Last Updated: August 22 2026
Can section 212 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 save a Notice with minor errors in Ontario?
Yes. Under Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, s. 212, substantial compliance is enough even if a form, notice, or document has a minor contents error, as long as the error does not significantly prejudice a party’s ability to participate in the Landlord and Tenant Board process. In practice, this means a typographical or small omission may be cured instead of striking the document, but problems that affect meaning or ability to respond usually won’t be treated as “minor.” If you’re facing a landlord or tenant notice dispute and want a paralegal’s read on whether the error is prejudicial, Lippa Legal Services in Ontario can help, call (416) 241-4529.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Understanding Section 212 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006
Concern for minor errors upon a Notice document, among other forms, often gives rise to dispute over the validity of the document and whether the document, and any associated process, should be struck. To remedy or cure minor errors, section 212 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, Chapter 17, serves as a provision to provide for the allowing of documents with minor errors, as long as such errors are without a genuine prejudial effect upon any party.
Note: Please contact Lippa Legal Services by phone at: (416) 241-4529 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
The Law
Errors or omissions upon a Notice or other legal documents sometimes occur. Rather than treating the imperfect document as a fatal error that may completely derail a proceeding, section 212 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, provides for a remedial effect to minor imperfections. Specifically, section 212 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, states:
Substantial compliance sufficient
212 (1) Substantial compliance with this Act respecting the contents of forms, notices or documents is sufficient.
When error still constitutes substantial compliance
(2) For greater certainty, an error in the contents of a form, notice or document still constitutes substantial compliance with this Act, as long as the error does not significantly prejudice a party’s ability to participate in a proceeding under this Act.
Intended Purpose
In Ontario, the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, serves to govern landlord-tenant relationships by outlining, respective rights, responsibilities, and duties. Where disputes arise, adjudication by the Landlord Tenant Board may become required and the process of accessing the Landlord Tenant Board requires the issuance of various Notice documents, among others. The provisions within section 212 acknowledge that typographical and minor errors occur in legal documents while serving the purpose of ensuring that such mistakes avoid hindering justice by directing the acceptance of documents where any errors are without a cause of prejudice to the disputant parties.
Application
In the case of Blasi v. John, 2021 CanLII 91971, section 212 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, was deemed as applicable to the circumstance where an Affidavit document was viewed as lacking a relevant fact, being the intent of the daughter of a landlord to occupy a rental unit for at least one-year following the eviction of a tenant to allow for the use of the rental unit by a close family member, being the daughter, of the landlord. In reviewing the Affidavit omission and applying the curing effect contained within section 212, it was said:
3. In this case, the Landlord filed an affidavit sworn by his daughter, but the affidavit did not state that she would reside in the unit for at least one year. The Board held as follows:
Although not specifically noted in the submitted affidavit, it was clear from the oral evidence at the hearing that the Landlord’s daughter and her boyfriend are intending to live in the rental unit for an extended period of time that is at least one year.
4. I am satisfied that the Board did not err in finding that the requirements of subsection 72(1)(a) had been met. Section 212 of the RTA provides that “substantial compliance with this Act respecting the contents of forms, notices or documents is sufficient.” In this case, rather than providing an affidavit stating that she would reside in the unit for at least one year, the Landlord’s daughter provided sworn oral testimony. Oral testimony is more reliable than affidavit evidence, since it is given before the Member and is subject to cross-examination. Hence, the Board did not err in finding that the daughter’s oral testimony was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of subsection 72(1)(a).
Conclusion
The section 212 provisions within Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 provide for a saving effect to Notice documents, among others, where such documents contain minor errors without prejucial effect upon parties to a proceeding of the Landlord Tenant Board. Understanding and applying section 212 enhances justice delivery within the regime of residential tenancy law.
NOTE: A significant quantity of online searches such as “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicates a desire for prompt and proficient legal support rather than a specific designation. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” fall under the regulation of the same Law Society that governs lawyers and are authorised to represent clients in certain litigation situations. Core to this role are advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. Lippa Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.
