By A.J. Keilty, President, KEILTY Realty Management
Sometimes, and it turns on one clause. Section 78 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 lets you apply to the Board "without notice to the tenant" after a tenant breaks a settlement or a conditional order. It is open to you only where the paperwork you already signed said you could apply under section 78.
If that clause is not there, there is nothing to file. Mediation bought you a payment schedule and no eviction route.
The short version.
Only where the paperwork was built for it. Section 78 (1) sets three cumulative conditions. You must have previously applied for termination or eviction. The settlement under section 194, or the order made on that application, must have done two things. And the tenant must have failed one of them.
Those two are the part owners miss. Subparagraph 2 i requires conditions that, if not met, "would give rise to the same grounds for terminating the tenancy as were claimed in the previous application". Subparagraph 2 ii requires that the settlement or order "provided that the landlord could apply under this section if the tenant did not meet one or more of the conditions described in subparagraph i".
Read 2 ii slowly: it is not implied by 2 i. And the same-grounds limb does work of its own. A condition about guests or noise does not give rise to the grounds you claimed on an arrears application.
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.
No. Section 78 (1) says "without notice to the tenant". That is a service point, and it is not the same as saying no hearing happens.
Compare the provisions that do say it. Section 74 (8) reads: "The Board shall make an order under subsection (6) without holding a hearing." Section 206 (1) uses the same phrase. On the Act at ontario.ca, read on the e-Laws legislative-doc node textContent on 2026-10-27, case-insensitively, "without holding a hearing" appears six times, none of them in section 78.
Section 78 (6) gives a conditional discretion. It arises only where the Board is satisfied a condition was not met, and the Board then "... may make an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant." Guideline 7, updated September 2026, describes practice, not a rule: an L4 "is generally resolved by an ex parte order under subsection 78(6)".
It adds: "Where a L4 application filed under subsection 78(1) is sent to hearing for clarification, no ex parte order issues and section 83 applies."
On the same node and day, case-insensitively: "ex parte" and "consent order" each appear zero times, so both are Board vocabulary rather than the Act's, and "settlement" appears 41 times, 39 case-sensitively.
The form is the L4. The LTB's forms page titles it an application to end a tenancy and evict a tenant, where the tenant failed to meet conditions of a settlement or order. Its fee line reads "No charge through the Tribunals Ontario Portal."
Two LTB pages disagree, and we report that rather than resolve it. Section F of the Instructions, same day, says "Complete and pay your L4 Application online using the Tribunals Ontario Portal." On the same fee table the L1, L2, L3, L9 and L10 are each "$201 or $186 through the Tribunals Ontario Portal". Those figures move, so carry the shape, not the number.
Section E of the Instructions lists three things that go in. The form, "A copy of the mediated settlement or order", and "A declaration" setting out which conditions were not met and how. Then: "Your application will be refused if any of the items listed above are missing."
Note the mismatch. Section 78 (2) requires "a copy of the settlement or order and an affidavit setting out what conditions ... have not been met and how they have not been met". Where you also ask for a payment order under section 78 (3), section 78 (4) adds six prescribed items. The form takes a declaration, which section 192.1, "Alternatives to affidavits", permits.
Thirty days, and the clock starts on the failure, not the day you noticed.
Section 78 (5): "An application under this section shall not be made later than 30 days after a failure of the tenant to meet a condition described in subparagraph 2 i of subsection (1)."
Two measured negatives, on the LTB Rules of Procedure, read 2026-10-27, innerText 71,361 characters, case-insensitively. The string "L4" appears nowhere in them, and no rule sets a time limit for the section 78 application.
Be careful what you conclude, because the Rules do reach section 78. Rule 16.2 names a tenant's motion to set aside an order made under section 78 (6) or (7), and requires any request to extend time to be filed with it. That is a filing requirement, not a power to extend.
Rule 16.1 is the general power: "Except where an extension of time is prohibited by the RTA, the LTB may consider a request to extend or shorten time for doing anything". Whether section 78 (5) is such a prohibition is unsettled on either instrument's face. Do not plan on an extension, and do not tell a hearing the door is shut.
No published Guideline is titled for mediation, settlements or section 78. That is a point about titles, not coverage: Guideline 7 carries a section headed "Applications Under Section 78". The set runs 1 to 19 and 21, with no 20.
Take a two-bedroom unit in Trenton, let month to month. The tenant falls into arrears, you serve an N4 and file, and you settle at mediation under section 194. The settlement has the tenant pay rent as it falls due, plus $400 towards arrears on the 5th of each month. It says you may apply under section 78 if a term is not met. An order on the previous application does the same job.
The 5th is used deliberately: it exists in every month, where the 30th and the 31st do not.
Section 78 (9) lets the respondent move, on notice to you, to set the order aside within 10 days after it issues. Section 78 (10) then stays it when the motion is received by the Board, not when a Member rules.
And the motion is free. The fee row for the Motion to Set Aside an Ex Parte Order, read 2026-10-27, is "No charge", and unlike the L4 row names no channel. The cheapest step in the sequence is the tenant's, and it costs you your enforcement date.
Nothing in section 78 caps how often you may use it. Section 74 (12) limits a tenant to one motion under section 74 (11), the post-enforceable payment motion, per tenancy agreement; section 78 has no equivalent.
Section 78 (11) gives three outcomes. The Board sets the order aside if any section 78 (1) criterion is not satisfied. It sets it aside "... if the Board is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it would not be unfair to set aside the order under subsection (6)". Or it lifts the stay.
