By A.J. Keilty, President, KEILTY Realty Management
You do not. Neither does the Landlord and Tenant Board. The only person in Ontario who can put a tenant out of a rental unit is a sheriff, and you have to take the order to them yourself.
That is the part owners are least ready for. The hearing gets all the planning, and the order feels like the finish line. It is a document that has to be filed somewhere else, inside a deadline, for a fee no published schedule actually names.
The short version.
No, and the Board says so plainly. Its brochure "How a Landlord Can End a Tenancy", stamped "Last updated: September 21, 2026", gives it a heading of its own.
The text reads: "An eviction order can only be enforced by the Court Enforcement Office of the Superior Court of Justice (also called the "Sheriff's Office"). The LTB does not enforce an order. The landlord must file a copy of the LTB order with the Court Enforcement Office to have the order enforced. The Court Enforcement Office will charge the landlord a fee to enforce the order."
Interpretation Guideline 10, stamped "Effective as of: September 1, 2021" and "Updated: September 21, 2026", closes the door behind it. "If a party believes that the Sheriff has failed to correctly enforce an eviction order issued by the LTB, they must pursue this concern directly with the Sheriff. This is because, once the LTB issues a final order it cannot provide additional direction to the Sheriff."
So the Board is finished with your file the day the order issues. Ontario.ca describes what you are dealing with instead: "The Court Enforcement Office is part of the Superior Court of Justice. Ontario has 49 enforcement offices."
It has four published names, which is worth knowing before you start searching. The Board calls it the Court Enforcement Office and the Sheriff's Office. Ontario.ca's fee page calls it the Enforcement Office. The court finder lists it under a court type of simply "Enforcement".
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.
None of them. Read the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 end to end and you will not find a sentence giving anybody the power to remove a person from a rental unit.
What the Act does instead is one sentence long. Section 85 provides that "An order evicting a person shall have the same effect, and shall be enforced in the same manner, as a writ of possession." That is the whole section, unamended since 2006.
It does not create a power. It borrows one, pointing at the sheriff's existing authority to execute a writ of possession under the general law of the Superior Court.
The word counts bear that out. Measured on 2026-10-23 on the consolidation's own document container, the Act uses "sheriff" three times and "writ of possession" twice. It never uses "Court Enforcement Office" or "bailiff" at all, and the counts are identical at page level, so none of them comes from the e-Laws navigation.
Three mentions of the sheriff, no definition of the office, and no removal power. The Act is pointing outward.
What it does say is what you may not do. Section 37 (1) is one line: "A tenancy may be terminated only in accordance with this Act." Section 39 then gives two lawful routes to possession and no third.
Section 39 reads: "A landlord shall not recover possession of a rental unit subject to a tenancy unless, (a) the tenant has vacated or abandoned the unit; or (b) an order of the Board evicting the tenant has authorized the possession." Section 40, immediately after, abolishes distress.
Six months, and it is a filing clock rather than an eviction clock. Section 81 reads in full: "An order of the Board evicting a person from a rental unit expires six months after the day on which the order takes effect if it is not filed within those six months with the sheriff who has territorial jurisdiction where the rental unit is located."
Read the condition at the end, because it does the work. The order expires at six months only if it has not been filed. File it inside the window and section 81 stops applying.
The six months does not always run continuously, which the Act does not tell you. Guideline 10 says the period "does not continue to run while the order is subject to a stay as a result of an appeal to the Divisional Court or a proceeding at the LTB such as a review request or set aside motion", citing Elguindy v. Galaxy Real Estate Core Ontario LP, 2024 ONSC 5911 and Nickoloff v. Sniderman, 2024 ONSC 6121.
We have those two cases only through the Guideline and have not read either at source.
The Board also raises an extension, and it raises it carefully: "under section 190(2) of the RTA, the LTB may have the authority to consider extending the deadline for filing an order with the Sheriff if the request is made before the LTB issues an eviction order."
