Does a Fire, Flood or Closure Order End an Ontario Tenancy?

No. A fire, a flood or an order closing your building does not end an Ontario tenancy by itself. The tenancy ends only if it is frustrated, and frustration is a legal finding about whether performance has become impossible, not a status the damage confers and not something you can elect into. Until that finding is made, the tenancy is alive, your repair obligation is running, and the tenant is still your tenant.

That sits oddly with the statute, because the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 is almost silent on the subject. Searched end to end on 2026-09-30, the words "fire", "flood", "unfit" and "uninhabitable" appear nowhere in the consolidated text. The Act has vocabulary for what a landlord plans to do and for what a landlord owes, and none at all for an event. The one provision that reaches the event is section 19, a single sentence that points out of the Act altogether.

The short version.

• Section 19 is the whole mechanism. It applies the doctrine of frustration of contract and the Frustrated Contracts Act to tenancy agreements, and nothing else in the Act terminates a tenancy because a building was destroyed.
• A closure order closes a building, not a tenancy. The fire and building statutes say nothing about the landlord and tenant relationship, and section 3 (1) of the Act applies "despite any other Act".
• Your insurance money is invisible to the adjustment, unless an express term of the tenancy agreement or an enactment obliged you to carry it. That one clause can cost you the protection.
• Getting it wrong is expensive in one direction only. If the tenancy was not frustrated, it never ended, your section 20 (1) obligation ran the whole time, and the tenant has a maintenance application with an abatement attached.
• Frustration is cheaper than the N13 route, but it closes the statutory routes for dealing with the tenant's belongings, and the belongings problem is the one owners do not see coming.

Does a fire or a flood end the tenancy by itself?

It does not. Section 37 (1) is blunt: "A tenancy may be terminated only in accordance with this Act." Section 37 (2) deals with termination by notice and section 37 (3) with termination by agreement, and subsections (4) to (6) are voiding rules about notices and agreements given too early. The Board order route lives elsewhere, in sections 77 to 79 and their neighbours. An event appears in none of it.

Section 19 is what saves the position, and it reads, in full: "The doctrine of frustration of contract and the Frustrated Contracts Act apply with respect to tenancy agreements." One sentence, under the marginal heading "Frustrated contracts", never amended since the Act was passed in 2006. It is not an exception to section 37 (1), because section 19 sits inside the same Act. Frustration is one of the ways the Act permits a tenancy to end, and the only one with no form attached to it.

The practical consequence is that you do not decide this. A court or the Board decides it, after the fact. You form a view, act on it, and carry the risk of being wrong.

Is this you? If you own a rental in Kingston or Eastern Ontario and would rather not handle this yourself, KEILTY Realty Management manages it for a flat monthly rate. Tell us about the property and A.J. Keilty will call you within 20 minutes in business hours.

What does the Act actually say about a destroyed building?

Almost nothing, and the shape of the silence tells you which arguments are available.

The string "frustrat" appears in the Act only at section 19, in its marginal heading, its operative sentence and the table of contents entry pointing to it. The word "destro" appears three times, at section 30 (1) paragraph 5 i, section 31 (1) (b) (i) and section 41 (6) paragraph 3 i, and all three are about the tenant's property, never the unit. No provision is keyed to a rental unit being destroyed, condemned, closed or ordered vacated.

Where the Act does reach a building coming down, it does so through the landlord's intentions. Section 50 (1) lets a landlord give notice where the landlord "requires possession of the rental unit in order to" demolish it, convert it, or do repairs so extensive that they require a building permit and vacant possession. That is a provision for an owner with a plan, not for an owner with a ruin.

Section 19 is not the only common law doctrine the Act imports. Section 17 applies "the common law rules respecting the effect of a serious, substantial or fundamental breach of a material covenant by one party to a contract on the obligation to perform of the other party" to tenancy agreements. A tenant locked out of an indefinitely closed building has a repudiation argument sitting beside the frustration analysis, on an easier burden than impossibility. Any owner planning around section 19 should know section 17 is there too.

Meanwhile section 20 (1) keeps running: "A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex, including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards." Nothing in the Act suspends that when a building is shut.

There is no emergency clause and no impossibility defence, and section 20 (2) forecloses the one defence the drafter did think of, by applying the obligation even where the tenant knew the state of the unit before signing. It is extinguished only if the tenancy itself is discharged, because a discharged contract carries no covenants. That is a consequence of section 19, not of section 20.

