By A.J. Keilty, President, KEILTY Realty Management
An adjournment is your Landlord and Tenant Board hearing being put off on the day it was meant to happen. Who decides depends on when the request is made and on whether every party consents. On the day itself it is whoever is in front of you, a Member or a Hearing Officer, exercising a discretion the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 does not contain.
The number to carry away is seven. That is how many days before the hearing a tenant must pay half the arrears claimed and give written notice of the issues they intend to raise. The deadline is measured from the hearing, so moving the hearing moves the deadline with it.
Searched on 2026-10-20 over the whole consolidated text at e-Laws, the word adjourn appears zero times in the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and so does any variant of reschedule. The power lives in one sentence of a different statute, three sub-rules of the Board's own Rules, and a Guideline from 2020 that no Member is obliged to follow.
The short version.
Three different people, depending on when the request is made and on whether every party consents.
A Hearing Officer is not a Member. Section 206.1 of the Act lets the Board designate employees as hearing officers "to exercise the powers and duties of the Board as its delegate", and, "Subject to any restrictions in the regulations", they may hold a hearing and make an order on an application "for which the respondent does not appear at the time scheduled for the hearing" or specified in the Rules.
A request made in advance, on consent of every party, and received by the Board not less than five business days before the date, is a rescheduling. Rule 21.1 of the LTB Rules of Procedure directs it to "the LTB".
Interpretation Guideline 1 says who that means: "Rescheduling involves staff setting a new date for the hearing in advance of the date originally set for it, usually confirmed by a new Notice of Hearing". On the Guideline's account it is a staff step, not a hearing.
A request inside five business days, or without the consent of every party, moves up a level. Rule 21.2 says it "may be granted if a Member or Hearing Officer is satisfied that it was not reasonably possible for the party making the request to comply with Rule 21.1". The test is not the merits of the delay. It is whether the party could have asked in time.
A request made on the day is an adjournment. Rule 21.7 reads in full: "A party may request an adjournment at the beginning of a CMH or hearing." Rule 21.8 puts the decision "at the discretion of a Hearing Officer or Member".
There is a fourth route that no party asks for. Rule 1.4 lets the Board "reschedule proceedings on its own initiative", and Rule 5.17 lets it adjourn where a party has failed to serve as required, with dismissal of the application as one alternative. An owner whose own service was defective can be adjourned without asking.
Do not confuse any of this with the separate delay the Board can order after it decides. Clause 83 (1) (b) of the Act lets it, "subject to any prescribed limitations or conditions, order that the enforcement of the eviction order be postponed for a period of time", and section 8.4 of O. Reg. 516/06 allows that only where the landlord consents or the prescribed conditions are met. That one you have a say in.
From one sentence in the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22. Section 21 has no subsections and has never been amended:
A hearing may be adjourned from time to time by a tribunal of its own motion or where it is shown to the satisfaction of the tribunal that the adjournment is required to permit an adequate hearing to be held.
It reaches the Board through section 184 (1) of the Act: "The Statutory Powers Procedure Act applies with respect to all proceedings before the Board." That subsection is unqualified, and the carve-outs in subsections 184 (2) and (3) concern written hearings on above-guideline increase and related applications. They do not touch section 21.
Three phrases do the work. "From time to time" is the textual basis for serial adjournments. "of its own motion" is a separate limb with no test attached. And "where it is shown" puts the burden on whoever wants the delay, at a standard of necessity rather than convenience.
Pulling the other way is section 183 of the Act, which is mandatory and which owners under-use: "The Board shall adopt the most expeditious method of determining the questions arising in a proceeding that affords to all persons directly affected by the proceeding an adequate opportunity to know the issues and be heard on the matter."
Why so little of this is statutory is a matter of delegation. Section 176 (2) of the Act and section 25.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act are the Rules' authority, and the Rules' own preamble cites both. Section 193 then sends time itself across: "Time shall be computed in accordance with the Rules." Those Rules "are not regulations as defined in Part III (Regulations) of the Legislation Act, 2006", and the Guidelines are "non-binding" by section 176 (3).