Take that hedge at face value. Section 190 (2) reaches time requirements "with respect to any matter in its proceedings, other than the prescribed time requirements", and the six months in section 81 is fixed by the Act rather than set in a proceeding. Ask before the order issues, or do not plan around it.
Searched on 2026-10-23, the Act carries no other deadline for enforcing an eviction order. The phrase "no longer be enforced" returns zero. "Six months" appears ten times across seven provisions, and two of those ten sit inside section 81 itself, in the single sentence quoted above.
The other eight are clocks for something else. They are the windows for claiming back property or a mobile home in sections 42 (7), 92 (3) and 162 (4) to (6), a limitation period on a former tenant's application in section 57.1 (2), and the look-back periods for a further-contravention notice in sections 68 (1) (b) and 94.2 (1). None of them touches enforcing an eviction order.
Silence in the Act does not mean nothing happens next. Guideline 10 supplies a second clock from outside the statute: "Ontario Rule of Civil Procedure 60.10(4) provides that once filed with the Sheriff an LTB eviction order continues to be enforceable for one year from the date it takes effect."
We did not open the Rules of Civil Procedure this run. That one-year figure is the Board's account of a rule we have not read at source, and we would check it before relying on it in a close case.
Guideline 10 adds a consequence worth more than the deadline. "Once an eviction order expires, the landlord cannot apply at the LTB for another eviction order based on the same issue." Letting the six months run is not a delay. It closes that ground.
For contrast, look at the mirror-image order. Where the Board orders a landlord to let a tenant back in after a lockout, section 31 (4) uses the identical writ-of-possession wording.
The clock is a different shape though. Section 31 (5) expires that order at the end of the fifteenth day after it is issued if it has not been filed, and at the end of the forty-fifth day even where it has. Yours runs from the day the order takes effect, and once filed the Act gives it no outer limit at all.
It is the date you may first file, and it is not in the Act. Guideline 7, "Relief from Eviction - Refusing or Delaying an Eviction", stamped "Updated: September, 2026", explains it.
The Guideline calls the date on which you may file the eviction date, and says it "is always specified in an LTB order." It then names the convention: "Although the time period is not set out in the RTA, LTB orders commonly provide that the eviction date is 11 days after the date of the order."
Note what it concedes. The eleven days is drafting practice, not statute. Searched this run, the Act carries no mention of eleven days, and the only "15th" in it belongs to the tenant's reinstatement clock in section 31 (5). If you have heard that the sheriff works in halves of a month, that is not in the Act either.
It can be shorter. Guideline 7: "A shorter period of time may be provided where the LTB finds there has been serious misconduct by the tenant, their guests or other occupants of the rental unit."
On serious grounds the Board is obliged to push. Section 84 reads in full: "Subject to clause 83 (1) (b), the Board shall, in an order made under section 69 based on a notice given under subsection 61 (1) that involves an illegal act, trade, business or occupation described in clause 61 (2) (a) or based on a notice given under section 63, 65 or 66, request that the sheriff expedite the enforcement of the order."
Two things sit in that sentence. The "shall" is mandatory on the Board, and it is an owner right that rarely gets asked for by name. But the whole duty opens "Subject to clause 83 (1) (b)", the postponement power, so the Board can still delay the same order it is obliged to ask the sheriff to speed up.
And it is only a request. The Act gives the Board no power to bind the sheriff's schedule, which is the same point Guideline 10 makes from the other direction.
Here the published record thins out, and we are going to say how thin. Ontario.ca's civil court fees page, stamped "Updated: April 09, 2026" and read by us on 2026-10-23, sets out the tariff and names its source: "The information in this section is an unofficial presentation of the fees prescribed by an Ontario regulation called Sheriff - Fees. For an official version of this regulation, refer to Ontario Regulation 294/92."
Two items bear on an eviction filing. Item 3 is "For filing or renewing a writ of execution or order that a sheriff is liable or required to enforce and that is not required to be delivered to a land registrar of a land titles division", at $75.