Does a closure order from the fire service or the city end anything?

No, and it is the point on which an owner's instinct and the statute part company.

Under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, an inspector who has carried out an inspection may, "with the approval of the Fire Marshal and upon such terms and conditions as the Fire Marshal considers proper", order premises closed, or in an emergency close them immediately and direct "that the lands or premises remain closed and that the premises be vacated until such time as the corrective actions ordered under subsection (1) have been completed".

Read the tail of that. A fire closure is conditional and temporary by its own terms: it lasts until the work is done. An owner arguing that such an order frustrated the tenancy is arguing against the text of the order, which says performance is possible, only delayed and expensive.

The fire statute's entire engagement with the landlord and tenant relationship is half of one sentence. Section 76, whose principal rule is an immunity from actions where a fire begins accidentally, ends with a saving clause: "but no agreement between a landlord and tenant is defeated or made void by this Act." The word "landlord" appears once in the whole Act, there. "Demolish" and "rent" appear nowhere in it.

The Building Code Act, 1992 is the same story told differently, and it can produce three different pieces of paper. A property standards order under section 15.2 (2), where a municipal by-law is in effect, can require repairs or state that the site is to be cleared. An emergency order under section 15.7 addresses a non-conformity posing an immediate danger.

The unsafe building route at section 15.9 (6) is the third. Where an earlier order was not complied with, it lets the chief building official "by order prohibit the use or occupancy of the building" and "cause the building to be renovated, repaired or demolished to remove the unsafe condition or take such other action as he or she considers necessary for the protection of the public".

Note the drafting: the Act never uses the word "vacate", so a search for a vacating power on that word returns a false negative. It also contains no substantive reference to a tenant or a tenancy anywhere. It prohibits occupancy and says nothing about the legal relationship of the person whose occupancy it has prohibited.

The clocks differ by route, and that belongs on the file the day the order arrives. A section 15.2 (2) property standards order carries a 14 day appeal under section 15.3 (1), by registered mail to the municipal property standards committee, and section 15.3 (2) deems an unappealed order confirmed.

An order of the chief building official or an inspector carries a separate 20 day appeal to the Superior Court of Justice under section 25 (1). Find the order too late and there is a cure on that route: section 25 (2) lets a judge "extend the time for making the appeal before or after the time set out in subsection (1)" on conditions. For the order itself rather than the tenancy, see our guide to challenging a fire safety order on an Ontario rental.

Section 3 (1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 closes the argument: "This Act, except Part V.1, applies with respect to rental units in residential complexes, despite any other Act and despite any agreement or waiver to the contrary." The building was closed. The tenancy was untouched.

What is frustration, and what does the Frustrated Contracts Act do about the money?

The Frustrated Contracts Act is three sections long and was read end to end at source on 2026-09-30. Section 2 (1) sets its reach: "This Act applies to any contract that is governed by the law of Ontario and that has become impossible of performance or been otherwise frustrated and to the parties which for that reason have been discharged."

Its exclusion list is closed at three clauses: charterparties and carriage of goods by sea, contracts of insurance, and the sale of specific goods that have perished. There is no exclusion for land, a lease, a tenancy or premises, and the words "land", "lease", "tenanc", "tenant" and "premises" do not appear in the statute at all. So the English argument about whether frustration reaches leases has no Ontario foothold, and section 19 removes the residual doubt anyway.

The flip side is the real story. The Act contains not one word of land-specific machinery. It was drafted for goods and services, so every question about a tenancy runs through general language about sums, expenses and benefits. Section 3 does the work, and its subsections do different jobs:

• Section 3 (1) is automatic. Sums already paid "are recoverable from the party as money received for the use of the party by whom the sums were paid", and sums payable but unpaid "cease to be payable". This is the only part of section 3 that is not discretionary. Rent paid in advance for a period after the fire comes back. Rent accrued and unpaid stops being owed.
• Section 3 (2) is discretionary, capped twice, and narrower in time than owners assume. It reaches expenses incurred "before the parties were discharged", and lets the court "allow the party to retain or to recover, as the case may be, the whole or any part of the sums paid or payable not exceeding the amount of the expenses". It can reduce a repayment to zero and never generate a positive claim. It expressly lets the court include overhead and the value of work done personally. Note what that excludes: the rebuild happens after the discharge, so rebuild costs and the management time spent on them sit outside section 3 (2) altogether.
• Section 3 (3) is narrower than owners expect. It reaches a "valuable benefit other than a payment of money", and the measure is "the whole or any part of the value of the benefit", awarded only if the court "considers it just to do so". It is not a duty to pay a just sum. That formula belongs to the English statute, not ours.
• Section 3 (7) is the nearest thing to apportionment. Where part of a contract was wholly performed before discharge and can properly be severed, the court "shall treat that part of the contract as if it were a separate contract that had not been frustrated". The argument for a monthly tenancy is that each completed rental month is such a part, so finished months stand and only the month of the fire and beyond fall into the adjustment. That is an argument available on the text rather than a rule, and section 3 (7) was not drafted with periodic tenancies in mind.

