By A.J. Keilty, President, KEILTY Realty Management
Yes. An Ontario landlord can be charged with an offence under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and if that happens you are not going to the Landlord and Tenant Board. You are going to the Ontario Court of Justice, in front of a justice of the peace, in a prosecution run under a different statute entirely.
That is the part owners get wrong. The Board and the court are two separate tracks with two separate sets of money attached. A landlord who has only ever dealt with the Board has no map for the second one. The maximum fine on conviction is $100,000 for an individual and $500,000 for a corporation. Those figures went up on 2026-07-01.
This post walks the second track from the first complaint to the appeal. It is written for the owner who has received a letter, or a phone call, and wants to know what is actually coming.
The short version.
No, and they are not even the same kind of proceeding. An application to the Landlord and Tenant Board is a civil dispute between you and your tenant, decided by a Board member, producing an order. A prosecution is the state charging you with an offence, decided by a justice of the peace, producing a conviction and a fine.
Ontario's own description of the difference is blunt. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing page on solving a disagreement says of its enforcement unit that "the main difference between us and the Landlord and Tenant Board is that we immediately intervene to resolve complaints that may involve offences under the act without an application process."
The practical consequence is that the two tracks can run at the same time, over the same facts, and neither one decides the other. A tenant can file a Board application about an illegal lockout and complain to the Ministry about the same lockout in the same week. Nothing in the Act makes one wait for the other.
There is a second consequence that matters more to your wallet. The Board's money powers and the court's fine are three different ceilings that happen to sit near each other, and they are not interchangeable. We come back to that below.
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.
The Provincial Offences Act, and it does the work through a definition rather than through anything you would recognize as an application section.
Section 1 (1) of the Provincial Offences Act defines "offence" to mean "an offence under an Act of the Legislature or under a regulation or by-law made under the authority of an Act of the Legislature". An offence under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 is an offence under an Act of the Legislature. That single definition pulls every RTA offence into the whole machinery of the Provincial Offences Act.
The same subsection supplies the court: "“court” means the Ontario Court of Justice". Section 29 (1) then sets the default, and it opens "Subject to subsection (2)": a proceeding "shall be heard and determined by the Ontario Court of Justice sitting in the county or district in which the offence occurred or in the area specified in the transfer agreement made under Part X."
Subsection (2) is the exception. An adjoining county or district may be used where the court "holds sittings in a place reasonably proximate to the place where the offence occurred" and that place "is named in the summons or offence notice". So the venue has a default rather than a fixture.
Now look at what the Residential Tenancies Act itself says about any of this. It names the Ontario Court of Justice nowhere. The phrase appears zero times in the consolidated Act. It mentions the Provincial Offences Act exactly once, at section 231 (6), and only to borrow two sections about seized property: "Sections 159 and 160 of the Provincial Offences Act apply with necessary modifications with respect to any thing seized under this section."
Be precise about the claim. The Act is not procedure-free. Section 240 is an evidentiary code, section 231 carries a search warrant regime, and section 231.1 lets a provincial judge or justice of the peace issue a production order. What it names is no court and no trial procedure. If you want to know what the hearing you are facing looks like, the RTA is the wrong book.
Part XVI of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 is headed Offences and runs from section 233 to section 240. That is the whole of it. Section 241 is the regulation-making power and section 242 begins the transition provisions, so there is nothing after section 240.
Three sections create offences, and they divide by state of mind rather than by who they bind.
Section 233, "Offences requiring knowledge." It opens "A person is guilty of an offence if the person knowingly," and runs through thirteen lettered clauses.
Twelve of the thirteen describe landlord conduct: withholding a vital service contrary to section 21, altering a locking system contrary to section 24 or 35, seizing a tenant's property contrary to section 40, failing to give a right of first refusal, recovering possession without complying with section 48.1, 49.1, 52, 54 or 55, and obtaining possession "improperly by giving a notice to terminate in bad faith".
It is worth saying plainly that section 233 is not the tenant's section. The heading does not say who it binds, the text says "A person", and the conduct described is a landlord's. Only clause (j), which protects a landlord from being harassed or obstructed, runs the other way.
Section 234, "Other offences." Twenty-nine clauses, lettered (a) to (y) with four decimal insertions, and we counted them by enumeration rather than taking anyone's word for it.