Item 7 is "For each attempt, whether or not successful, to enforce any other writ of execution or order", at $240. On top of both, the person requesting the service pays a travel allowance under R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 11. That is 30 cents a kilometre in southern Ontario and 30.5 cents in northern Ontario, for the distance necessarily travelled both ways between the court house and the place of enforcement.
Now the limit on all of that. No line in O. Reg. 294/92, and no row on any Ontario.ca table we could find, names an eviction order, a residential tenancy or the Landlord and Tenant Board.
Getting to $75 and $240 means classifying a Board order as an order "that a sheriff is liable or required to enforce", and then as "any other writ of execution or order". That classification looks right to us, and no publisher makes it for you. Treat the figures as a reading of a general tariff rather than a published eviction fee.
Which is also why item 7 is worth reading twice. It is charged per attempt, "whether or not successful".
Expect to be asked for more. Ontario.ca's enforcement filing page, stamped "Updated: October 01, 2026", says the office may need you to "provide upfront funds for enforcement costs", and that "The Court Enforcement Office will only start enforcement after they receive all needed materials." That is the only published acknowledgement that your costs run past the tariff, and it does not itemise them.
Three further gaps, and we are naming all of them rather than the convenient one. No publisher we read sets out what happens on the day: how the appointment is made, whether you have to attend, or who changes the lock. Guideline 6 refers in passing to "the Sheriff's notice to the door", which is evidence one gets left, and that is as far as the published record goes.
Nor does any of them give a timeline from filing to attendance. And the Board publishes no form for instructing the sheriff, its forms page returning nothing for "sheriff" or "enforce".
The court side does publish something. Ontario.ca lists, among the documents that can be filed with the sheriff, "Writs of possession [Form 60C] and Landlord and Tenant Board orders for residential evictions or restoring premises and necessary enforcement forms." The order itself goes in, together with forms that sentence does not name.
Three routes, and they do not all trigger at the same moment. If you are counting days, the difference matters.
On an arrears order, a tenant who pays before the order becomes enforceable voids it automatically under section 74 (4). After it becomes enforceable that route is gone, and payment alone does nothing.
The tenant then has to pay, swear an affidavit and file a motion under section 74 (11). Section 74 (13) provides that the order "is stayed when a motion under subsection (11) is accepted for filing by the Board and shall not be enforced under this Act or as an order of the Superior Court of Justice during the stay."
Two guards sit around that. Section 74 (11.1) says the Board "shall refuse to accept for filing a motion under subsection (11), if the tenant has not complied with all the requirements of that subsection."
The Act does not leave the consequence to inference either. Section 74 (13.1) provides that "For greater certainty, subsection (13) applies only if the affidavit filed by the tenant in support of the motion under subsection (11) complies with all the requirements of that subsection." A defective motion does not stop the sheriff.
Section 74 (12) then makes it a once-per-agreement right, barring a second motion "during the period of the tenant's tenancy agreement with the landlord".
The other route is section 78, the without-notice application after a tenant breaches a settlement or an order. A respondent has ten days under section 78 (9) to move to set it aside.
Section 78 (10) stays the order on a lower trigger: "When a motion under subsection (9) is received by the Board, an order under subsection (6), and any order made under subsection (7) or (7.1), are stayed and shall not be enforced under this Act or as an order of the Superior Court of Justice during the stay." Received, not accepted. That makes the section 78 stay easier for a tenant to trigger than the section 74 one.
If you are using the without-notice route, note the other clock. Section 78 (5) gives you thirty days to bring the application in the first place.
The third route is section 77, the without-notice application after a tenant gives notice or agrees to terminate and then stays on. Section 77 (6) gives the respondent ten days to move to set that order aside, and section 77 (7) stays it "when a motion to have the order set aside is received by the Board and shall not be enforced under this Act or as an order of the Superior Court of Justice during the stay."
Received again. Two of the three stays turn on receipt and only the arrears one on acceptance.