Three things the statute does not do. It says nothing about apportioning rent. It has no partial-frustration provision, so a building where some units are habitable and others are not falls to the common law doctrine section 19 imports alongside it. And it supplies no forum, no form and no deadline.

One asset is in your hands on the day of the fire and the Act has a rule for it. Section 106 (10) requires a landlord to "apply a rent deposit that a tenant has paid to the landlord or to a former landlord in payment of the rent for the last rent period before the tenancy terminates." On a frustrated tenancy that period is whichever one the discharge fell in. Get it wrong and the deposit is money retained in contravention of the Act, which opens section 135 against you.

Does your insurance payout change what you owe the tenant?

It does not, and this is the strongest single provision in the owner's favour across the instruments this post is built on.

Section 3 (5) of the Frustrated Contracts Act is mandatory, not discretionary: "In considering whether any sum ought to be recovered or retained under this section by a party to the contract, the court shall not take into account any sum that, by reason of the circumstances giving rise to the frustration of the contract, has become payable to that party under any contract of insurance unless there was an obligation to insure imposed by an express term of the frustrated contract or by or under any enactment."

Read plainly, a tenant cannot argue that your insurer has made you whole and that you should therefore refund more or retain less. The adjustment is done with a blindfold on.

Now read the exception, because it has two limbs and a drafting landmine in the first. The blindfold lifts where an obligation to insure was "imposed by an express term of the frustrated contract", and equally where it was imposed "by or under any enactment". A tenancy agreement in which you promise to carry insurance destroys your own protection under section 3 (5). Frankly, checking your lease for that covenant is the cheapest thing on this page to fix.

Section 3 (6) points the same way. Where a contract contains a provision "intended to have effect in the event of circumstances that operate, or but for the provision would operate, to frustrate the contract", the court "shall give effect to the provision" and applies section 3 only so far as is consistent with it. A destruction or force majeure clause displaces the default arithmetic.

There is an unresolved tension here and we are not going to paper over it. Section 3 (1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 applies "despite any agreement or waiver to the contrary", and section 4 (1) voids a provision in a tenancy agreement that is inconsistent with the Act. Does that kill a destruction clause that section 3 (6) of the other statute would enforce?

The argument that it does not is that section 19 imports the Frustrated Contracts Act including its section 3 (6), so giving effect to such a clause is applying the Act rather than contradicting it. The argument that it does is that section 3 (1) is emphatic and a clause reallocating post-fire money looks like a waiver. Neither statute resolves it, and we could find nothing in the instruments we read that does. That is our reading of the position rather than something either publisher states, and it is a question for a lawyer on a specific lease.

Who decides the tenancy was frustrated, and what happens if you are wrong?

The Landlord and Tenant Board publishes nothing on this. Its 20 Interpretation Guidelines, its brochures and its Rules of Procedure were read in full on 2026-09-30: "Frustrated Contracts", "uninhabit" and "destruct" return nothing across the guidelines, and the single hit for "frustrat" is in Guideline 12, in its ordinary English sense. The Board's public list of how a tenancy can end has three items and destruction is not among them.

But the Board has decided your fact pattern without ever naming frustration. Guideline 5, on breach of maintenance obligations, says this under its termination heading. The whole passage matters rather than the middle of it.

"These remedies should be used in serious cases and only where the tenant requests them or a public authority has required the unit to be vacated. These remedies may also be ordered on consent of both parties if, for example, they both feel the relationship cannot continue. If the rental unit is not fit for human habitation, the tenancy should be terminated. For example, if this occurred due to a disaster such as flooding, and the landlord does not wish to restore the unit immediately and make provisions such as a hotel to bridge the time, the tenancy could be terminated retroactively to the date of the flooding, with an abatement ordered from that date on (similar to compensation in the other direction). The Member may also choose this remedy if the condition of the unit is so poor as to threaten the safety of the tenants or threaten their well-being. However, ordinarily the landlord should have had a reasonable opportunity to rectify the situation before termination is ordered."

