Is there a one-year limitation period for
landlord claims at the LTB?

By Jonathan Kleiman, Barrister & Solicitor · Published August 2026

A question I hear regularly from landlords goes something like this: "I've heard I only have one year to go after my old tenant. Is that true?" It usually comes up after a tenant has moved out owing rent, or after damage turned up once the unit was empty, and often the landlord is asking because the anniversary of the move-out is getting uncomfortably close.

The honest answer has two parts. No, there's no single one-year limitation period that covers every landlord and tenant dispute in Ontario. But yes, for the claims that matter most to a landlord whose tenant is gone, the practical effect is exactly that: the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 gives the Landlord and Tenant Board jurisdiction over money claims against former tenants, and it attaches a one-year filing deadline to each of them. Miss it, and you may not have a forum at all.

That last part surprises people, so this guide walks through it properly: what the statute actually says, why the Board's exclusive jurisdiction isn't itself a limitation period but still changes everything, and what to do (and document) before the clock runs out. As always, this is general information, not advice about your specific situation, and tenancy law moves: confirm the current RTA text on e-Laws before relying on any deadline.

Is there a one-year limitation period for landlord claims at the LTB?

Not a universal one: the Residential Tenancies Act attaches a one-year filing deadline to the specific money applications a landlord can bring against a former tenant, and each of those applications must be filed no later than one year after the tenant ceased to be in possession of the unit. The one-year rule people have heard about is real, but it lives in particular sections of the Act, not in a general limitation provision. When Ontario amended the RTA in 2020 (the Protecting Tenants and Strengthening Community Housing Act, 2020, often called Bill 184), it extended the Board's money applications so landlords could pursue former tenants at the Board, something that previously forced them into court. The trade-off built into each of those applications is a firm filing window: one year after the tenant or former tenant "ceased to be in possession of the rental unit".

So when a landlord asks me about the one-year rule, my first question is never about the calendar. It's about the claim. What kind of loss is it, which section of the Act covers it, and when exactly did the tenant cease to be in possession? Those three answers tell you the deadline. The calendar just tells you how much trouble you're in.

What does the RTA actually say about claims against former tenants?

Four sections do the work, and each one carries the same one-year deadline: section 87 (rent arrears and compensation for use and occupation), section 88.1 (substantial interference), section 88.2 (unpaid utilities), and section 89 (damage). It's worth seeing the structure, because landlords often lump everything together as "what the tenant owes me" when the Act splits it into distinct applications with their own requirements.

Section 87: arrears and use-and-occupation. A landlord can apply for an order that a tenant or former tenant pay arrears of rent, and separately for compensation for the use and occupation of the unit after a termination took effect. NSF cheque charges (and the related administration charges, within prescribed limits) can be added. The application can be made while the tenant is in possession, or no later than one year after the tenant ceased to be in possession.

Section 88.1: substantial interference. Where a tenant's conduct (or that of an occupant or guest) substantially interfered with the landlord's reasonable enjoyment of the complex or another lawful right or interest, the landlord can claim its reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. Same one-year window after possession ends.

Section 88.2: unpaid utilities. Where the tenancy agreement required the tenant to pay utility costs and they didn't, the landlord can claim its reasonable out-of-pocket expenses resulting from that failure. Same one-year window.

Section 89: damage. Where the tenant, an occupant, or a guest wilfully or negligently caused undue damage to the unit or the complex, the landlord can claim reasonable repair costs, or replacement costs where repair isn't reasonable. Same one-year window. Note the statutory standard is "undue damage" caused wilfully or negligently; ordinary wear and tear was never the tenant's to pay for.

Two housekeeping points that catch people. First, any rent deposit (and interest on it) gets set off against what the tenant owes, so the Board's order is for the net amount. Second, the clock runs from the tenant ceasing to be in possession, which is a factual date. It isn't automatically the lease end date or the date on a notice. A tenant who keeps the keys, leaves a unit full of belongings, or drifts out over weeks can make that date genuinely arguable, and since the deadline hangs on it, you want evidence: the key return, a dated final inspection, photographs of the empty unit, and the messages confirming they're gone.