A stay does not reach the sheriff on its own. LTB Rule 25.1 puts that on the party: "The party who files a set aside motion must immediately take a copy of the motion, the Notice of Hearing and Stay to the Court Enforcement Office. This Rule does not apply to a set aside motion filed by a landlord under s.74(9)."
Rules 25.2 and 25.3 say the same for a voided order and for a stay order. The paper does not walk itself, in either direction.
When the Board can refuse an eviction outright, rather than delay it, is a separate question we work through in can the LTB delay or refuse an eviction in Ontario.
Yes, in the owner's favour, about a month ago. Section 83 (1) (b) lets the Board "order that the enforcement of the eviction order be postponed for a period of time". The words that now open that clause, "subject to any prescribed limitations or conditions", were added by 2025, c. 14, Sched. 12, s. 7 and came into force 2026-09-21.
The limitations arrived the same day, as section 8.4 of O. Reg. 516/06, made by O. Reg. 241/26. It provides that the Board "may order that the enforcement of an eviction order be postponed under clause 83 (1) (b) of the Act only if the landlord consents to the postponement or if the following conditions are satisfied".
On a notice under section 48, 49 or 50, which is own use, purchaser's use, or demolition, conversion and repair, the Board needs only to be satisfied that "it would not be unfair to the landlord or other tenants of the residential complex to postpone the enforcement of the eviction order".
On any other application, including arrears, damage and illegal act, it needs that and, separately, that "there are compelling grounds to postpone the enforcement of the eviction order".
Three things follow for an owner. The default is now no postponement, because the regulation says "only if". Your consent is a complete gateway, so being asked to agree to a short delay is a real decision rather than a formality. And on an arrears eviction the tenant has to clear a bar that did not exist in August.
The Board has said as much itself. Guideline 7 now carries the line "If the LTB is not satisfied these conditions are met it does not have the authority to delay an eviction".
It also flags its own worked examples as "based on decisions that were made before section 8.4 of O.Reg. 516/06 came into effect on September 21, 2026, and therefore may no longer be applicable". A guideline warning you off its own examples is unusual, and worth taking at face value.
That becomes your problem rather than the sheriff's, and the clock is short. Guideline 6, stamped "Effective as of: December 15, 2018" and "Updated: July 1, 2026", states it.
The Guideline reads: "Under subsection 41(2), a landlord must allow a tenant who has been evicted by the Sheriff 72 hours after their eviction to get their property. The landlord must make the evicted tenant's property available from 8 am to 8 pm during this 72 hour period."
Read that against the Act, because the Guideline's subsection number is off by one. Section 41 (2) is the no-disposal rule. The duty to make the property available is section 41 (3), and the 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. window is prescribed by O. Reg. 516/06, s.46. The duty is real on either reading, and section 234 (b) attaches its offence to section 41 (3).
The Board's brochure on property left behind, stamped "Last Updated: July, 2026", fixes when that starts: ""Enforced the eviction" means that the Sheriff visited the unit to evict the tenant (see Sheriff Evicts the Tenant)." The seventy-two hours runs from the visit, not from the termination date in the order and not from the day you filed.
Doing it badly is itself an offence. Section 234 (b) makes it an offence to fail "to make an evicted tenant's property available for retrieval in accordance with subsection 41 (3)".
Guideline 6 also sets the standard higher than a note on the door. It records the Superior Court's view in Mputu v. Wright that an evicted tenant "is in a position of weakness and vulnerability, and simply taping the Sheriff's notice to the door with a contact phone number is not sufficient to meet the landlord's obligation". We have that case through the Guideline and have not read it at source.
Four different regimes govern property left behind, and they carry different waiting periods. Which one applies to you is set out in can a landlord throw out a tenant's belongings in Ontario.
More than the sheriff's fee, and the exposure does not turn on what you believed. The Act has two offence sections and they are built differently.