Three things to take from it. The first sentence names the closure order expressly, as a public authority requiring the unit to be vacated, so the Board has contemplated the scenario this post is named after. The middle runs on the tenant's application rather than yours, terminates retroactively to the date of the flood, and attaches an abatement from the same date. The last sentence is the owner's qualifier: ordinarily the landlord should have had a reasonable opportunity to put things right first. Guideline 5 prints a bare date of December 15, 2018 with no revision label.

So the risk is asymmetric. Where you say frustration, the tenant says breach of section 20 (1), and section 30 (1) lets the Board terminate the tenancy, order an abatement, and under paragraph 9 "make any other order that it considers appropriate". Section 31 (1) (d) adds an administrative fine "not exceeding the greater of $10,000 and the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court", which is a larger number than anything else in the section. Nothing in the Act tells the Board which characterisation to adopt.

Two provisions bound that exposure and belong in the same breath. Section 29 (2) bars an application under section 29 (1) "more than one year after the day the alleged conduct giving rise to the application occurred". And section 16 puts a duty to minimise on whichever side is claiming: "the person entitled to claim the amount has a duty to take reasonable steps to minimize the person's losses." That runs against the tenant's claim as readily as yours, which is why a hotel offered early is worth more than a hotel argued about later.

Our own view is that a disputed post-fire position belongs in a mediated settlement rather than in a hearing. Section 194 (2) provides that "Despite subsection 3 (1) and subject to subsection (3)", a settlement agreed under that section "may contain provisions that contravene any provision under this Act", which is a wide enough door to resolve a characterisation fight the statute leaves open. Section 194 (3) is the limit, capping the rent increase such a settlement can contain. That is a reading of the provisions together rather than something the Board states outright.

Is the N13 route cheaper than frustration, or dearer?

Dearer, and the gap widened on 2026-09-21. But the costing is more complicated than the headline, in both directions.

The N13 route under section 50 carries 120 days of notice ending at the end of a rental period, a conditional right of first refusal under section 53, and compensation under sections 52 or 54. Frustration carries none of the three. On that comparison alone the frustration route looks cheaper. It is not that simple.

First, the compensation is threshold-based and may not bite at all. Sections 52 (1) and 54 (1) turn on a complex containing at least five residential units, with section 52 (2) providing one month's rent below that threshold.

On top of the threshold sit express exceptions. Section 52 (1) (c) makes compensation payable only where, "in the case of a demolition, it was not ordered to be carried out under the authority of any other Act", and section 54 (1) (c) does the same for repairs where the work "was not ordered to be carried out under the authority of this or any other Act". Note the deliberate difference: section 54 is broader, because it adds "this or".

Where a fire inspector has ordered structural repairs, or a chief building official has ordered the building renovated, repaired or demolished, those exceptions engage and the N13 route may carry no compensation at all. Section 55, the severance provision, has no such exception but will rarely be in play after a fire.

Second, the first refusal is conditional on both sides and the conditions run in opposite directions. Section 53 (2) requires the tenant to give the landlord written notice before vacating that they intend to return, and the in-force section 50 (3) requires the N13 to inform the tenant of that right. Section 53 (4) then makes it "a condition of the tenant's right of first refusal that the tenant inform the landlord in writing of any change of address." A tenant who disappears without an address loses the right.

Third, the route got worse for owners on 2026-09-21. Section 53 (2.2) now gives a tenant with a right of first refusal at least 60 days after the unit is ready to exercise it, and section 53 (2.1) adds three duties to notify without delay: the estimated ready date, any change to it, and actual readiness.

Section 57.1 (1.1), also in force that day, deems a landlord who fails those duties to have failed to afford the right of first refusal. A missed status email to a tenant who has kept you informed of their address is a deemed denial. Section 57.1 (2) replaced the old limitation with the later of the second anniversary of vacating or six months after the repairs are completed, so on a multi-year rebuild the window can stay open for years.