The range is wide. Entering a unit where entry is not permitted by section 26, 27 or 142. Requiring a security deposit contrary to section 105. Failing to pay annual interest on the rent deposit under section 106. Failing to apply the last month's rent deposit to the last month. Charging amounts contrary to section 134. Failing to comply with a work order under section 225. Obstructing an inspector. Unlawfully recovering possession. Charging rent "in an amount greater than permitted under this Act".
There is no catch-all clause in section 234. Nothing in it says "contravenes any other provision of this Act". The list is closed. That cuts both ways for an owner: breaching section 20, the maintenance obligation, is not in itself an offence, but the twenty-nine things on the list are.
Section 235, harassment. This is the only offence section in the Part drafted expressly at landlords and their people. Subsection (1) catches "Any landlord or superintendent, agent or employee of the landlord who knowingly harasses a tenant or interferes with a tenant's reasonable enjoyment of a rental unit or the residential complex in which it is located is guilty of an offence."
Subsection (2) carves out ordinary repair work. Carrying out repairs, maintenance and capital improvements is not harassment unless it is reasonable to believe that the timing or manner "is intended to harass the tenant or interfere with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment", or that the work was done "without reasonable regard for the tenant's right to reasonable enjoyment".
Section 236 makes a knowing attempt at any of these an offence in its own right.
For section 234, no, and that is the sentence in this post an owner with good intentions and loose records should read twice.
Section 233 opens with "knowingly" and that word governs all thirteen of its clauses. Section 235 and section 236 carry it too. Section 234 does not contain the word at all. Its chapeau is simply "A person is guilty of an offence if the person," followed by the twenty-nine clauses.
Failing to pay annual deposit interest, charging a prohibited fee or missing a work order deadline is on its face an offence. Whether you understood the obligation does not enter into it. And the penalty section does not sort by state of mind. The same maximums apply to a section 234 clause as to a knowing section 233 offence.
That is not the same as saying all twenty-nine clauses are bare strict liability. Clause 234 (i) catches a landlord who "gives false information in the notice", and clauses (l.1) and (l.2) turn on acting without the tenant's consent. Those carry a circumstance the prosecution still has to prove, even with no knowledge standard attached.
What you are not left with is nothing. The Provincial Offences Act contains no due diligence defence and no reasonable care defence; we searched it for "due diligence", "reasonable care" and "all reasonable steps" and found zero of each.
What it has instead is section 80, "Common law defences": "Every rule and principle of the common law that renders any circumstance a justification or excuse for an act or a defence to a charge continues in force and applies in respect of offences, except in so far as they are altered by or inconsistent with this or any other Act."
The due diligence defence for this class of offence is a creation of the common law rather than of either statute, and section 80 is the hook that keeps it available. Our own view is that this is why the gap in the Act is not fatal. It is a reading of the two provisions together rather than something either source states outright, and it is not a prediction about how any particular charge would be decided.
Section 81 of the same Act closes the obvious door: "Ignorance of the law by a person who commits an offence is not an excuse for committing the offence."
Section 238 sets two maximums. Subsection (1): "A person, other than a corporation, who is guilty of an offence under this Act is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $100,000." Subsection (2): "A corporation that is guilty of an offence under this Act is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $500,000."
Both figures are recent, and the Ministry's page on rental housing offences prints the same pair. The e-Laws amendment footnote under section 238 records 2023, c. 10, Sched. 7, s. 9 (1, 2) as in force on 2026-07-01. We did not open the superseded consolidation this run, so we are not printing the older pair here, only the date the current one took effect.
That amending Schedule is worth a sideways glance, because one Schedule can have two fates. The same 2023, c. 10, Sched. 7 that raised these fines on 2026-07-01 also contains amendments to section 50 (3) that remain unproclaimed today, with the Act's own note still reading "On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor". Reading a Schedule's name tells you nothing about whether the bit you care about is live.
Note also what section 238 does not say. It provides a fine and nothing else. There is no imprisonment, no probation and no compensation order anywhere in Part XVI.
