Bill 60 - The Issues at Stake
Shelterly’s Understanding of Proposed Bill 60 for Landlords and Tenants.
We make it stand out.
Bill 60 in Ontario right now is the “Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025”, an omnibus bill that, among many other things, makes important changes to the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA) in Schedule 12. Those RTA changes are what matter for landlords and tenants.
As of today (Nov 19, 2025), Bill 60 is not yet law – it’s at second reading, ordered for third reading in the Legislature. So what we’re talking about is proposed law that could still be tweaked.
Below is a detailed breakdown from a landlord’s operational perspective, and an honest look at tenant risk. I won’t pretend there’s “zero risk” when major housing law changes are on the table, but I can show why a responsible landlord can reasonably say that good, rent-paying tenants are not the target of these reforms.
What Bill 60 actually changes for landlords & tenants (Schedule 12 – RTA)
The RTA portion (Schedule 12) is relatively focused. The government itself frames it as part of a push to “reduce delays at the Landlord and Tenant Board to help tenants and landlords reach resolutions faster.”
a) Standardizing LTB notice forms – s.43(1)
What the bill does
Notices under the RTA (N4, N11, N12, etc.) must be in a Board-approved form, unless a specific form is prescribed in regulations; then you must use the prescribed one.Legislative Assembly of Ontario
Why it matters to landlords
Fewer “technical dismissal” arguments from tenants (“wrong version of form,” “slightly different wording”).
Cleaner paperwork for property managers and paralegals.
Less risk that a minor form error wipes out months of delay and rent arrears.
(b) Own-use / compensation carve-outs – new s.48.1(2)
What the bill does
Right now, when you evict for landlord’s own use / family use (N12), you generally owe one month’s rent in compensation or must offer another unit (s.48.1). Bill 60 adds a new subsection 48.1(2) saying those requirements don’t apply in certain circumstances, which are to be specified.
Commentary and advocacy letters suggest this is tied to fixed-term tenancies and “security of tenure” questions, and possibly situations where the lease itself clearly defines an end date and use.
Why it matters to landlords
Potentially reduces the cost of genuine own-use evictions in certain scenarios.
Gives more flexibility for small, family landlords who truly need the unit back without an extra cash hit every time.
Caution
Details will depend heavily on regulations and how the LTB interprets them. Tenant advocates are extremely focused on this section as a possible erosion of security of tenure.
— Squarespace
(c) Defining “persistent failure to pay” – s.58(1.1) & s.94.2
What the bill does
“Persistent failure to pay rent on the date it becomes due” will be defined by regulation – essentially setting a clearer test for when a tenant’s chronic lateness qualifies as grounds to terminate. The same idea is applied to housing co-ops’ monthly charges.
Why it matters to landlords
Chronic late-paying tenants are often cashflow killers but can be hard to remove under vague standards.
A clear regulatory test (e.g., “X late payments in Y months”) gives:
More predictability for you and your paralegal.
Stronger leverage to push a tenant into a binding repayment plan.
A more straightforward path to termination when the pattern is clearly established.
(d) Stricter set-aside of default orders – s.77(8)(b) & s.94.10(8)(b)
What the bill does
Currently, if a tenant doesn’t show up and a default eviction order issues, they can ask to set aside that order and get a re-hearing. Bill 60 tightens this by saying the Board may set aside only if prescribed circumstances / conditions / tests are met, which will be defined by regulation.
Why it matters to landlords
Fewer “yo-yo” situations where:
You get an order,
You line up sheriff / new tenant,
Then a last-minute set-aside restarts everything.
More finality once an order is made, which is crucial for:
Financing,
Planning vacancy repairs,
Lining up new tenants.
(e) Making it harder to sandbag you at the hearing – s.82 changes
Section 82 is the part that lets a tenant, in a landlord’s non-payment case, raise issues like maintenance, repair failures, etc., to argue they shouldn’t owe all the arrears or shouldn’t be evicted.
What the bill does
Re-writes s.82(1), and adds extra requirements in s.82(2) – including that the tenant must:
Raise their issues properly in advance, and
Pay at least half of the arrears claimed to be able to fully rely on those issues.Legislative Assembly of Ontario+1
Why it matters to landlords
You’re less likely to be ambushed at the hearing with a laundry list of alleged repairs going back years that were never properly documented.
Encourages tenants to:
Tell you (and the Board) in advance what their complaints are.
Show some good faith by putting money on the table if they want relief on the arrears.
This doesn’t take away a tenant’s right to argue genuine disrepair or harassment – it just structures when and how they must do it.