Section 233 opens "A person is guilty of an offence if the person knowingly," and runs to thirteen clauses. Section 234 opens "A person is guilty of an offence if the person," with no knowledge requirement at all, and its clause (w) is seven words long: "unlawfully recovers possession of a rental unit".
That difference is the whole point. On the section 233 offences, not knowing is an answer. On section 234 (w) it is not.
Changing the locks lands on both sections. Section 24 provides that "A landlord shall not alter the locking system on a door giving entry to a rental unit or residential complex or cause the locking system to be altered during the tenant's occupancy of the rental unit without giving the tenant replacement keys." Nothing in it carves out a landlord holding an eviction order, and it says nothing about the termination date.
Section 233 (b) then makes it an offence to do that "in a manner that contravenes section 24 or 35", but only where done knowingly. Section 234 (w) attaches separately, with no knowledge element, and the Act nowhere defines what it is to recover possession unlawfully. Two offences, two different tests, one act. What that route costs is set out in can you change the locks on a tenant in Ontario.
There is also a reversal. Where the Board finds on a section 29 (1) paragraph 5 application that a landlord altered the locking system without giving replacement keys, section 31 (3) lets it "order that the landlord allow the tenant to recover possession of the rental unit and that the landlord refrain from renting the unit to anyone else".
Read the precondition in that subsection. The Board must be "satisfied that the rental unit is vacant". Re-renting quickly does not make the problem go away, it moves it, because the general wrong is an offence under section 234 (w) whether or not the unit can be given back.
Two separate things, on two separate clocks, and the second one is the trap.
For the period the tenant stayed on past the end of the tenancy, section 86 gives you "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". That is compensation for use and occupation, not interest and not rent, and the trigger is broad: by order, by notice or by agreement.
For the arrears themselves, section 87 (1) is the application and section 87 (1.1) carries the deadline. It allows the application "(a) while the tenant is in possession of the rental unit; or (b) no later than one year after the tenant or former tenant ceased to be in possession of the rental unit."
One year from the day they stopped being in possession. Miss it and the Board route to the money is closed, whatever the order said.
Where a tenant left early or without proper notice, section 88 sets the arithmetic, and two of its rules cut against the owner. Section 88 (3) caps the arrears at the date a new tenant is entitled to occupy, once you re-let. Section 88 (4) requires consideration of "whether or not the landlord has taken reasonable steps to minimize losses in accordance with section 16".
Holding a unit empty to protect a larger paper claim runs into both.
Who physically removes the tenant in Ontario? A sheriff from the Court Enforcement Office of the Superior Court of Justice. The LTB brochure "If You are Locked out of Your Unit", stamped "Last updated: September 21, 2026", puts it as "The sheriff is the only person who is allowed to enforce the LTB order and make you move out." The Board does not enforce its own order and cannot direct the sheriff once the order is final.
You file a copy of the order with the Court Enforcement Office for the area where the unit is, and you pay a fee.
How long do I have to file an eviction order with the sheriff? Six months from the day the order takes effect. Section 81 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 says the order expires at six months if it has not been filed in that window, and Guideline 10 adds that once an order expires you cannot apply again on the same issue.
What does the sheriff charge to enforce an eviction order? O. Reg. 294/92 sets $75 to file an order a sheriff is required to enforce, and $240 for each attempt to enforce it, successful or not, plus mileage at 30 cents a kilometre in southern Ontario. No published line names an eviction order specifically, so those figures are a reading of a general tariff rather than a stated eviction fee.
Can the Board still delay my eviction? Only within limits that arrived on 2026-09-21. Section 8.4 of O. Reg. 516/06 lets the Board postpone enforcement with the landlord's consent, or where it is satisfied a delay would not be unfair and, on grounds other than own use, purchaser's use or demolition and repair, that there are compelling grounds.
If you are holding an order and are not sure what to file, where, or by when, that is a short conversation rather than a project. Talk to our team and we will tell you what the next step is on your file.
This post is general information about Ontario residential tenancy law as of 2026-10-23, 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.