But Part XVI is not the whole sentence. On a conviction commenced by information, section 72 (1) of the Provincial Offences Act lets the court "suspend the passing of sentence and direct that the defendant comply with the conditions prescribed in a probation order", or add a probation order to a fine. Section 72 (3) (a) lets such an order require the defendant to "satisfy any compensation or restitution that is required or authorized by an Act".
Because the RTA authorizes no compensation or restitution on conviction, that limb has nothing to attach itself to on an RTA charge. That is our reading of the two provisions together rather than something either statute states outright.
On publicity, the Ministry does publish convictions, and its rule is specific. Its page on solving a disagreement with your landlord or tenant sets out the publication rule. "Every corporate conviction will be published", and for repeat offenders, "if convicted more than once of the same offence, individual names would be posted".
The rule also limits itself, and the limit favours a small incorporated owner: "individuals convicted along with a corporation would not be named". The page adds that "This process applies to new cases received by the Rental Housing Enforcement Unit on or after August 17, 2017."
The court bulletin lists three things: the description of the offence, the penalty, and the name of the offender. The page adds that "The bulletin will be distributed to local community media." For an owner who is named, that can cost more than the fine.
In theory yes, and in practice the answer turns on a provision that is seldom quoted alongside section 238.
The Provincial Offences Act has two live routes for a non-parking offence. Part I is the certificate route: section 3 (1) says a proceeding "may be commenced by filing a certificate of offence alleging the offence in the office of the court", and section 3 (2) lets an officer issue "a certificate of offence certifying that an offence has been committed" together with "either an offence notice indicating the set fine for the offence or a summons".
Part III is the full route, by information laid before a justice under section 21 (1).
Nothing in either Part excludes a class of offence. On their face both are open to an RTA charge. But section 12 (1), sitting near the end of Part I under the heading "Consequences of conviction", changes the arithmetic completely:
"Where the penalty prescribed for an offence includes a fine of more than $1,000 or imprisonment and a proceeding is commenced under this Part, the provision for fine or imprisonment does not apply and in lieu thereof the offence is punishable by a fine of not more than the maximum fine prescribed for the offence or $1,000, whichever is the lesser."
Read that against section 238. A $100,000 maximum becomes $1,000 the moment the certificate route is used. A $500,000 corporate maximum becomes $1,000. That is a reduction of two orders of magnitude on the individual figure and nearly three on the corporate one.
This is the inverse of the usual arrangement. The expectation is that a specific Act displaces a general one. Here the general Act displaces the specific one, and it does so not on conviction but from the moment the route is chosen.
What the statutes do not do is tell anyone which route to pick. Section 3 and section 21 both say "may". Nothing makes the choice reviewable, and nothing in the Provincial Offences Act says that a serious charge must go to Part III.
The inference that a substantial RTA prosecution runs under Part III rests on section 12 (1) making Part I pointless at that level of exposure. That is a reading of the consequence rather than a rule either Act states, and we flag it as ours.
Part I also carries a hard service deadline that Part III does not. Section 3 (3) reads: "The offence notice or summons shall be served personally upon the person charged within thirty days after the alleged offence occurred." Thirty days, personally, or the certificate route has run out of road.
One further gate on Part I is worth knowing. An offence notice has to indicate "the set fine for the offence", and a set fine exists only where the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice, or a regional senior judge of that court, has specified one under section 91.1. We did not read the set-fine schedules, so we make no claim about whether any RTA offence has a set fine at all.
Any person, and no approval is required.
Section 23 (1) of the Provincial Offences Act: "Any person who, on reasonable and probable grounds, believes that one or more persons have committed an offence, may lay an information in the prescribed form and under oath before a justice alleging the offence." Section 23 (1.3) then makes receipt mandatory: "The justice shall receive an information laid in accordance with subsection (1) or (1.2)."
Receiving is not the same as issuing process. Under section 24 (1) the justice considers the information and may confirm a summons, issue a summons, or, where arrest is authorized by statute, issue a warrant. Where the justice "considers that a case for issuing process is not made out" the information is endorsed accordingly and any summons already served is cancelled.
On consent, the Residential Tenancies Act requires none. It has no provision designating a prosecutor and no consent-to-prosecute clause; the phrase "consent of the Minister" appears nowhere in it. Section 240 of the Act refers three separate times to "a person prosecuting a person for an offence under this Act", which is deliberately open wording.