Rule 21.8 sets out the discretion and the factors together:
A CMH or hearing may be adjourned at the discretion of a Hearing Officer or Member where satisfied that an adjournment is required to permit an adequate hearing to be held. Relevant factors the LTB may consider in deciding the request include: the reason for the adjournment and position of the parties; the issues in the application; any prejudice that may result from granting or denying the request; the history of the proceeding including other adjournments or rescheduling; and the LTB's obligation to adopt the most expeditious method of determining the questions arising in a proceeding that affords to all persons directly affected by the proceeding an adequate opportunity to know the issues and be heard on the matter.
Note what the fourth factor is not. "The history of the proceeding including other adjournments or rescheduling" is a relevant factor, not a cap, and no Rule makes a second request harder than a first.
Guideline 1 carries a bare date of December 1, 2020 and no revision label. Two of its sentences are worth quoting to anyone assuming a delay will be granted. Where the Member is satisfied that the party received sufficient notice and had an adequate opportunity to prepare, "an adjournment is not usually granted unless there are exceptional circumstances". And "adjournments are not generally granted because a party is not prepared to proceed".
The Guideline also lists what a Member may do instead, and an owner should offer these rather than simply opposing. A short recess, reconvening later for the extra evidence, or taking the evidence after the hearing.
Section 201 (1) (d) of the Act supports the same move, letting the Board, before, during or after a hearing, "permit or direct a party to file additional evidence with the Board which the Board considers necessary to make its decision".
One timing point changes how long you wait. Guideline 1 says that where a matter is adjourned before evidence is heard on the merits the Member is not "seized", so the same Member is not required to conduct the adjourned hearing.
Where the request comes part way through, the Guideline says the Member "may be seized because they heard evidence", and in that situation "the hearing will be adjourned to a time when the same Member can continue the hearing". That has to fit one calendar instead of all of them.
Start with what does not happen. Section 207 (7) of the Act provides that "The Board may set a date on which payment of money ordered by the Board must be made and interest shall accrue on money owing only after that date at the post-judgment interest rate under section 127 of the Courts of Justice Act."
That subsection fixes interest on money the Board has ordered paid, not on arrears accruing while you wait. Each extra month is a month of credit extended at no charge.
Nor is there a cushion. Section 106 (10) applies the rent deposit "in payment of the rent for the last rent period before the tenancy terminates", and section 87 (4) makes the Board subtract the deposit and any interest on it when it determines arrears or compensation "in an order for termination of a tenancy and the payment of arrears of rent, compensation or both".
What the Act does give you is section 86: "A landlord is entitled to compensation for the use and occupation of a rental unit by a tenant who does not vacate the unit after his or her tenancy is terminated by order, notice or agreement." It runs from the termination date in the notice, not from the hearing. On an arrears file, section 74 (3) (a) (ii) requires the eviction order to specify "the daily amount of compensation that must be paid under section 86".
Two parts of section 74 cut the other way. Subsection 74 (2) discontinues the application outright if the tenant pays the arrears, the additional rent and the application fee "before the Board issues the eviction order", and subsection 74 (4) voids the order if the tenant pays "before the order becomes enforceable". Both are moving targets, and an adjournment extends both windows by the length of the delay.
Then the direct costs. Appendix A to the Rules sets witness attendance money at "$50" for "each day of necessary attendance", plus travel, so a summonsed contractor is paid again for the second day.
Filing fees do not come back. The Board's forms, filing and fees page states, in four places, "Please note that LTB fees are non-refundable." An L1 or L9 costs $201, or $186 through the Tribunals Ontario Portal. Asking is free on both sides, though: neither a Request to Reschedule a Hearing nor a Request to Shorten Time carries a fee.
The sharpest trap is section 207 (3): "If a party makes a claim in an application for payment of a sum equal to or less than 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."
The section 207 (1) ceiling is "the greater of $10,000 and the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court", a formula rather than a fixed figure, and the Small Claims figure is set by regulation and moves.
Arrears growing through a chain of adjournments can cross that ceiling. Taking a capped Board order then destroys the balance permanently, so the election has to be made before the order issues.
On an arrears file, yes, and this is the part that is written about least.
Since 2026-09-21, section 82 (1) of the Act gives a tenant the right to raise their own issues at your arrears hearing, conditioned on section 82 (2). The tenant must give advance written notice in accordance with the Rules and, unless the regulations provide otherwise, pay "Half of any rent arrears that were claimed in the application when it was filed".