Section 83 does not reach that hearing. Guideline 7 reasons that the motion is not a hearing on an application to evict, so "... section 83 does not apply. Instead, the LTB exercises discretionary relief under subsections 78(11) (b) & (c)."
The relief is real. Guideline 7 says Members have that discretion even where the tenant has clearly breached the conditional order or settlement.
Two things follow. "Setting aside the ex parte order results in the original order or mediated settlement remaining in full force and effect." And section 78 (12) lets the Board amend it on that branch, so your terms are not fixed.
The Board's power to postpone enforcement narrowed on 2026-09-21, set out in our post on whether the LTB can still delay or refuse an eviction.
Not on its own. Frankly, it is the second version of the same mistake.
Section 206 (1) is not a general settlement power. Its opening words gate it on the application already before the Board. That is a section 69 application to terminate and evict on a section 59 notice, or one for arrears, or both.
Only then may the Board order terms of payment without holding a hearing, and four conditions close the list. Clause (a) requires that "the parties have reached a written agreement resolving the subject-matter of the application". Clause (a.1) requires that "the agreement is in the form approved by the Board", in force 2026-07-01, a trap on a form saved locally. Clause (b) requires it signed by all parties, clause (c) filed before the hearing commenced.
Subsection (2) is a ceiling, not a list of contents. The Board "may, based on the agreement reached by the parties, order," the arrears, NSF cheque or related administration charges, the application fee, and rent falling due in the payment period.
Then subsection (3): "... the Board shall not order that the tenancy be terminated." So an owner holding one has a payment order with no eviction behind it.
What rescues it is subsection (3.1). The Board "... may include a provision allowing a landlord to make an application under section 78" if the tenant fails to comply. That is the bridge, and without it the order is money only.
Section 206 has its own reopening route, and it is not section 78. Under subsection (4) you file a request to reopen, saying which terms were not met and how. Subsection (6) caps it: that request "shall not be made later than 30 days after a failure of the tenant to meet a term of the order."
Subsection (8) opens "If a request to reopen is made under subsection (4)," and bars the Board from proceeding "... to hear the merits ... unless the Board is satisfied that the tenant failed to comply with a term of the order."
Start with what a mediated settlement is. Rule 13.7: "A mediated settlement is not an LTB order." Rule 13.10 adds that "Except where the parties agree otherwise, copies of mediated settlements are confidential, the property of the parties and will not be retained by the LTB."
So the Board holds no copy, and the L4 is refused without one.
Section 194 is the mediation power itself, and it has exactly five subsections. Subsection (3) caps an agreed rent increase at "the sum of the guideline and 3 per cent of the previous year's lawful rent", but only "for a rental unit that is not a mobile home or a land lease home or a site for either".
Now count what is not there. Section 194 has no breach provision and no time limit, so what makes a broken settlement enforceable lives in section 78.
Your remaining route is a re-opening request. Rule 13.11 lets a party ask to re-open where the other does not meet a term, or for incapacity, coercion or deliberate false or misleading representations. Rule 13.12 sets the limit at one year after signature, and what that year buys is a hearing.
Owners ask next whether it can be fixed. Our reading of those rules with section 78 (1) is that it cannot. A clause missing from the signed settlement, or from the order on the previous application, cannot be added later. That is a reading of the provisions together, not something either states.
The fix is upstream. Rule 14.1 lets settlement terms be made part of an order where all parties consent. Rule 14.2 lets the Board issue a consent order where satisfied the terms are "consistent with the RTA".
Do that with your eyes open. Rule 13.13 says a re-open request "cannot be made for an application resolved by an order issued by the LTB, except for an application resolved by an order issued pursuant to s. 206(1) of the RTA." A Rule 14.2 consent order is an LTB order, not a section 206 (1) order, so it shuts the Rule 13.11 route too. Without the section 78 provision it leaves you with neither door.
So ask for the section 78 provision at the table, and read the signed document for those words before you leave the mediation.
Four things can look like this file, with different triggers and costs.
One neighbour runs on the tenant's side. Section 74 is the void-on-payment ladder on an arrears order, untouched by section 78. What a tenant can put to a Member at an arrears hearing is in our post on what a tenant can raise at an arrears hearing.
Can I evict without another hearing if my tenant breaks the payment agreement? Sometimes. Section 78 lets you apply without notice to the tenant, but only where the settlement or order imposed conditions that on breach give rise to the same grounds as your previous application, and "provided that the landlord could apply under this section if the tenant did not meet one or more of the conditions described in subparagraph i". Without that limb the route is closed.
Does section 78 say the Board decides it without a hearing? No. It says "without notice to the tenant". The phrase "without holding a hearing" appears six times in the Act on the e-Laws legislative-doc node textContent as at 2026-10-27, case-insensitively, none of them in section 78. Subsection 78 (6) is permissive, and Guideline 7 calls the ex parte order the general practice.
How long do I have to file the L4? Thirty days from the failure. Section 78 (5) provides that an application "shall not be made later than 30 days after a failure of the tenant to meet a condition described in subparagraph 2 i of subsection (1)." Whether that can be extended is unsettled.
If you are holding a settlement and are not sure the clause is in it, that is a short read rather than a project. Talk to our team and we will tell you what you are holding.
This post is general information about Ontario residential tenancy law as of 2026-10-27, 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.