There is one consent rule, and it runs the other way. Section 21 (2) of the Provincial Offences Act provides that where "a summons or offence notice has been served under Part I, no proceeding shall be commenced under subsection (1) in respect of the same offence except with the consent of the Attorney General or his or her agent." Its marginal heading is the single word "Exception", which tells a reader scanning headings nothing at all about what it contains.
Who ends up as prosecutor is answered by the definition in section 1 (1), which has a residual limb: the prosecutor is the Attorney General, or a municipality under a transfer agreement, or, failing both, "the person who issues a certificate or lays an information". There is always a prosecutor.
In practice an RTA charge comes out of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and it is preceded by a process that an owner can still influence.
The unit's published sequence is contact, then letter, then follow up. The Ministry's page on solving a disagreement with your landlord or tenant says that if the issue is an offence it will do three things: "contact your landlord or tenant to try to resolve the issue with your consent", "send them a letter with details about the complaint and options to fix the problem", and "follow up to see if the issue was resolved".
Only then: "If the issue is not resolved we may start a formal investigation. This may result in charges."
If charges are laid, the page says what follows: "the landlord or tenant must appear before a Justice of the Peace in the Ontario Court of Justice. You may have to attend court as a witness."
Three things in that sequence are worth an owner's attention. The letter stage is a stated opportunity to fix the problem. The page also describes the unit as intervening without an application process, and our reading is that this is why it reaches an owner sooner than a Board hearing would.
Complaints are not anonymous: the Ministry says it needs "your name and contact information" and that "we do not take anonymous complaints". And the route is open to landlords as well as tenants. The Ministry's own example is that "a tenant would be committing an offence if they stopped their landlord from entering the unit after the landlord provided a lawful notice to enter".
There is a naming problem here that will confuse anyone searching for this. The Ministry's two pages, both stamped 2026-07-02, call it the Rental Housing Enforcement Unit, abbreviated RHEU. The Landlord and Tenant Board's own brochure on property left behind when a tenant moves out, stamped July 2026, calls the same body "the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's Investigation and Enforcement Unit" and abbreviates it IEU.
Two publishers, two names, both stamps current as at our reading on 2026-10-12. If you are looking for the unit, search both.
Read the same brochure carefully and one sentence is simply back to front. It says that if the landlord is "found guilty, the court could lay charges and set a fine". Charges precede a finding of guilt, and the Ministry's own page has them laid before anybody appears in court. Where the publishers disagree, the statute decides, and the statute is section 23 of the Provincial Offences Act.
Two years, and the date it runs from depends on which clause you are charged under.
Section 239 of the Act is headed "Limitation" and that one word hides two different rules. Subsection (2) is the general one: "No proceeding shall be commenced respecting any other offence under this Act more than two years after the date on which the offence was, or is alleged to have been, committed." That clock starts when you did the thing.
Subsections (1) and (1.2) are the exceptions, and they start the clock later. For an offence under clause 234 (v), furnishing false or misleading information, and for an offence under clause 234 (l), charging prohibited amounts, the two years run from "the date on which the facts giving rise to the offence came to the attention of the Minister". Subsection (1.1) does the same for information given to a municipal inspector appointed under section 226.1, running from the municipality's knowledge instead.
So for every offence in the Act except clauses 234 (l) and 234 (v), the two years run from the act. That covers unlawfully recovering possession under clause 234 (w), charging excess rent under clause 234 (x) and harassment under section 235. For the two discovery-triggered clauses, a charge can land years after the conduct if the Ministry did not know of it.
Now the interaction with the Provincial Offences Act, because it is drafted the opposite way round from the shorthand version of it. Section 76 (1) reads: "A proceeding shall not be commenced after the expiration of any limitation period prescribed by or under any Act for the offence or, where no limitation period is prescribed, after six months after the date on which the offence was, or is alleged to have been, committed."
There is no "unless" in that subsection. The other Act's period is the primary rule and the six months is the residual one, operating only "where no limitation period is prescribed". Section 239 (2) of the RTA prescribes a period, so the six months never engages. The two provisions even share the closing words "was, or is alleged to have been, committed", which is what makes the fit clean.
