Bill 10: More responsibilities— and more power—for landlords
By David Gargaro
If you’re an Ontario landlord, you’ve heard about Bill 10. Rental property owners, managers, directors, and officers can be held legally responsible for failing to prevent illegal drug-related activities from happening in their buildings. However, when used correctly, landlords can turn Bill 10 to their advantage.
Understanding the legislation
On May 1, 2025, the Ontario Attorney General introduced Bill 10, the Protect Ontario Through Safer Streets and Stronger Communities Ac t, 2025. Schedule 8 of the Bill enacts the Measures Respecting Premises with Illegal Drug Activity Act, 2025 (the Act), which directly affects “landlords” (as they are referred to in the Bill). Its purpose is to help the provincial government prevent drug-related crime and strengthen public safety measures. The Act expands the role of landlords of residential and commercial properties in monitoring and controlling tenants’ criminal activities.
The Act includes two main prohibitions:
• Section 2 prohibits landlords from knowingly permitting illegal activity and misuse of the premises. Landlords must take “reasonable measures” to prevent tenants from engaging in a “prescribed offence” (e.g., producing or trafficking illicit drugs).
• Section 3 prohibits landlords from knowingly possessing proceeds from a prescribed offence.
The Act provides law enforcement officers with broad powers to address prescribed offences. They include removing individuals from the premises, closing commercial properties, seizing items linked to criminal activity, restricting access to certain locations, arresting individuals without a warrant under specific circumstances, and imposing penalties for obstructing law enforcement officers in performing duties under the Act.
The legislation negatively affects landlords
What constitutes “reasonable measures”? Most rental agreements require tenants to comply with
the law and not engage in conduct that adversely affects residents’ enjoyment of the property and the landlord’s lawful rights and interest. Taking reasonable measures could mean conducting more property inspections, installing additional security cameras, and strictly enforcing leasing regulations. However, doing so might infringe on tenants’ rights as set out under the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
Failure to take reasonable measures to prevent illegal activities from occurring on their properties could lead to financial penalties, ranging from $10,000 to $250,000. Repeat offences could mean daily penalties. Landlords may also be held responsible for remediation expenses (e.g., investigation and drug contamination cleanup costs). Taking reasonable measures may increase the risk of losing rental income and additional costs.
Directors of for-profit and non-profit corporations are equally liable under the Act. However, nonprofit directors are not paid the same (or at all) as for-profit counterparts. They also face greater risks, as they often house high-needs populations who may suffer from addiction and have a greater propensity to engage in illegal activities. If they install more expensive security measures, non-profits may be forced to increase rents or reduce service levels, which would negatively impact tenants and reduce the availability of affordable housing.
Landlords can turn the Act in their favour
Landlords can take advantage of ambiguities within the Act. There are no clear definitions of “reasonable measures.” There is also no clear explanation of the statement “No person shall knowingly permit a premises of which the person is a landlord to be used in relation to a prescribed
offence.” Landlords who suspect a tenant is doing something illegal (e.g., manufacturing methamphetamines) can serve the tenant with an eviction notice (Form N6) and file an L2 application with the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) for termination of the tenancy.
When the case comes before the LTB, the landlord would rely on their observations and inclinations regarding their obligations under the Act to support the eviction notice (i.e., they took “reasonable measures” to prevent the tenant from engaging in illicit activities on the premises). The tenant may be able to establish the landlord’s observations (e.g., numerous individuals’ comings and goings from the unit at all hours) are not connected to drug trafficking. The LTB would balance the parties’ evidence and determine whether the tenant engaged in an illegal act on the premises. Either outcome will ensure the landlord has taken “reasonable measures” to address “suspicious” conduct.
Notices of termination for an illegal act are not voidable; once such a notice is delivered to a tenant, the landlord may apply to the LTB immediately for eviction. While the burden of proof is that of a civil standard (balance of probabilities), the LTB will scrutinize an illegal act. Unlike an N5 notice, which gives the tenant the opportunity to correct their behaviour after receiving notice of the landlord’s concerns, an N6 is a non-voidable notice.
If the landlord is successful at the N6 hearing for an illegal act, they get rid of a bad tenant. Engaging in the statutory process to address problematic behaviour is not harassment and does not create a separate cause of action for a tenant to pursue against a landlord. Bill 10 provides further support for a landlord acting promptly in issuing a notice of termination at the first indication illegal drug activities are occurring at their property.
Tenant screening processes may need to be amended to be more rigorous; more frequent inspections of rental units may be necessary. The LTB will be forced to grapple with balancing the RTA, which takes precedence over other provincial legislation, besides the Human Rights Code, and newly imposed public safety legislation. An increase in LTB cases due to Bill 10 would force lawmakers to rewrite the Act with more definitive descriptions of requirements.
At the very least, landlords could turn the law in their favour and make lawmakers pay more attention to protecting responsible landlords.
Special thanks to Kristen A. Ley, Partner, Cohen Highley LLP, for sharing her legal expertise.
