Illegal Entry - LTB Orders
Cases of landlords entering the rental unit without proper notice or permission.
Related Forms
Dispute Stats
Total Orders
1,708
Orders since 2024
836
Contested dispute only. Click to switch between order outcomes
Downey-Thomas v Lacson
The Tenant's application alleging illegal entry, substantial interference, and harassment was dismissed because it failed to provide dates and particulars for the alleged conduct, violating principles of procedural fairness.
Celik v Celik
The LTB dismissed the tenant's application because the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply due to the shared use of kitchen and bathroom facilities with the landlord and the landlord's mother.
Armstrong v Rubio
The Tenant withdrew their application concerning illegal entry and substantial interference, and the LTB file was closed.
Ferk v Ottawa Community Housing Corporation
The Landlord and Tenant Board denied a tenant's review request, finding no serious error or denial of procedural fairness in the original order concerning maintenance and tenant rights.
Khan v Haque and Begum
The Tenant's T1, T2, T5, and T6 applications were dismissed as statute-barred because they were filed years after the tenancy had ended, well beyond the one-year limitation period under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.
Beamish and Kaarsemaker v Duncan
Tenant-initiated applications regarding maintenance, harassment, and illegal entry were dismissed as withdrawn upon the Tenants' request.
Beamish v Duncan
The tenants' applications regarding maintenance, tenant rights, and bad faith eviction were dismissed as withdrawn upon the tenants' request at the hearing.
Khan v Nusrat
Tenant applications regarding maintenance, harassment, and illegal entry were dismissed as an abuse of process because the parties had previously entered into a valid mutual settlement agreement and release resolving all tenancy claims.
Khan v Haque and Begum
The Tenant's T1, T2, T5, and T6 applications were dismissed as statute-barred because they were filed years after the tenancy had ended, well beyond the one-year limitation period under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.
Beamish and Kaarsemaker v Duncan
Tenant-initiated applications regarding maintenance, harassment, and illegal entry were dismissed as withdrawn upon the Tenants' request.
Beamish v Duncan
The tenants' applications regarding maintenance, tenant rights, and bad faith eviction were dismissed as withdrawn upon the tenants' request at the hearing.
Khan v Nusrat
Tenant applications regarding maintenance, harassment, and illegal entry were dismissed as an abuse of process because the parties had previously entered into a valid mutual settlement agreement and release resolving all tenancy claims.
Khan v Haque and Begum
The Tenant's T1, T2, T5, and T6 applications were dismissed as statute-barred because they were filed years after the tenancy had ended, well beyond the one-year limitation period under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.
Beamish and Kaarsemaker v Duncan
Tenant-initiated applications regarding maintenance, harassment, and illegal entry were dismissed as withdrawn upon the Tenants' request.
Beamish v Duncan
The tenants' applications regarding maintenance, tenant rights, and bad faith eviction were dismissed as withdrawn upon the tenants' request at the hearing.
Khan v Nusrat
Tenant applications regarding maintenance, harassment, and illegal entry were dismissed as an abuse of process because the parties had previously entered into a valid mutual settlement agreement and release resolving all tenancy claims.
Downey-Thomas v Lacson
The Tenant's application alleging illegal entry, substantial interference, and harassment was dismissed because it failed to provide dates and particulars for the alleged conduct, violating principles of procedural fairness.
Celik v Celik
The LTB dismissed the tenant's application because the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply due to the shared use of kitchen and bathroom facilities with the landlord and the landlord's mother.
Khan v Haque and Begum
The Tenant's T1, T2, T5, and T6 applications were dismissed as statute-barred because they were filed years after the tenancy had ended, well beyond the one-year limitation period under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.
Beamish and Kaarsemaker v Duncan
Tenant-initiated applications regarding maintenance, harassment, and illegal entry were dismissed as withdrawn upon the Tenants' request.
Beamish v Duncan
The tenants' applications regarding maintenance, tenant rights, and bad faith eviction were dismissed as withdrawn upon the tenants' request at the hearing.
Khan v Nusrat
Tenant applications regarding maintenance, harassment, and illegal entry were dismissed as an abuse of process because the parties had previously entered into a valid mutual settlement agreement and release resolving all tenancy claims.
Downey-Thomas v Lacson
The Tenant's application alleging illegal entry, substantial interference, and harassment was dismissed because it failed to provide dates and particulars for the alleged conduct, violating principles of procedural fairness.
Celik v Celik
The LTB dismissed the tenant's application because the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply due to the shared use of kitchen and bathroom facilities with the landlord and the landlord's mother.
Armstrong v Rubio
The Tenant withdrew their application concerning illegal entry and substantial interference, and the LTB file was closed.
Ferk v Ottawa Community Housing Corporation
The Landlord and Tenant Board denied a tenant's review request, finding no serious error or denial of procedural fairness in the original order concerning maintenance and tenant rights.
Unlock Complete Case History
Access our complete database of similar cases to build stronger arguments and increase your chances of success at the Landlord Tenant Board.
See how adjudicators typically rule on cases similar to yours
Access complete case histories to strengthen your position
Reference specific past orders during your hearing
Latest Insights from Our Blog
Stay informed with expert analysis on rental law, tenant rights, and LTB decisions
Do You Need a Lawyer or Paralegal for the LTB? A Cost-Benefit Guide for Ontario Landlords and Tenants
Should you hire a lawyer or paralegal for your Landlord and Tenant Board case? Compare representation costs, LTB fee recovery limits, and when self-representation makes sense for Ontario rental disputes.
How to Fill Out the L2 Application: Ontario Landlord's Guide to Ending a Tenancy and Evicting a Tenant
Complete guide to the LTB L2 application for landlords seeking eviction after N5, N6, N7, N8, N12, or N13 notices. Covers filing deadlines, money claims, N12/N13 disclosures, and common errors.
Mississauga LTB Paralegals: Landlord & Tenant Legal Help in Peel Region (2026)
Find licensed LTB paralegals in Mississauga for eviction, rent arrears, maintenance claims, and tenant defence. Compare Peel Region advocates ranked by real tribunal case records.
Need Legal Help? We've Got You Covered
Whether you need to find qualified legal professionals or post your specific legal needs to get competitive quotes, our platform connects you with the right help.
Find Legal Professionals
Browse our directory of verified paralegals and lawyers specializing in Ontario rental law and LTB matters.
Browse ProfessionalsPost Your Legal Needs
Describe your legal situation and receive competitive quotes from qualified professionals in our marketplace.
Post a BountyJoin thousands of Ontarians who have found legal help through our platform