Section 76 (2) is the one to diarize: "A limitation period may be extended by a justice with the consent of the defendant." It speaks of "a limitation period", not of the six months, so it reaches the RTA's two years as well. A landlord asked to consent to an extension is being asked to give up a defence, and it should be treated as that rather than as a scheduling courtesy.
One warning about counting. The habits an owner builds around Board deadlines do not transfer here. Section 193 of the Act sends time computation for a Board proceeding to the Board's Rules. A prosecution is not a Board proceeding, so those Rules are not what counts a limitation period in court.
We did not open the Rules of Procedure or the general computation provisions of the Legislation Act, 2006 this run. So this post names where the question lives rather than answering it. We have written separately about how weekends and holidays move an LTB deadline, and the point of raising it here is that none of that machinery is this machinery.
Yes, and the Act makes it easy for the prosecutor rather than hard.
Section 240 of the Residential Tenancies Act is headed "Evidence" and it is a set of evidentiary shortcuts. Subsection (1): the production by a person prosecuting you of "a certificate, statement or document that appears to have been filed with or delivered to the Board by or on behalf of the person charged with the offence shall be received as evidence that the certificate, statement or document was so filed or delivered."
Subsection (2) does the same for anything that "appears to have been made or signed by the person charged with the offence or on the person's behalf". Subsection (3) extends it to orders and records issued by the Board, the Minister, Board staff or an inspector. Subsections (4) and (5) extend the whole thing to certified copies and to printouts of the Board's electronic records.
So the N-form you served, the application you filed, the rent ledger, the signed declaration of good faith: all of it arrives in the prosecution. The prosecutor does not have to prove you made it. Nothing is being inferred here about how a court would weigh any of it. The point is narrower and entirely practical. Your Board file is prosecution evidence in waiting, which is the strongest argument there is for keeping accurate records rather than convenient ones.
Be careful with the heading on this section. "Evidence" sounds procedural and harmless, and it gives no hint of what the section does. It is also the only thing in Part XVI that helps the person charging you.
Section 234 (t.1) adds a related exposure. Failing to comply with a production order issued under section 231.1 is itself an offence, and section 231.1 (5) makes a copy of a produced document admissible in a prosecution "on proof by affidavit that it is a true copy". The gate is an affidavit rather than a certification.
The fine goes to the government. Your tenant gets none of it from the court.
There is no restitution provision in Part XVI. We searched the whole Act for "restitution" and found zero occurrences, and neither "compensation" nor "in addition to" appears anywhere between the start of section 233 and the end of section 240. A conviction produces a fine and nothing else. Every compensation route in the Act, and there are many, is a Board remedy.
On who receives the fine, the Provincial Offences Act states it only by implication. Section 165 (4), inside the Part dealing with municipal transfer agreements, says "Fines that are governed by the agreement are payable to the municipality and not to the Minister of Finance." The default is visible in the words that exception uses.
Two additions ride along with a conviction. Section 60 (1) makes a convicted defendant "liable to pay to the court an amount by way of costs that is fixed by the regulations", and the Act itself carries no figure; that lives in R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 945, which we did not open.
Section 60.1 (1) adds a victim fine surcharge where a fine is imposed on a Part I or Part III conviction, in an amount set by regulation. We did not open that regulation either, and we are naming both gaps rather than one.
Now the contrast worth setting out in full, because three different ceilings sit around the same number and are easy to swap for one another.
Write the formula, not the number. The second and third ceilings resolve today to the Small Claims figure because it is greater than $10,000, and that figure is prescribed by regulation and moves. The $10,000 floor is in the statute and does not.
The Board's own guidance on its administrative fine is Interpretation Guideline 16, and it states the purpose cleanly: "An administrative fine is a remedy to be used by the Board to encourage compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the "RTA"), and to deter landlords from engaging in similar activity in the future. This remedy is not normally imposed unless a landlord has shown a blatant disregard for the RTA and other remedies will not provide adequate deterrence and compliance."
It adds that "Administrative fines are payable to the Minister of Finance and not to a party."
Two cautions on that Guideline. It carries a single bare date line, "December 15, 2018", with no "Updated" or "Effective" label, which puts it nearly eight years behind the Rules of Procedure sitting beside it on the same index page. And it states no maximum figure anywhere. The $50,000 an owner will find quoted for the Board's administrative fine appears only in LTB consumer brochures, not in the Guideline. It is the resolved arithmetic of a formula rather than a number in the Act.