The exposure behind that is a menu, not a single figure. Section 57 (3) paragraph 1 reaches all or part of the increased rent the former tenant incurs for a one year period after vacating. Paragraph 1.1 adds "general compensation in an amount not exceeding the equivalent of 12 months of the last rent charged to the former tenant", payable "regardless of whether the former tenant has incurred any actual expenses or whether an order is made under paragraph 2". Paragraph 1.2 adds out-of-pocket moving and storage expenses, and there are further heads beyond those.

Fourth, there is a hard filing cap on the route itself. Rule 6.9 of the Board's Rules provides that "An application to terminate a tenancy and evict a tenant will not be accepted if filed more than 30 days after the termination date in the notice, unless it is an application based on the tenant's failure to pay rent." Serve the N13, miss the window, and the notice is spent.

One thing an owner may have read is not yet law, and the confusion is the Board's own. The replacement section 50 (3), which would require an N13 for repairs to be accompanied by a qualified person's report stating that the work requires vacant possession, sits in the grey not-yet-in-force block on e-Laws, under a note saying it commences on a day to be named by proclamation. As at 2026-09-30 it is not in force and there is no date.

Yet the Board's brochure on how a landlord can end a tenancy, stamped "Last updated: September 21, 2026", already lists the requirement to provide a report prepared by a qualified professional. The statute and the brochure disagree, the statute governs, and it would be prudent to obtain the report anyway.

What can you do with the tenant's belongings after a fire?

Less than you think, and this is the sharpest cost of the frustration route. It is also the section that catches owners out, because both statutory routes are closed at once.

Section 41 (1) lets a landlord sell, retain or dispose of property in a rental unit only where the unit "has been vacated in accordance with" one of four things: a notice of termination, an agreement to terminate, subsection 93 (2), or an order of the Board. That is a closed list of four, and a tenancy discharged by frustration is on none of them. There was no notice, no agreement and no order.

So on the face of section 41 you have no statutory authority to deal with the property, and no benefit of the section 41 (4) protection, which is conditioned on acting "in accordance with this section".

The obvious workaround is section 42, which lets a landlord dispose of property in an abandoned unit, either on a section 79 order or, under section 42 (1) (b), on notice to the tenant and to the Board followed by the 30 day period in section 42 (3). Section 42 (2) allows immediate disposal of unsafe or unhygienic items, which after a fire is a good deal of it.

But section 42 turns on abandonment, and abandonment has a statutory gate the frustration analysis walks straight into. Section 2 (3) provides that "For the purposes of this Act, a tenant has not abandoned a rental unit if the tenant is not in arrears of rent."

On the frustration route, section 3 (1) (b) of the Frustrated Contracts Act means rent accrued and unpaid ceases to be payable. No arrears, so no abandonment, so no section 42. The two routes close each other. Guideline 4 says the same thing in the Board's own words, and adds that there is substantial risk in re-renting without an order.

That leaves negotiation, an application, or a lease that dealt with it in advance, and the third is the cheapest by a distance. Section 41 (5) says in terms that "A landlord and a tenant may agree to terms other than those set out in this section with regard to the disposal of the tenant's property." That is an express licence to contract out of section 41, and it survives section 4 (1) because the Act authorises it. It costs nothing to add and it earns its place after a loss.

Where you do go the section 42 route because there are arrears and the unit is genuinely abandoned, count the 30 days from the day the notice is given to the tenant and to the Board, not from the day you wrote it, and remember that the Act's deemed service rules can move that date. For the ordinary case where the tenancy ended the usual way, our guide on whether a landlord can throw out a tenant's belongings in Ontario sets out the standard route.

Can the tenant claim a rent abatement while the building is shut?

Yes, and the defence owners reach for first does not reach this claim. That is worth stating plainly, because getting it wrong means preparing the wrong file.

Section 8 of O. Reg. 516/06 contains a complete bar on an abatement, and its section 8 (4) is written for a landlord who "in carrying out work in a rental unit or residential complex, substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the unit or complex". Section 8 (2) scopes the whole section to section 22, paragraph 3 of subsection 29 (1), and subsection 31 (1) of the Act. Those are the substantial interference provisions.

A building shut by a fire is not the landlord carrying out work, and the claim the tenant will actually bring is a breach of section 20 (1) under paragraph 1 of section 29 (1), with the section 30 (1) menu behind it. Section 8 (4) does not touch that claim. Owners who have read about the ten conditions and assume they are protected are protected against a different application.

