication in identifying retaliatory patterns, particularly focusing on the timing relationship between tenant complaints and landlord actions.
Meaningful Remedies
When retaliation is proven, the LTB provides meaningful remedies including:
- Dismissal of retaliatory applications
- Rent abatements for harassment
- Orders preventing future retaliatory conduct
- Cost awards to compensate tenants
Conclusion: Protecting the Right to Complain
The right to complain about housing conditions, assert tenant rights, and seek government intervention is fundamental to Ontario's rental housing system. When landlords retaliate against tenants for exercising these rights, they undermine not just individual tenancies but the entire regulatory framework designed to ensure safe, habitable housing.
The cases examined here demonstrate that while retaliation remains a significant problem, tenants have meaningful legal protections when they can prove retaliatory intent. The key is understanding the patterns, documenting the evidence, and acting quickly when retaliation occurs.
For tenants, the message is clear: you have the right to complain, the right to seek help from government authorities, and the right to assert your legal protections without fear of retaliation. When landlords cross the line from legitimate business practices to retaliatory conduct, the LTB will intervene to protect your rights.
For landlords, the lesson is equally clear: treating tenant complaints as opportunities for improvement rather than provocations for retaliation is not just legally required—it's good business practice that creates better relationships and avoids costly legal disputes.
The rental housing system works best when both parties understand their rights and responsibilities. Retaliation poisons that relationship and ultimately serves no one's interests. By recognizing and addressing retaliatory behavior, we can preserve the delicate balance that makes rental housing work for everyone.
Remember: This analysis is based on publicly available LTB decisions and is for informational purposes only. Always consult with qualified legal professionals for advice specific to your situation.