A fine becomes due quickly and the consequences escalate through a hearing rather than automatically.
Section 66 (1) of the Provincial Offences Act: "A fine becomes due and payable 15 days after its imposition unless an extension or agreement under this Act provides otherwise." Section 66 (2) requires the court to ask: "Where the court imposes a fine, the court shall ask the defendant if the defendant wishes an extension of the time for payment of the fine."
Section 66 (4) then tilts toward granting it. "Unless the court finds that the request for extension of time is not made in good faith or that the extension would likely be used to evade payment, the court shall extend the time for payment by ordering periodic payments or otherwise." Section 66.0.1 (1) lets a defendant apply at any time for an extension or a further extension.
Default is defined at section 69 (1): "The payment of a fine is in default if any part of it is due and unpaid for fifteen days or more." The marginal heading on that section is the single word "Default", which gives no hint that the section runs to subsection (22) and contains committal machinery.
If a defaulter is brought before a justice, section 69 (9) requires a hearing "to determine whether the person is unable to pay the fine within a reasonable period of time", and section 69 (10) puts the onus on the defaulter to prove inability. Where the justice is satisfied of inability, section 69 (15) allows an extension, a payment schedule, or "in exceptional circumstances" a reduction or an order that the fine does not have to be paid.
Where the justice is not satisfied, section 69 (14) permits a warrant of committal. The term is calculated under section 69 (16) and capped by section 69 (17). That subsection limits it to the greater of ninety days and half the maximum imprisonment available for the offence. An RTA offence carries no imprisonment at all, so the second limb yields nothing and ninety days is the ceiling.
Two limits sit on all of this and both favour the defaulter. Section 69 (21) lets the court that imposed the fine order that no warrant issue at all where, "in exceptional circumstances", proceeding under subsections (6) to (14) "would defeat the ends of justice". And section 165 (3) is the bigger one: "Subsections 69 (6) to (21) do not apply to fines that are governed by the agreement."
That is a reference to a Part X transfer agreement, the same mechanism section 165 (4) uses to send a fine to a municipality rather than to the Minister of Finance. Where such an agreement governs the fine, the entire summons, hearing and committal machinery above does not apply, and collection follows the agreement instead. We did not read any transfer agreement, so whether a particular fine is governed by one is not a question this post answers.
With that said, take the ordinary case, where no transfer agreement governs. An owner in Gananoque is fined $12,000 on 2026-03-10 and pays nothing. The fine is due on 2026-03-25 and in default on 2026-04-09. The section 69 (16) arithmetic on $12,000 produces a number far past the cap, so section 69 (17) (a) bites and the exposure is ninety days, not years. That is arithmetic on the statutory formula, not a forecast of what any justice would do.
Yes, on a knowledge standard, and the provision is not in the section you would expect.
It is not in section 238. Section 238 says nothing about directors or officers at all. The provision is section 237, headed "Directors and officers", and it is one sentence: "Every director or officer of a corporation who knowingly concurs in an offence under this Act is guilty of an offence."
Three things in that sentence do real work. The threshold is "knowingly concurs", so holding the office is not enough and neither is carelessness. It reaches "an offence under this Act", not only an offence in Part XVI. And a convicted director is a person other than a corporation. So the exposure is the section 238 (1) maximum of $100,000, personally, even though section 238 never says so.
There is a procedural point for incorporated owners too. Section 50 (2) of the Provincial Offences Act is mandatory: "A defendant that is a corporation shall appear and act by representative." An individual may appear personally under section 50 (1); a numbered company may not.
"Representative" is defined in section 1 (1) as "a person authorized under the Law Society Act to represent a person in that proceeding", so the gate is a licensing gate held outside the Act rather than a dollar threshold inside it.
We have set out the licensing rules and who may appear for an owner in our post on whether a property manager can represent you at the LTB.
Section 50 (3) adds that the court may bar an unlicensed representative who "is not competent properly to represent or advise the person for whom he or she appears, or does not understand and comply with the duties and responsibilities of a representative".
Yes, and the route differs by which Part the charge came under.