The ten conditions still matter, because the rebuild afterwards is the landlord carrying out work, and that is where section 8 (4) bites. The first condition is notice at least 60 days before the work starts, "or, in cases of emergency, as soon as was reasonable in the circumstances". That carve-out is what makes the defence reachable after a loss, since 60 days of notice before a fire is not available to anyone.

The other nine require notice to prospective tenants, a description of the work, its expected impact and duration, accuracy at the time, an update where the information significantly changes, work necessary to protect or restore physical integrity or to comply with standards required by law, a permit where one is required, work at reasonable times or within a noise by-law, a reasonable duration, and reasonable steps to minimise noise. The word that governs is "all", and conditions three, four and five are a documentation regime running from the first week to the last day of the rebuild.

Where an abatement is not barred, the next question is how big it is, and two sources answer that. Section 8 (5) directs the Board to consider the nature, duration and degree of the interference, whether the tenant caused or contributed to any undue delay, and the steps the landlord took to minimise it.

Guideline 5 supplies the method: "The usual approach will be to look at an abatement as a portion of the rent", assessed as the percentage of the package of shelter and services not available to the tenant. It frames the purpose narrowly too, as compensation for the state of repair and the loss of use rather than as punishment.

Both run in the owner's favour on the facts a well-run file produces, which is the argument for writing the notice on day one even where there is nothing to say beyond the fact of the fire and that you do not yet know how long. On the underlying repair duty, see our guide to what repairs a landlord is responsible for in Ontario.

Can you recover the rebuild through an above-guideline increase?

Sometimes, and three gates decide it before the arithmetic starts.

Fire and flood restoration goes squarely through section 126 (7) (a), which makes a capital expenditure eligible where "it is necessary to protect or restore the physical integrity of the residential complex or part of it". There is no repair-versus-capital dichotomy to worry about: O. Reg. 516/06 defines a capital expenditure to include an extraordinary or significant renovation, repair, replacement or new addition whose expected benefit runs at least five years, and excludes only routine work and work that is substantially cosmetic or designed to enhance prestige or luxury. Restoration after a loss is neither.

Insurance is not an exclusion, it is a netting rule, and the difference matters. The regulation directs you to subtract any government grant or assistance and any insurance, salvage, resale or trade-in proceeds related to the work. An owner with full coverage nets close to nothing; an owner with a large deductible or a coverage gap can still claim the shortfall. That is the difference between abandoning the application and filing a smaller one. Disclosure is compulsory rather than tactical.

The first gate is section 6.1, and it has to be read carefully rather than from the headline. Subsection (2) removes section 126 for a building or addition no part of which was occupied for residential purposes on or before 2018-11-15.

Subsection (3) removes it for a unit in a house, but only where all four of its requirements are met: the house type contained not more than two residential units on or at any time before that date; the unit has its own bathroom and kitchen and its own entrances, with a door securable from inside and lockable from outside; the unit became a unit of that description after 2018-11-15; and the owner lived in another unit in the house when the unit was first occupied, or the alternative circumstance applies. A duplex whose two self-contained units both predate that date does not meet the third requirement, so section 126 remains available to it.

The second gate is timing. The work must have been completed during the 18 month period ending 90 days before the effective date of the first intended increase, so a long rebuild can straddle the window and strand its early phases. Plan the filing against the construction schedule rather than after it.

The third gate is the cap. Where the percentage attributable to capital expenditures and security costs exceeds 3 per cent, the increase is limited to 3 per cent in the first period, with the balance spread over each of the two following 12 month periods and each of those also capped at 3 per cent.

What can you still collect from a tenant who has gone?

Four routes survive the end of the tenancy, and one of them does not reach frustration at all.

Section 87 (1) is the arrears power, and the timing rule sits in section 87 (1.1), which allows the application "while the tenant is in possession of the rental unit" or, under clause (b), "no later than one year after the tenant or former tenant ceased to be in possession of the rental unit". Section 88.1 (1) covers interference with reasonable enjoyment and section 88.2 (1) unpaid utility costs.

Section 89 (1) covers damage, but only where the tenant "wilfully or negligently causes or caused undue damage to the rental unit or the residential complex". That is the provision to look at where the tenant started the fire, and its threshold aligns with the fire statute's immunity, which protects any person on whose land a fire begins accidentally, tenants included.

The route that does not reach you is section 87 (3), compensation for use and occupation. It is triggered only after "a notice of termination or an agreement to terminate the tenancy has taken effect", and a tenancy discharged by frustration involves neither. Do not plan around it.

