BILL 60: The Biggest Shake up to Ontario's Rentals

On November 27, 2025, Ontario passed Bill 60, officially called the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act. This new law makes significant changes to how rental properties work in the province. For anyone considering rental property investment—or currently managing rental units—these changes directly impact your bottom line and operational strategy.

The core message is simple: Ontario wants investors back in the rental market. The province needs private money to build more housing, and these reforms aim to make rental property ownership more financially predictable and less risky.

Why This Law Exists: The Housing Supply Problem

Ontario has a serious housing shortage. Despite more rental buildings being constructed since 2016, affordable units remain incredibly scarce. Vacancy rates for lower-priced rentals have stayed below one percent in most cities throughout 2024.

The problem isn't just that we're not building enough—it's that investors have been avoiding rental properties because the financial risks felt too high. When tenants stop paying rent, landlords still have to cover mortgages, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance. Under the old system, it could take many months to resolve non-payment situations, meaning property owners lost money for extended periods with no way to stop the bleeding.

Bill 60's mission is straightforward: faster evictions, faster turnover, faster decisions, and less chaos when tenants stop paying rent. The goal is to make rental property investment viable again so more housing gets built.

Change #1: Faster Action on Non-Payment (7 Days Instead of 14)

What changed: Landlords can now apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) for eviction just seven days after giving a non-payment notice. Previously, they had to wait 14 days.

Why it matters: Every month a tenant doesn't pay rent costs the landlord real money. If you own a rental property with a $3,000 monthly mortgage plus property taxes, insurance, and maintenance, you're losing thousands of dollars each month when rent doesn't come in. The old 14-day waiting period, combined with tribunal processing delays, could mean months of losses.

The new seven-day timeline recognizes a basic principle: owning rental property is an investment, not charity. While support systems should help tenants in financial trouble, landlords shouldn't be forced to act as involuntary lenders losing money indefinitely.

For investors, this means better cash flow management. You can address non-payment situations weeks faster than before, reducing your exposure to extended losses.

‍

Change #2: Tenants Must Pay 50% Before Raising Other Issues

What changed: At eviction hearings for non-payment, tenants must now pay 50 percent of their unpaid rent before they can raise maintenance problems or other complaints.

Why it matters: Under the old rules, tenants could stop paying rent and then bring up maintenance issues, harassment claims, or other disputes at the eviction hearing—even if those issues were unrelated to their non-payment. This would delay the eviction process for months while these other matters got sorted out.

The new 50 percent requirement restores logic to the process. If tenants have legitimate complaints about the property, they can still file them through proper channels—there are specific LTB applications designed for maintenance disputes. But they can't use non-payment hearings to avoid paying rent while those separate issues get resolved.

This doesn't eliminate tenant rights. It simply sequences them properly. Tenants can still pursue legitimate grievances, but they can't withhold rent indefinitely as leverage.

For property owners, this means non-payment situations get resolved faster. You're no longer stuck in extended proceedings where the core question—"has rent been paid?"—gets buried under unrelated disputes.

Change #3: New Rules for Personal Use Evictions

What changed: If a landlord gives 120 days notice (four months) and ends the tenancy at the natural end of the rental period, they no longer have to pay the tenant one month's rent as compensation.

Why it matters: Sometimes landlords need their property back for personal use—maybe a family member needs housing, financial circumstances change, or personal needs evolve. Under the old law, landlords always had to give tenants one month's rent as compensation when reclaiming property for personal use, regardless of how much notice they provided.

The new framework offers a trade-off: give four months notice instead of the standard 60 days, and you don't have to pay compensation.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

For investors managing properties as long-term assets, this flexibility is valuable. You're not locked into your property indefinitely, and when legitimate personal needs arise, you can reclaim your property without automatic financial penalty—as long as you give substantial advance notice.

Four months still gives tenants meaningful time to find new housing. What's eliminated is the assumption that property owners must financially subsidize tenant moves on top of providing extended notice.

What This Means for Your Investment Strategy

These three changes collectively improve the risk profile of Ontario rental property investment. The core question for any investor is: "Can I manage the risks effectively, or am I exposing myself to losses beyond my control?"

Bill 60 provides clearer answers:

Better cash flow protection: Resolve non-payment situations in weeks instead of months, limiting your financial exposure.

Cleaner hearing processes: Keep eviction proceedings focused on the actual issue—non-payment—rather than getting tangled in unrelated disputes.

Operational flexibility: Maintain the ability to reclaim your property for legitimate personal use without automatic financial penalties.

These aren't minor adjustments. They're structural improvements that reduce the risk premium required to justify rental investment in Ontario.

The Other Side: Valid Concerns About These Changes

It's important to acknowledge that Bill 60 is controversial. Critics argue these reforms prioritize landlord interests while potentially worsening homelessness. Housing advocacy groups strongly oppose the changes, suggesting they'll accelerate evictions without solving the underlying affordability crisis.

These concerns aren't baseless. Ontario recorded over 81,500 people experiencing homelessness in 2024—a 25 percent increase since 2022. The housing crisis is severe and getting worse.

The government's position is that streamlined rental markets attract investment, investment creates more housing supply, and more supply eventually reduces rent pressure. Critics counter that faster evictions without corresponding affordable housing construction just displaces vulnerable people without solving anything—especially since most new construction delivers market-rate units beyond what average Ontarians can afford.

Both perspectives have merit. From an investment standpoint,

however, the relevant question is: does Bill 60 improve the financial viability of rental property ownership? The answer appears to be yes.

Whether that translates to meaningful increases in housing supply and eventual affordability improvements will take years to determine.

What Investors Should Consider

Bill 60 improves the operational framework for rental property investment in Ontario, but it doesn't eliminate other market realities. Location quality, property selection, tenant screening, and property management still determine success. Better regulations can't compensate for poor investment decisions.

What the reforms do accomplish is reducing some extreme risks that made Ontario rental investment less attractive compared to other opportunities. The ability to resolve problematic situations more efficiently matters significantly when you're deciding whether to invest in rental property versus other real estate opportunities or different asset classes entirely.

Keep in mind that rental property investment still requires careful analysis:

• Construction costs remain high
• Financing conditions continue evolving
• Competition for quality properties is intense
• Property management requires time or money for professional services

Bill 60 creates better conditions for success, but doesn't guarantee it.

Also remember that housing policy can change with future governments. If political leadership shifts, these reforms could be reversed. Consider regulatory risk as part of your investment planning.

The Bottom Line

Bill 60 recognizes that solving Ontario's housing crisis requires private investment, and private investment requires reasonable risk-return profiles. Housing supply can't expand through government funding alone. Private developers, institutional investors, and individual landlords need to view Ontario rental properties as viable investments.

This doesn't mean eliminating tenant protections or treating housing purely as a commodity. It means acknowledging that rental housing sits at the intersection of social necessity and economic investment. Functional policy must balance both.

When investment risk becomes excessive compared to potential returns, money goes elsewhere. Supply contracts, competition for available units intensifies, and rents increase—ultimately harming the very people protections were meant to help.

Bill 60 is Ontario's attempt to recalibrate that balance and bring investment back to rental housing by making operations more predictable. Whether it succeeds in expanding supply and moderating rent growth depends on many factors beyond the legislation itself: construction costs, financing availability, land use regulations, and economic conditions.

For investors evaluating Ontario real estate opportunities, these reforms deserve attention. They improve certain operational aspects of rental property investment while remaining part of an ongoing political debate about housing policy.

Understanding both the opportunities created and the risks that remain is essential for making sound investment decisions.

‍