Is the LTB's exclusive jurisdiction the same thing as a limitation period?

No, and keeping the two concepts separate is the key to understanding the whole area: exclusive jurisdiction decides where a claim can be heard, while the one-year deadline decides until when the Board application can be filed. These two ideas get blended together into a single "one-year LTB limitation period", and the blend causes real mistakes in both directions.

Section 168(2) of the RTA gives the Board "exclusive jurisdiction to determine all applications under this Act and with respect to all matters in which jurisdiction is conferred on it by this Act". That's a forum rule. It doesn't say anything about timing. What it says is that if the Act assigns a dispute to the Board, the Board is where it goes; you generally don't get to pick a court instead because you'd prefer a judge, as I explain in more detail in my guide to Small Claims Court versus the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The deadlines, meanwhile, live in the individual application sections: 87, 88.1, 88.2, and 89 each contain their own one-year rule. So the correct chain of reasoning is always the same. What is the legal basis of the claim? Does the Act give the Board jurisdiction over it? And if so, what deadline does that particular application carry? Answer those in order and the "is it one year or two years?" confusion mostly disappears.

The two concepts interact in one very important way, though. Because the Board's jurisdiction over these claims is exclusive, a landlord can't necessarily wait out the Board's deadline and then bring the same claim in court under the ordinary two-year limitation period. The exclusivity is what turns a missed one-year window from an inconvenience into a potentially fatal problem. That's the next section.

From my experience

From my experience, the landlords who lose these claims rarely lose them on the merits. They lose them on the calendar, and usually for an understandable reason: they spent the first several months after the move-out trying to be reasonable. They sent the ledger, accepted a promise to pay, waited, sent a reminder, waited again. By the time they concluded the former tenant was never going to pay voluntarily, the year was mostly gone, and what remained wasn't enough time to sort out the right application, gather the evidence, and deal with service.

The other pattern I see is the landlord who knows about the deadline but has the wrong start date for it. They count from the last day of the lease, when the tenant actually stayed three more weeks, or they count from the eviction order, when possession really ended a month later at enforcement. Either way, they're doing deadline math on a date the other side can attack. When I open a file like this, pinning down the "ceased to be in possession" date with documents is often the first substantive task, before anyone drafts anything.

Can I just sue in Small Claims Court if I miss the LTB deadline?

Don't count on it: where the substance of the claim is one the RTA assigns exclusively to the Board, a court may refuse to hear it even though the Board's own deadline has passed, and relabelling the claim as "debt" or "breach of contract" doesn't reliably change that. This is the assumption that does the most damage. It feels intuitive: the LTB window closed, but the Limitations Act, 2002 gives civil claims two years, so surely Small Claims Court picks up where the Board left off. Sometimes a court route exists. But for a claim that is, in substance, an RTA claim against a former tenant, the argument against it is straightforward: the Legislature gave those claims to the Board exclusively, and it gave them a one-year deadline on purpose. Letting the same claim proceed in court under a longer deadline would let landlords do indirectly what the statute says they can't do directly.

Courts look at the true character of the claim, not its label. Calling unpaid rent a "debt" or framing tenant damage as "negligence" doesn't move it out of the RTA's world if the underlying relationship was a residential tenancy and the loss is one the Act covers. And the stakes of guessing wrong are asymmetrical: a landlord who files at the Board inside the year is safe either way, while a landlord who waits and sues in court later is betting the whole claim on a contested jurisdiction argument.

To be fair, the edges here are genuinely unsettled, and there are situations where court is the right or only answer: claims that fall outside the Act, tenancies the Act doesn't cover, and claims above the Board's monetary cap (more on that below). My point isn't that court is never available. It's that "I'll sue in Small Claims within two years" is not a plan; it's a fallback position with a real chance of failing. The plan is one year, at the Board.

Which landlord claims does the one-year rule cover?