Two procedural facts shape all of this. Rule 6.6 of the Board's Rules provides that "A landlord's application to Collect Money (Form L2) will not be accepted unless the landlord confirms the tenant is in possession of the rental unit." After a fire the tenant is not in possession, so the L2 money route closes and you are pushed to the L10.

The Board's brochure on collecting money a former tenant owes, which prints "Last updated: September 2021", then sets three limits on that route. It gates the application to a tenant who "moved out of the rental unit on or after September 1, 2021". It states that "You cannot file this application more than one year after the date the tenant moved out."

And it states that "The most the LTB can order based on your claim is $50,000", adding that once an order issues you no longer have any claim above that figure against your tenant. Where the former tenant is out of possession, section 189.0.1 adds its own service and certificate requirements on top.

Section 16 cuts both ways here and is worth knowing before you draft a claim. Re-letting what can be re-let is not merely prudent, it shapes the number.

Where should a large claim be filed, and what does filing at the Board cost you?

The rule that decides the forum is one sentence long, and getting it wrong cannot be undone.

Section 207 (1) does not state the Board's ceiling as a figure. It states a formula: the Board may order payment "of an amount of money up to the greater of $10,000 and the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court". We did not read the instrument that sets that second figure this run, so we are not printing a number for it here.

Section 207 (2) is the parallel track: a person entitled to apply whose claim exceeds the Board's monetary jurisdiction "may commence a proceeding in any court of competent jurisdiction", and that court may exercise any powers the Board could have exercised. A total loss will exceed the Board's jurisdiction without difficulty, and the Frustrated Contracts Act defines "court" widely enough to accommodate it.

Section 207 (3) is the trap. If a party claims a sum at or below the Board's monetary jurisdiction, "all rights of the party in excess of the Board's monetary jurisdiction are extinguished once the Board issues its order". Filing at the Board because it is faster permanently destroys the balance of the claim. On a building loss that is the difference between a recovery and a write-off, and it cannot be undone.

The fees themselves are modest, and the Board's forms and fees page, read on 2026-09-30, sets them out. An L10 is "$201 or $186 through the Tribunals Ontario Portal". An A1, the application about whether the Act applies, is $53 and cannot be filed through the portal at all. A request to review an order is $58.

The page states in three places that "LTB fees are non-refundable". Refunding and shifting are different questions, though: Rule 23.1 lets the Board order a successful applicant's fee paid by the respondent as costs, and Rule 23.2 caps a paid representative's fees at $100 per hour to a maximum of $700.

Does any of this change for a co-op, a park or an exempt unit?

Substantially, and in four different ways.

For a non-profit housing co-operative member unit, clause 5 (c) exempts the unit from the Act "except for Part V.1, and except for those provisions in other Parts that are needed to give effect to Part V.1". Section 19 does not reach it, and Part V.1 supplies no substitute: the word "frustrat" does not appear in it, and its termination grounds run off the Co-operative Corporations Act instead. None of the analysis above survives for a member unit.

For a mobile home park or a land lease community, the Act applies in full and Parts X and XI add to it rather than subtracting. Two numbers change on the N13 route: the notice period is one year rather than 120 days where the tenant owns the mobile home, and the compensation is an amount equal to one year's rent or $3,000, whichever is less, rather than the one or three months that applies elsewhere. Section 6.1 (2) also reaches parks and land lease communities and their additions, so the above-guideline gate applies there too.

For accommodation exempted by section 5 outright, including hotel, motel, resort and vacation accommodation, short-term living accommodation provided as emergency shelter, and a unit where the tenant shares a bathroom or kitchen with the owner, section 19 does not apply either. That does not mean frustration is unavailable. It means the common law doctrine applies directly and section 37 (1) does not constrain the parties, so the analysis becomes pure contract law. The emergency shelter exemption is worth noticing, because it is where displaced tenants sometimes land.

For Homes for Special Care accommodation and supported group living residences, section 6 (1) switches off a named list of sections. Frustration, the repair duty, the tenant's maintenance application and the N13 all survive. Sections 52, 54 and 55 do not, so the compensation obligation vanishes, and section 126 does not, so the above-guideline increase vanishes. Note what does survive: the list runs from 119 to 134 and then to 136, stepping over section 135, so the tenant's route to recover money collected or retained in contravention of the Act is intact.