On a Part III charge, section 116 (1) of the Provincial Offences Act gives the defendant, the prosecutor or the Attorney General an appeal from a conviction, a dismissal, a sentence or "any other order as to costs". Section 116 (2) sets the destination: from a justice of the peace, "to the Ontario Court of Justice presided over by a provincial judge"; from a provincial judge, "to the Superior Court of Justice."
On time, the Act deliberately says nothing. Section 116 (3) reads: "The appellant shall give notice of appeal in such manner and within such period as is provided by the rules of court." Do not carry the familiar thirty days across to this. That figure is in section 135 (2) and it governs appeals from a Part I or Part II certificate, not a Part III conviction.
The rules of court that set that period are a separate instrument and we did not open them this run. This post therefore names where the period lives rather than what it is. Section 116 (4) is worth knowing alongside it: the notice of appeal "may be filed at the same time as an application under section 85 to extend the time to give notice of appeal".
The grounds are in section 120 (1): the court may allow the appeal where the finding "is unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence", where there was "a wrong decision on a question of law", or where "on any ground, there was a miscarriage of justice".
Beyond that, section 131 (1) allows a further appeal to the Court of Appeal on a question of law alone or as to sentence, but only "with leave of a judge of the Court of Appeal on special grounds", and section 131 (2) sets a high bar: leave is refused unless the judge considers it "essential in the public interest or for the due administration of justice". Section 131 (3) makes the decision on leave itself unappealable.
Four things, and none of them requires a lawyer to start.
First, treat the twenty-nine clauses of section 234 as a compliance checklist rather than as a list of bad behaviour. Annual deposit interest, the last month's rent deposit, prohibited charges and work order deadlines are administrative tasks that become offences when they slip, with no knowledge requirement attached. They are the easiest exposure on the list to eliminate and the easiest to forget.
Second, answer the Ministry's letter. The published process has a fix-it stage before any investigation. A landlord who engages at that point is dealing with a compliance officer rather than a justice of the peace.
Third, keep the Board file accurate, because section 240 makes it prosecution evidence without further proof. A declaration or ledger prepared loosely for a Board application is a different document when it is produced in a courtroom.
Fourth, if your rental is held in a corporation, understand that the corporation cannot represent itself and that section 237 reaches you personally on a knowledge standard. An illegal lockout is the clearest case of all. We have written about what happens when possession goes wrong in our post on a tenant who gives notice and then does not move out.
Is an LTB administrative fine the same as being convicted of an offence? No. An administrative fine is a Board remedy under section 31 (1) (d) or paragraph 3 of section 57 (3), payable to the Board, with no conviction attached. A fine under section 238 follows a conviction in the Ontario Court of Justice. The two can arise from the same facts and neither decides the other.
Do I have to have known I was breaking the rule? For the thirteen clauses of section 233 and for section 235, yes, because they open with "knowingly". For the twenty-nine clauses of section 234, the word does not appear. The common law defences preserved by section 80 of the Provincial Offences Act remain available, but the Act names no due diligence defence.
How long after the fact can I be charged? Two years. Under section 239 (2) that runs from the date the offence was committed. For clauses 234 (l) and 234 (v) it runs instead from when the facts came to the Minister's attention, so it can start much later.
Who can lay a charge against me? Any person with reasonable and probable grounds, under section 23 (1) of the Provincial Offences Act. The Residential Tenancies Act requires no one's consent. In practice the Ministry's enforcement unit investigates first and its letter stage comes before any charge.
Can my tenant collect the fine? No. There is no restitution provision in Part XVI, and no compensation provision anywhere in sections 233 to 240. A fine on conviction is payable to the government, and the probation route in section 72 of the Provincial Offences Act has no RTA compensation power to attach to. Compensation to a tenant is a Board remedy on a separate application.
If you would rather this never became a question about your property, we can take it on. Get in touch with KEILTY Realty Management and we will tell you what we would do with it.
This post is general information about Ontario residential tenancy law as of 2026-10-12, not legal advice. Legislation, regulations and tribunal practice change. For advice on a specific property or situation, speak with a lawyer or licensed paralegal.
Ontario property management with published pricing, same-day answers, and no surprises. Since 2003.
300-80 Queen StreetNot served yet. Join a list and hear from us the day we open.