The one-year deadline covers the Board's money applications against former tenants (arrears, use-and-occupation, interference costs, utilities, and damage), while sitting-tenant applications, commercial tenancies, and claims outside the RTA follow different rules. Here's how the common situations sort, at a glance.

Scroll the table sideways to see all columns →

The table's most important column is the middle one. In each row, the timing rule follows from the forum, and the forum follows from the legal basis of the claim. Classify first, count second.

What if the claim is worth more than $50,000?

The Board can only order payment up to the Small Claims Court limit ($50,000 since October 1, 2025), but section 207(2) of the RTA expressly lets a claimant whose claim exceeds that cap bring it in court instead. The Board's monetary jurisdiction is tied to the Small Claims limit by s. 207(1), so both ceilings sit at $50,000 today. A landlord with, say, $70,000 in arrears and damage has a real decision to make: claim at the Board and abandon the excess over $50,000, or rely on s. 207(2), which allows a person "entitled to apply under this Act but whose claim exceeds the Board's monetary jurisdiction" to start a proceeding in court for the full amount, with the court able to exercise the Board's powers.

Section 207(2) is one of the cleaner statutory doorways into court for an RTA money claim, and for large claims it matters. But the election has consequences (costs exposure, procedure, timing, and what happens to the excess), and the interplay between s. 207(2) and the one-year application deadlines is exactly the kind of question to resolve with advice before filing anywhere. If you're weighing forums generally, my comparison of Small Claims Court and the Superior Court covers the cost-benefit trade-offs.

What if the tenant is still in the unit, or the RTA doesn't apply?

The one-year rule is a former-tenant rule: sitting-tenant matters run on the RTA's notice and application timelines, and disputes genuinely outside the Act are court claims under ordinary limitation periods. If your tenant is still in possession, nothing in this article's one-year framework applies to you yet. Arrears applications can be brought while the tenancy runs, terminations move on their own notice periods, and the eviction process has its own sequence. The moment that changes is the moment possession ends: that's when the one-year clock starts on the money claims.

At the other edge, some relationships fall outside the RTA entirely: commercial leases, and certain living arrangements the Act excludes. Those disputes belong in court, and the ordinary civil limitation rules apply, generally two years from when the claim was discovered. You can sanity-check a court deadline with my Ontario limitation period calculator, but note how it treats the LTB: the one-year rule is flagged as a special regime that overrides the two-year rule, not something the calculator computes. Whether the RTA applies to a given arrangement is itself a legal question, and it's the first one to answer, because everything else (forum, deadline, remedy) hangs off it.

What should landlords do before the deadline?

Pin down the possession-end date, classify the loss, match it to the right RTA application, and file with months to spare, not days. Here's the checklist I'd actually run, ideally in the first weeks after a move-out rather than near the anniversary.

• Fix the vacancy date with evidence. The one-year clock runs from the tenant ceasing to be in possession. Document the key return, do a dated final inspection with photographs, and keep the messages confirming the tenant is out. If the date is arguable, treat the earliest plausible date as your deadline's start.
• Classify the loss. Arrears, use-and-occupation, damage, utilities, out-of-pocket interference costs, or something else. Each maps to a different section and application, and a claim that mixes categories may need more than one.
• Match the remedy to the form. Identify the RTA section and the corresponding LTB application for each head of claim before you draft anything.
• Assemble the record early. The tenancy agreement, rent ledger, notices and agreements, inspection reports, photographs, utility bills, invoices and estimates, and the key correspondence. Evidence is easiest to gather when the move-out is recent.
• Check whether the tenant is truly out of possession. A tenant still in possession changes both the available applications and the timing analysis.
• Flag any question about whether the RTA applies at all. If the arrangement might fall outside the Act, the forum and the deadline both change, and that's worth advice, not a guess.

And the meta-rule sitting above all of these: don't investigate at month eleven. Filing mechanics, service, and evidence problems all take time to fix, and none of them can be fixed after the year runs out.