Two limits on the above, stated so that a silence here is not read as an answer. We read sections 5, 5.1, 6, 6.1 and Part V.1 at source this run, and we did not read sections 5.2, 7 or 8, which carry further exemptions for land lease home sites, social housing and rent-geared-to-income accommodation. We also did not read O. Reg. 517/06, the maintenance standards regulation that stands behind the words "maintenance standards" in section 20 (1). Nothing above should be read as a statement about those instruments.

What should you do in the first week?

Eight things, in order, and the first three are about evidence rather than argument.

1. Write down the date and hour of the loss and keep the fire or municipal report. Every clock here runs from a date somebody will later dispute.
2. Put the first notice to the tenant in writing that day, even if all it says is what happened and that the timeline is unknown. That is condition one of the abatement defence in its emergency form, and it cannot be backdated.
3. Identify which provision made the order you were served: a property standards order carries 14 days to a committee, an order of the chief building official carries 20 days to the Superior Court, and only one of those can be extended by a judge afterwards.
4. Read your own lease for an insurance covenant and a destruction clause. The first can cost you the section 3 (5) protection. The second can displace the default arithmetic in your favour.
5. Do not dispose of anything beyond what is genuinely unsafe or unhygienic, and get advice before assuming section 42 is open, because a tenant who owes nothing has not abandoned the unit.
6. Account for the last month's rent deposit against the last rent period, rather than holding it while you work out what happened.
7. Decide in writing, with advice, whether you are treating the tenancy as frustrated or continuing, and act consistently. Half-measures are what produce the retroactive abatement in Guideline 5.
8. Before filing anything for money, get advice on the forum. Section 207 (3) is unforgiving and the mistake is made in an afternoon.

A worked example. An owner in Brighton has a six unit building. A kitchen fire on 2026-11-09 makes two units unusable and the other four are untouched. There is no closure order.

That is not a frustration case for the four untouched units, and it is not obviously one for the other two either, because the repair is possible and the building is not closed. The right posture is a continuing tenancy, a written notice that day, a rebuild plan, and the section 8 (4) documentation habit from week one. Add an indefinite closure order on the whole building and the analysis on all six units changes, which is a conversation for a lawyer rather than a blog post.

What do owners ask about a tenancy after a fire or flood?

Does my tenant still owe rent while the building is closed? If the tenancy is continuing, rent remains payable in principle, but the tenant has a maintenance application and an abatement can reduce it for the period the unit was unusable. If the tenancy was frustrated, unpaid rent ceases to be payable under section 3 (1) (b) of the Frustrated Contracts Act, and rent paid in advance for the period after the discharge is recoverable by the tenant.

Can I just serve an N13 and be done with it? You can serve one where you genuinely require possession to demolish, convert or do work needing a permit and vacant possession. It costs 120 days of notice, a right of first refusal with new notification duties in force since 2026-09-21, and compensation where the complex has at least five units and the work was not ordered under another Act. Rule 6.9 then gives you 30 days after the termination date to file. It is a route for an owner with a plan, not a way of tidying up an event.

Does my insurance payout get taken into account against the tenant? No, unless an express term of your tenancy agreement or an enactment obliged you to insure. Section 3 (5) of the Frustrated Contracts Act tells the court it shall not take insurance proceeds into account, and those two limbs are the only things that remove the protection.

Can I clear out the unit once the tenant has gone? Not on the strength of the fire. Section 41 (1) is a closed list of four triggers and a frustrated tenancy is on none of them. Section 42 is not the answer either where the frustration analysis has wiped out the arrears, because section 2 (3) says a tenant who is not in arrears has not abandoned the unit. Get advice, and add a section 41 (5) clause to your lease for next time.

Who decides whether the tenancy ended? A court or the Board, after the fact. There is no form, no notice and no filing that makes a tenancy frustrated, and the Board publishes no guideline on it. The nearest published guidance is Guideline 5, which reaches the same facts through the maintenance route and can terminate the tenancy retroactively with an abatement attached, subject to the landlord ordinarily having had a reasonable opportunity to put things right.

If your building has been damaged or closed and you are not sure where the tenancy stands, we can help you work out what to do next, and what to put in writing this week. Get in touch with KEILTY Realty Management.

This post is general information about Ontario residential tenancy law as of 2026-09-30, not legal advice. Legislation, regulations and tribunal practice change. For advice on a specific property or situation, speak with a lawyer or licensed paralegal.