(g) Shorter, more controlled review timelines – s.209
What the bill does
The LTB’s internal “review” power (asking the Board to re-open its own decision) becomes subject to regulatory limits.
Tenants and landlords will normally have 15 days from issuance of the order to request a review, unless the Board finds it “just and appropriate” to extend.
Why it matters to landlords
Faster finality – you’re not waiting months wondering if a review will pop up.
Again, less uncertainty for financing, turnover, and planning.
2. Why Bill 60 is “important” from a landlord’s perspective
Putting it all together, Schedule 12 doesn’t reinvent landlord–tenant law – it tunes the existing system to:
Reduce procedural gamesmanship
Standard forms.
Stricter rules for raising issues and setting aside orders.
Clearer timelines for reviews.
Deal with chronic non-payment and late payment
“Persistent failure to pay” will finally have a concrete test.
Eviction for true chronic lateness should be simpler to prove.
Make LTB outcomes more predictable
Limits on open-ended s.83 discretion.
Regulation-defined tests reduce “roulette wheel” decision-making.
Support small landlords’ viability
Most Ontario landlords are small owners or families, not big REITs. LTB delays and procedural surprises push many of them out of the market. Bill 60’s RTA changes are clearly designed to give those small players a more usable, timely system – which, in turn, helps keep units in the long-term rental pool.
Even organizations representing municipalities note that Bill 60 includes specific measures to shorten LTB processes and eviction timelines as part of a broader housing strategy.
3. “Tenants aren’t at risk” – what’s true, what’s contested
Tenant advocates, United Ways, the City of Toronto and others are very vocal that Bill 60 – especially Schedule 12 – does create risks for tenants.
3.1 What Bill 60 does not change
Regardless of Bill 60, tenants still:
Can only be evicted by LTB order, after proper notice and a hearing (or default if they fail to participate). The basic grounds for eviction in the RTA (non-payment, substantial interference, illegal acts, own-use, demo/renovation, etc.) are not replaced.Wikipedia
Keep all Human Rights Code protections against discrimination.
Retain RTA protections on harassment, illegal entry, repair obligations, and rules about rent increases. Bill 60 doesn’t, on its face, repeal general rent control rules; debates about “rent control removal” come from separate policy proposals and consultations, not the bare text of Schedule 12.City of Toronto+1
Have access to appeal routes (judicial review / appeal on questions of law) outside the LTB itself.
For a tenant who:
Pays rent on time,
Treats the unit reasonably, and
Raises repair issues in a timely, documented way,
the day-to-day legal position changes very little. The biggest impact is on how quickly an arrears or serious-misconduct file moves through the system.
3.2 Where tenant advocates see risk
Groups like ACTO, the Encampment Justice Coalition, and multiple United Ways argue that Schedule 12 will:
Speed up evictions, especially for non-payment.
Raise the bar for tenants to raise disrepair/harassment issues (because of the “half arrears” requirement).
Limit the Board’s discretion to spare tenants who would otherwise face homelessness.
Potentially weaken security of tenure and interact with future rent control changes in ways that could increase displacement.
In other words: they see the same provisions you see as “efficiency and predictability” as barriers for low-income tenants and those in crisis.
3.3 A landlord-framed reassurance that isn’t dishonest
The target behaviour is non-payment and procedural abuse, not ordinary tenants.
The big changes (s.58, s.82, s.209) mostly kick in once there’s an arrears file or a default situation.
Tenants who pay and communicate in good faith are not at heightened risk because of those tweaks.
Core rights remain intact.
Eviction still requires notice + LTB order.
Tenants can still raise repair and harassment issues; they just have to do it earlier and more formally, which also helps you fix genuine problems promptly.
Clearing the backlog helps good tenants too.
Faster LTB processes mean:Tenants with legitimate maintenance or illegal rent increase applications won’t wait 8–12+ months for a hearing.
Landlords who remove a truly problematic tenant can re-rent faster, stabilizing their finances and avoiding pressure to sell or exit the rental market.
There will still be regulations and policy levers.
Many of the sharpest edges (definitions of “persistent failure,” limits on s.83 discretion, etc.) are left to regulations, which can be tuned, softened, or balanced with programs like rent banks and eviction-prevention supports.City of Toronto+1
So while it’s not accurate to say “tenants aren’t at risk at all,” it is fair, from a landlord’s perspective, to say:
The reforms are primarily aimed at chronic arrears and abuse of process.
They leave the core protections of the RTA in place for tenants who comply with their leases.
For good tenants and responsible landlords, the main impact should be faster, clearer decision-making – not mass displacement.