Section 8.3 of O. Reg. 516/06, added by O. Reg. 241/26, sets the timing: "the timeline for paying the amounts referred to in paragraph 4 of that subsection is no later than seven days before the hearing". Rule 19.4 carries the same seven days for the payment and for the written description of each issue.
Rules 1.12 to 1.15, which Rule 1.16 says "may not be waived or varied", make those calendar days and move a deadline ending on a holiday to the next day that is not a holiday, a holiday being "any Saturday, Sunday or other day on which the LTB's offices are closed". So the seven days can shift forward, toward the hearing.
That deadline is anchored to the hearing, not to a fixed date. Adjourn the hearing and a new hearing date arises, and section 8.3 measures the deadline from "the hearing", so on its wording the seven days run from the new date.
Nothing published says in terms what happens to a tenant who missed the deadline set by the first date. Treat this as our reading of how the regulation is drafted rather than something either source states outright.
It is also your best argument against the adjournment. The request is not procedurally neutral, because it changes what the other side may raise, and saying so is stronger than opposing on inconvenience.
The Guideline runs the same logic in reverse. Where the tenant has complied with Rule 19.4, "the Board will not generally grant a landlord an adjournment to allow the landlord to prepare a response to the issues raised by tenant".
Where the tenant has not complied, the Board lets them raise the issues anyway, you "could not reasonably have anticipated" them and a short recess will not do, "the landlord may request an adjournment". Compliant disclosure closes the door on you. Non-compliant disclosure opens it.
One transition point matters on older files. Subsections 82 (4) and (5) continue the former subsections 82 (1) and (2), which carried notice requirements but no payment condition, for applications made before 2026-09-21 and not finally determined before that day, "even if the hearing of the application is on or after that day". The filing date controls, so adjourning an older file does not pull the new conditions into it.
Guideline 1 sets out what a Member may attach, and none of it happens by itself. It gives four examples of conditions, introduced as examples rather than as a closed list.
The first is a disclosure deadline. The second is a payment, on an arrears claim, where "the tenant should pay some of the arrears either to the Landlord or into the Board's trust account or pay the new rent that becomes due prior to the next hearing".
The third is a "peremptory" basis, "which means that no further adjournment requests will be granted to the party that requested the adjournment, or, to either party, except in the most exceptional circumstances or where the other party consents to the subsequent adjournment request". The fourth is "costs awarded to the party opposing the adjournment to compensate them for costs resulting from the adjournment".
The peremptory designation answers the missing cap. It is the only published mechanism that stops a second request, and it exists only because a Member chose to impose it.
The statutory backing is strong. Section 204 (1) is the widest conditioning power in the Act: "The Board may include in an order whatever conditions it considers fair in the circumstances." Section 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act lets a tribunal make interim orders and "impose conditions" on them, and says such an order "need not be accompanied by reasons". That is why an adjournment order can come back bare.
The payment condition has its own provision and it is the one to name. Section 195 (1) opens "Where the Board considers it appropriate to do so, the Board may, subject to the regulations", and clause (a) lets it "require a respondent to pay a specified sum into the Board within a specified time".
Section 195 (4) gives it teeth: on a failure to pay, "the Board may refuse to consider the evidence and submissions of the respondent". Searched on 2026-10-20, the numerals 195 do not appear in O. Reg. 516/06, but the power stays subject to the regulations made under the Act, so check the regulations in force before relying on it. Section 195 (3) is the hard limit: no payment into the Board after the final order.
Both, and the second is the risk owners do not see coming.
The statute gives a bare power. Section 204 (2) is sixteen words: "The Board may order a party to an application to pay the costs of another party." There is no conduct threshold in it and no mention of an adjournment.
Section 204 (4) says the amount is set by the Rules, and section 204 (5) provides that subsections (2) to (4) "apply despite section 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act". So the gate in section 17.1 (2) (a), which bars a costs order unless "the conduct or course of conduct of a party has been unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious or a party has acted in bad faith", does not govern this one.
Rule 23 supplies the standard and the numbers. Rule 23.1 lets the Board order a successful applicant's application fee paid by the respondent as costs, and Rule 23.3 connects delay to money: "A party who engages in unreasonable conduct which causes undue delay or expense may be ordered to pay costs to another party."
Rule 23.2 caps a paid representative's fees, which "shall not exceed $100 per hour for the services of a paid representative to a maximum of $700", and Rule 23.4 carries the same ceiling for the Board's own costs.
