Taking an N6 to the Landlord and Tenant Board: The Questions a Member Works Through Before Ending a Tenancy for an Illegal Act

An N6 is not judged on how alarming the facts sound. It is judged on whether the right notice was served, whether the conduct fits section 61, whether it is proven on a balance of probabilities, and whether eviction should still be refused or delayed.

I’m Arthur Zhao, a real estate broker in Toronto. This article is for one specific reader: a landlord who has already served an N6, has filed or is about to file the L2 application, and now has to explain the case to a Member of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Walk into that hearing with a story about how bad the tenant’s conduct was, and you are answering a question the Member has not asked yet. The Board’s own guidance describes an illegal-act case as a two-step determination: first, whether the tenant committed an illegal act that justifies eviction; second, whether eviction should nevertheless be refused or delayed. Before either step, the notice itself has to survive scrutiny. So the sections below follow the order in which those questions come up, and for each one, set out what the statute says, what the Board’s Interpretation Guideline adds, and what you need to be able to show.

Start with the form’s full name: it covers two different grounds

The LTB’s form is titled “N6 Notice to End your Tenancy For Illegal Acts or Misrepresenting Income in a Rent-Geared-to-Income Rental Unit.” That second half is not decoration. Section 60 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 lets a landlord end a tenancy where the unit falls within paragraphs 1 to 4 of s. 7(1) (federal-government, public, non-profit and co-operative housing categories) and the tenant has knowingly and materially misrepresented their own income or that of other household members. The termination date must be no earlier than the 20th day after the notice is given (s. 60(2)).

The LTB combined that ground with the illegal-act ground in s. 61 on a single form, which is why the N6 lists three reasons:

• Reason 1: an illegal act or business involving the production of an illegal drug, trafficking, or possession for the purposes of trafficking.
• Reason 2: any other illegal act or illegal business at the residential complex.
• Reason 3: misrepresented income in rent-geared-to-income housing.

For Reason 3, the N6 instructions ask you to state the amount by which income was misrepresented and show how you calculated it. For a private landlord renting a condo or a basement apartment, Reason 3 will not apply; the rest of this article is about Reasons 1 and 2.

N6 next to N5: the comparison a Member has in mind

First question: is the notice itself valid?

The termination date. According to the LTB’s N6 instructions (updated 2026) and the statute they track, the clock depends on the reason ticked. Under s. 61(2)(a), the 10-day minimum applies only where the illegal act involves producing an illegal drug, trafficking in one, or possessing one for the purposes of trafficking. Every other illegal act falls under s. 61(2)(b) and needs at least 20 days. If you tick Reason 1 together with Reason 2 or 3, the N6 instructions say the termination date must follow the rules for Reasons 2 and 3. When counting, the instructions say not to include the day the notice is given; add five days if you mail it and one business day if you send it by courier.

The 14-day second notice. Section 68 lets a landlord use a termination date no earlier than the 14th day where (a) a notice was previously given under s. 62, 64 or 67, and (b) more than seven days but less than six months later, grounds arise under s. 60, 61, 62, 64 or 67, other than the s. 61(2)(a) drug grounds. Read the statute closely: clause (a) only requires that the earlier notice was given. Interpretation Guideline 9 and the N6 instructions both describe the situation as one where the first notice became void because the tenant complied; that is how the Board describes it, but it is not a condition written into s. 68 itself.

The details box. The N6 instructions ask you to describe, as specifically as possible, what happened, who did it (the tenant, another occupant or a guest), the dates and times, and who was affected. Whatever you write there is the case the tenant has been told to answer.

The filing window. You can apply as soon as the notice is served (s. 71), but no later than 30 days after the termination date in the notice (s. 69(2)).

Second question: is the conduct “illegal” in the section 61 sense?

The RTA does not define “illegal.” According to the Landlord and Tenant Board’s guidance (2011), the answer sits in Interpretation Guideline 9, “Eviction for an Illegal Act or Business” (dated January 4, 2011). It is important to be precise about what that document is: an interpretation guideline describes the Board’s usual interpretation of the law, and the guideline itself states that a Member is not required to follow it. It is not a statute.

With that caveat, IG9 says “illegal” would include a serious violation of a federal, provincial or municipal law, and that a trivial or technical illegality might not be serious enough to warrant eviction. Seriousness turns on whether the act “has the potential to affect the character of the premises or to disturb the reasonable enjoyment of the landlord or other tenants.” IG9 contrasts a fraud devised in the unit, a bad cheque or an unfiled tax return, which do not necessarily threaten anyone in the building, with drug offences, which may bring harmful effects on other occupants.

IG9 also records, as reported in the guideline, a Divisional Court decision (Sutton Place Grande Limited v. Hammer and Griffiths, [2002] O.J. No. 1792) in which a tenant who listed the unit with a real estate agent and repeatedly sublet it to short-term occupants, for rent well above the lawful rent and without the landlord’s consent, was found to be carrying on an illegal business. IG9 explains that this conduct breached s. 134 and was an offence under s. 234(l), but those sections gave the landlord no remedy, so s. 61 was available. The point for a hearing: the line IG9 draws is between an RTA breach that already has an RTA remedy and conduct that goes further.