Key takeaways

• There's no universal one-year limitation period at the LTB. The one-year rule comes from the specific RTA applications a landlord can bring against a former tenant.
• But for former-tenant money claims, one year is the working deadline. Sections 87, 88.1, 88.2, and 89 each require filing no later than one year after the tenant ceased to be in possession.
• The clock runs from the end of possession, a factual date. Not necessarily the lease end date or the notice date. Document the move-out.
• Exclusive jurisdiction is a forum rule, not a deadline. Section 168(2) decides where the claim goes; the application sections decide by when. Together they mean a missed Board deadline may leave no forum at all.
• Don't plan on Small Claims Court as the fallback. Relabelling an RTA claim as debt or breach of contract may not reopen the court route. Court remains for claims outside the Act, and s. 207(2) covers claims above the $50,000 cap.
• Act early. Classify the claim, pick the right application, and file with months to spare. Get advice where the possession date, the RTA's application, or the amount makes things arguable.

Frequently asked questions

Is there a one-year limitation period for landlord claims at the LTB in Ontario?

Not a universal one, but for the claims that matter most it works like one. The Residential Tenancies Act does not impose a single one-year limitation period on every landlord and tenant dispute. What it does is attach a one-year filing deadline to the specific applications a landlord can bring against a former tenant: rent arrears and compensation for use and occupation under section 87, out-of-pocket costs for substantial interference under section 88.1, unpaid utility costs under section 88.2, and compensation for damage under section 89. Each of those applications must be filed no later than one year after the tenant or former tenant ceased to be in possession of the rental unit. For a landlord whose tenant has moved out, the practical rule is simple: act within one year of the move-out, and treat that date as a hard deadline.

When does the one-year clock start for an LTB claim against a former tenant?

The statute counts one year from the date the tenant or former tenant "ceased to be in possession of the rental unit". That is a factual question, not a paperwork question. It is not necessarily the date the lease ended, the date on a notice of termination, or the date an eviction order was issued. A tenant who leaves belongings behind, keeps the keys, or comes and goes after the supposed end date can create real argument about when possession actually ended. Because the deadline turns on that date, landlords should document the move-out carefully: the key return, the final inspection, dated photographs of the empty unit, and any communications confirming the tenant is gone.

What can a landlord claim against a former tenant at the Landlord and Tenant Board?

The Residential Tenancies Act gives landlords four main money applications against a former tenant, each with its own section and each subject to the one-year deadline: arrears of rent and compensation for use and occupation of the unit after termination (section 87), reasonable out-of-pocket costs caused by conduct that substantially interfered with the landlord's reasonable enjoyment or lawful interests (section 88.1), reasonable out-of-pocket costs from the tenant's failure to pay utility costs they were required to pay (section 88.2), and reasonable repair or replacement costs for undue damage to the unit or complex caused wilfully or negligently (section 89). NSF cheque charges can be added to a section 87 application, and any rent deposit held is set off against what the tenant owes.

Can a landlord sue a former tenant in Small Claims Court instead of going to the LTB?

For a claim the Residential Tenancies Act assigns to the Landlord and Tenant Board, generally no, and it is risky to assume otherwise. Section 168(2) of the Act gives the Board exclusive jurisdiction over applications under the Act and matters the Act assigns to it. Since the 2020 amendments extended the Board's reach to former tenants, arrears, damage, and utility claims arising from a residential tenancy are Board matters, and calling the same claim "debt" or "breach of contract" does not necessarily change its legal character or reopen the court route. Court claims may still be available where the claim genuinely falls outside the Act, where the amount exceeds the Board's monetary jurisdiction, or in other specific situations, but that is a fact-specific jurisdiction question that deserves advice, not an assumption.

What happens if a landlord misses the one-year LTB deadline?

The Board application is generally no longer available, and the fallback many landlords count on may not exist. People often assume that missing the LTB window simply moves the claim to Small Claims Court under the ordinary two-year limitation period. That assumption is dangerous. Where the substance of the claim is one the Residential Tenancies Act assigns exclusively to the Board, a court may decline to hear it at all, deadline or no deadline. The result can be harsh: a documented loss with no available forum. The safe course is to treat one year from move-out as the real deadline and file at the Board well before it, rather than litigating a difficult jurisdiction question afterward.