Interpretation Guideline 3, bare-dated December 15, 2018, opens its list with "Conduct is unreasonable if it causes undue expense or delay" and includes "Asking for adjournments or delays without justification". Set expectations on recovery, though, because the same Guideline is blunt: "In most cases, the only costs allowed will be the application fee." Guideline 3 states no dollar figures at all, so read it with Rule 23 beside it for the caps.
Now the exposure. Guideline 1 says: "Parties should respond promptly and reasonably to requests from another party to reschedule. If a party is found to be unreasonable in their response to a rescheduling request a Member may order the party to pay costs to the other party." An owner who refuses a consent reschedule on reflex, and loses the day anyway, can end up paying for it. Refusing is a decision to make on the facts, not a default.
With a Request to Shorten Time, and the Board says so in exactly one place. The Practice Direction on Motions to Assign a New Member Due to Delay, effective July 1, 2025, states: "If a matter has been adjourned and a party wants the next hearing to be expedited, a Request to Shorten Time should be made."
That sentence sits inside a Practice Direction about a different motion. It is not on the application and hearing process page, not in Guideline 1 and not in Rule 21.
Rule 16.1 sets the requirements: "Except where an extension of time is prohibited by the RTA", the LTB may consider a request that is in writing, provides reasons in support, and is filed as the Rules require. Note that it says the LTB may consider, not may grant. The form carries no fee.
The authority is section 190 (2) of the Act, which provides that "The Board may extend or shorten the time requirements with respect to any matter in its proceedings, other than the prescribed time requirements, in accordance with the Rules."
The prescribed time requirements are listed in section 56 of O. Reg. 516/06, twenty-one items covering notice periods, filing deadlines, cancellation windows and fixed statutory periods such as the period in subsection 77 (5) during which an eviction order is not effective. A hearing date is not among them.
Do not reach for the other motion in that Practice Direction. It says that "If further hearings dates are scheduled or expected to be scheduled the LTB will not accept the motion". An adjourned matter with a new date is ineligible, because that motion is for a stalled decision rather than a stalled hearing.
Work an Oshawa file through it. You own a rental house in Oshawa, serve an N4 with a termination date of 2027-02-08, file an L1, and the Board schedules the hearing for 2027-04-14. The tenant's seven day deadline under section 8.3 falls on 2027-04-07. They miss it, attend on the day, and the Member adjourns to 2027-05-26.
That new date resets their seven days to 2027-05-19 and gives them six further weeks in the unit at no interest. It extends the window in which paying under section 74 (2) discontinues your application, and it adds a second day of witness money.
Ask for three things on 2027-04-14, and not afterwards. A peremptory condition. A payment into the Board under section 195 (1) (a) covering the rent falling due in the interval. And disclosure by a fixed date rather than by reference to the new hearing.
Running a file so the adjournment never becomes the deciding event is routine work for a manager and painful work for an owner alone. We set out the surrounding timeline in how long it takes to evict a tenant in Ontario and the disclosure side in what a tenant can raise against you at an arrears hearing. See our single-family rental service for how the day-to-day side works, at a flat monthly rate per unit rather than a percentage of your rent.
Can my tenant adjourn the hearing without my consent? They can ask. Rule 21.7 lets a party request an adjournment at the beginning of the hearing, and Rule 21.8 puts the decision at the discretion of the Hearing Officer or Member, who must be satisfied it "is required to permit an adequate hearing to be held". Your consent is not required, and your opposition is not decisive either.
How many times can an LTB hearing be adjourned? There is no published limit. Section 21 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act says a hearing may be adjourned "from time to time", and no Rule caps repeats. The only brake is a peremptory condition, which Guideline 1 describes as something a Member may impose.
Do I get my filing fee back if the hearing is adjourned? No. The Board's forms, filing and fees page states "Please note that LTB fees are non-refundable." The only route back to the fee is Rule 23.1, which lets the Board order a successful applicant's fee paid by the respondent as costs, and only once you have succeeded.
Working out what an adjourned file is costing you, and what to ask for on the day, is the kind of thing we handle every week. Get My Free Rental Evaluation and A.J. Keilty will call you within 20 minutes in business hours.
This post is general information about Ontario residential tenancy law and Landlord and Tenant Board procedure as of 2026-10-20, not legal advice. Legislation, regulations, rules 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.