Third question: who did it, and where did it happen?

Section 61(1) reaches conduct by the tenant or another occupant of the unit, or a person the tenant or occupant permits to commit the act. On “permits,” IG9 is specific: it is not enough to prove that the tenant let the person who committed the act into the unit or the complex. A finding that the tenant permitted the act may be inferred from knowledge, and IG9 says the evidence may allow a Member to conclude the tenant knew of the act or was wilfully blind to it. If the wrongdoer was a visitor, the evidence you bring needs to speak to what the tenant knew.

Location is the other half. The act must occur in the rental unit or the residential complex. IG9 notes that the RTA’s definition of residential complex includes common areas and shared services and facilities, such as the laundry room, parking lot and recreational facilities. Its own illustration: a tenant charged with robbing the convenience store across the street gives the landlord no ground; robbing other units in the same complex would.

Fourth question, for drug cases: does the evidence fit the 10-day category?

Section 61(3) borrows every key term from the federal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA): an “illegal drug” is a controlled substance or precursor as the CDSA defines them, and possession, production and trafficking all carry their CDSA meanings. IG9 adds that possession for the purposes of trafficking can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, giving the example of police finding a large quantity of drugs, cash and weigh scales.

Cannabis needs a separate look. IG9’s 2011 text gives “Cannabis or Opium” as examples of controlled substances. The current CDSA (Justice Laws, Act current to 2026-09-21) defines a controlled substance as a substance in Schedules I to IV or Part 1 of Schedule V, and a precursor as a substance in Part 2 of Schedule V or Schedule VI. Cannabis is not listed in those schedules; the only mention of cannabis in the current Act is a cross-reference to the Cannabis Act. Read literally, then, cannabis is not an “illegal drug” under s. 61(3), and the 10-day track in s. 61(2)(a) does not textually reach it. Cannabis conduct that breaks another law could still be argued as an illegal act under s. 61(1) on the 20-day track. That is as far as the text goes: I have not reviewed Board decisions on how Members actually treat cannabis under s. 61, so this article draws no conclusion about Board practice.

Fifth question: how strong does the proof have to be?

Not criminal-court strong. IG9 states that the burden in Board proceedings is the civil standard, the balance of probabilities, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt (IG9 cites F.H. v. McDougall, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41 for this). The Member scrutinizes the evidence to decide whether the preponderance of it supports the conduct alleged.

Section 75 settles the conviction question in the statute itself: the Board may order termination and eviction on a s. 61 notice “whether or not the tenant or other person has been convicted of an offence” relating to the illegal act. IG9 adds three points that matter at the hearing: an eviction can be ordered even if no one has been charged; the fact that someone has been charged is not necessarily proof that an illegal act was committed; and there is no need for the Member to adjourn until a criminal court has heard the matter.

In practical terms, a charge sheet alone does not carry the case and the absence of one does not sink it. What the Member weighs is the evidence you put in front of them about what happened, who did it and where.

Sixth question: even if the ground is proven, should eviction be refused or delayed?

This is the second step of IG9’s two-step determination, and it is not optional. Under s. 83(2), if a hearing is held, the Board shall not grant the application unless it has reviewed the circumstances and considered whether to refuse the application under s. 83(1)(a) or postpone enforcement under s. 83(1)(b). The mandatory refusal grounds in s. 83(3), such as an application brought because the tenant tried to enforce their legal rights, apply to N6 cases as to any other.

IG9 says the Member should weigh the seriousness of the illegal act against factors including the length of the tenancy, the tenant’s financial circumstances, whether children live in the unit, whether there have been other problems with the tenant, and whether the tenant is likely to commit the act again.

There is also a middle path. Under s. 204(1), the Board may include whatever conditions it considers fair. IG9’s examples include ordering a tenant to stop a business prohibited by a zoning by-law, or granting relief on condition that the tenant not let a particular guest back into the building, with a term that if a condition is breached the landlord may apply ex parte (without notice to the tenant) under s. 78. A landlord preparing for a hearing should be ready to address what conditions would or would not protect the other residents. The broader relief-from-eviction framework is covered in our separate article on s. 83.

After the order: expedited enforcement, and what you still cannot do yourself

Section 84 applies to orders based on a s. 61 notice involving the s. 61(2)(a) drug grounds (and to notices under ss. 63, 65 and 66). In those orders, the Board shall ask the sheriff to expedite enforcement, subject to its power under s. 83(1)(b) to postpone. A Reason 2 order does not carry that statutory request. IG9 (2011) also notes that applications on a 10-day drug notice are processed more quickly than most other types, with a shorter time to hearing.

Until an order is enforced, possession stays with the tenant. Section 39 provides that a landlord shall not recover possession of a rental unit unless the tenant has vacated or abandoned it, or a Board eviction order has authorized it. Calling the police about suspected criminal activity is a separate track from the tenancy; it does not substitute for an LTB order.