Does the two-year limitation period apply to landlord and tenant claims?

Only where the claim is genuinely a court claim. The basic two-year limitation period in the Limitations Act, 2002 governs civil claims brought in court. Where a landlord's claim belongs in court because the Residential Tenancies Act does not apply (a commercial tenancy, or a living arrangement the Act excludes) or because it falls outside the Board's jurisdiction, the two-year period is the usual measure. But for claims the Act assigns to the Board, the governing deadline is the one in the relevant RTA section, and for former-tenant money claims that is one year from the tenant ceasing to be in possession. Identify the right forum first; the limitation period follows from that answer.

What if the claim is worth more than $50,000?

The Board's monetary jurisdiction is capped at the Small Claims Court limit, which has been $50,000 since October 1, 2025 (Residential Tenancies Act, s. 207). A landlord whose claim fits the Board's jurisdiction but exceeds the cap has a choice: abandon the excess and claim up to $50,000 at the Board, or use section 207(2), which expressly allows a person whose claim exceeds the Board's monetary jurisdiction to bring it in a court of competent jurisdiction. That subsection is one of the clearer statutory routes into court for an RTA money claim, but the choice between forums has strategy and cost consequences, so get advice before electing.

Does the one-year rule apply while the tenant is still living in the unit?

No. While the tenant remains in possession, a landlord can apply to the Board at any time for arrears and the other money remedies, and the eviction process runs on its own notice periods and timelines, not a one-year limitation. The one-year deadline is specifically about former tenants: it starts when the tenant ceases to be in possession and closes the Board's doors on those money applications a year later. Different timing traps exist for sitting tenants (notice periods, application windows tied to particular notices), but there is no single one-year rule that answers every situation.

Does the one-year LTB deadline apply to commercial landlords?

No. Commercial tenancies fall outside the Residential Tenancies Act entirely, so the Landlord and Tenant Board has no jurisdiction over them and the one-year rule does not apply. A commercial landlord's claim against a tenant or former tenant is a court claim, governed by the lease and the Commercial Tenancies Act, and subject to the ordinary limitation rules for civil claims, generally two years from discovery. Commercial landlords have their own timing traps, but the LTB's one-year window is not one of them.

What should a landlord do right after a tenant moves out owing money?

Three things, promptly. First, pin down and document the exact date the tenant ceased to be in possession, because the one-year deadline runs from it. Second, gather the evidence while it is fresh: the rent ledger, the tenancy agreement, inspection reports, dated photographs of any damage, utility bills, invoices and estimates for repairs, and the communications around the move-out. Third, identify the correct application and file well inside the year. The Board process has its own forms, service requirements, and scheduling delays, and none of that should be started at month eleven. If the amount is significant or the possession date is arguable, get legal advice early.

Final thoughts

The cleanest way to hold this whole topic in your head is as two rules doing different jobs. The deadline rule: each of the RTA's former-tenant money applications must be filed within one year of the tenant ceasing to be in possession. The forum rule: the Board's jurisdiction over those applications is exclusive, so the court system generally isn't waiting behind it as a safety net. Landlords get into trouble when they blur the two, usually by assuming the two-year civil limitation period gives them more runway than the statute actually allows.

So describe the law carefully, but act on the simple version: if a former tenant owes you money, treat one year from the move-out as your deadline, and don't spend most of it hoping they'll pay voluntarily. And if you're near the edge (an arguable possession date, a claim over $50,000, a question about whether the Act applies), those are precisely the situations where a short conversation before filing is worth far more than it costs. Call 416-554-1639 or book a free consultation, and we can work out your deadline and your forum before either becomes a problem.

Statutory references: Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, ss. 87, 88.1, 88.2, 89, 168(2), and 207, as amended by the Protecting Tenants and Strengthening Community Housing Act, 2020. Always check the current consolidated RTA on e-Laws, the LTB's Rules, and current case law before filing or relying on any deadline.