> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.landlordtenantinfo.ca/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # LTB Anonymization Request Denied: Why Open Justice Kept the Tenant’s Name Public - URL: https://www.landlordtenantinfo.ca/ltb-anonymization-request-denied-why-open-justice-kept-the-tenants-name-public-2/ - Published: 2026-09-30T12:01:03.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-30T12:01:03.000Z - Author: The Landlord Tenant Information Ontario **Excerpt:** Can an Ontario tenant ask the Landlord and Tenant Board to remove their name from a public decision? A 2026 LTB review decision explains why anonymization is exceptional, why privacy concerns must be properly raised, and why a review is not a second chance to present a different case. ## A Public LTB Decision, and a Request for Privacy When an Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board decision becomes publicly accessible, the names of the parties will generally appear in the decision. But what happens when a tenant asks the Board to remove their name because of privacy concerns? That was the issue in *Asselin Lavigne v Bin Milud*, 2026 ONLTB 49371, issued July 24, 2026. The decision is important because it explains how the LTB balances individual privacy against the principle of open justice, meaning that legal proceedings are generally conducted transparently so the public can scrutinize how legal rights are determined. The case also provides a practical lesson about raising procedural requests at the right time and presenting the evidence needed to support them. ## What Was This Case About? The tenant had originally brought an LTB application alleging that the landlord had substantially interfered with the tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex and had harassed, obstructed, coerced, threatened, or interfered with the tenant. The application also included an allegation concerning interference with vital services. The original application was resolved by an LTB order dated April 2, 2026. The decision provided for this review does not set out the full evidence or outcome of that original tenancy dispute. The review concerned a different question: whether the tenant’s name should be removed from the publicly accessible order. On April 17, 2026, the tenant asked the Board to amend the order so that it would be anonymized. Anonymization means removing or replacing identifying information, such as a party’s name, so the person is not publicly identified in the decision. On May 22, the Board issued a Member Endorsement denying that request. The tenant then requested a review on June 19, 2026\. A preliminary review was conducted without a hearing. The reviewing Vice Chair therefore had to determine whether the earlier Member had made a **serious error** in refusing to anonymize the order. ## The Tenant’s Position The tenant argued that the denial contradicted information they had received from the Tribunal indicating that they could request an anonymized order. The tenant also argued that the request was not simply about correcting a clerical mistake. Instead, they said it concerned the minimum measures necessary to protect their privacy. The tenant relied on legal principles concerning privacy and open justice, including the Supreme Court of Canada decision in *Sherman Estate v. Donovan* and the open-court principles discussed in *Toronto Star v. AG Ontario*. The tenant also referred to additional information that they said could support their request. However, that information was not provided to the Board because the tenant was concerned that providing it could place it in the public domain. The decision does not state that the landlord made any particular argument about the anonymization request, nor does it identify the landlord's representation status. The review decision therefore does not provide a basis for adding those details. ## What Did the Board Decide? The Board denied the review request and confirmed the earlier Member Endorsement. The central reason was that the tenant had not demonstrated a serious error. The Board explained that public access to tribunal proceedings is protected by section 2(b) of the **Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms**. As a result, restricting public access to the identity of parties through anonymization is something the Board will do only exceptionally. The test was whether the interest in protecting personal privacy in this particular case outweighed the public interest in including the information in the publicly accessible decision. The Board found that the earlier Member had correctly identified and applied that test. The Member's decision was considered reasonable. The Board emphasized that openness is an important part of the justice system. Public access allows people to scrutinize how tribunals deal with both allegations that are upheld and allegations that are not. The tenant had not raised the confidentiality request during the original hearing. The Board stated that if a party wants an accommodation such as anonymization, raising it during the hearing is important so that the adjudicator can consider it. The tenant also did not provide the additional evidence referred to in the review request. Because that evidence was not provided, the Board could not determine whether it might have been available at the original hearing or assess what weight it should receive. ## A Review Is Not an Appeal One of the most important lessons in the decision concerns the meaning of an **LTB review**. A review is not an appeal. In this context, it is not a second opportunity to present a better version of the case or introduce a different case after the original proceeding. The Board found nothing in the record or review request showing that the original Member had applied an improper legal principle or lacked sufficient evidence to reach the conclusion. That meant there was no basis for the reviewing Vice Chair to interfere with the earlier decision. ## What Did the Tenant Do Well? The tenant clearly identified a genuine legal issue: the relationship between personal privacy and public access to tribunal decisions. The tenant also identified relevant legal authorities concerning privacy and open justice and explained why they believed the privacy issue required protection. Those were meaningful submissions. However, the Board ultimately found that they did not establish a serious error in the earlier decision. ## What Could Have Been Done Better? The most direct lesson comes from the Board itself. The tenant did not raise the confidentiality request during the original hearing. The Board specifically identified this as significant. The tenant also referred to additional information but did not provide it. That meant the Board could not assess whether the information supported anonymity or whether it could have been presented earlier. These points should be distinguished from speculation about what the tenant might otherwise have done. The decision does not identify what the undisclosed information was, so it would be inappropriate to assume what evidence would have changed the result. ## The Law Behind the Decision The decision rests primarily on the principle of **open justice**. Open justice means that legal proceedings and decisions are generally accessible to the public, allowing public scrutiny of how legal rights are determined. The Board connected this principle to section 2(b) of the **Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms**, which protects freedom of expression and includes protection for public access to legal proceedings. The Board also referred to *Sherman Estate v. Donovan*, \[2021 SCC 25\], and *Toronto Star v. AG Ontario*, \[2018 ONSC 2586\], in considering the privacy and openness issues raised by the tenant. The practical legal test identified by the Board was whether the privacy interest in the particular case outweighed the public interest in transparency. The Board also stressed that embarrassment, reputational discomfort, or personal inconvenience, by themselves, are not sufficient reasons to withhold a party's identity. The **Statutory Powers Procedure Act** provides the statutory framework referenced in the order, while the **Residential Tenancies Act, 2006** provides the broader legislative framework governing residential tenancy disputes before the LTB. The particular review decision, however, was focused on anonymization rather than the underlying tenancy allegations. ## The Paralegal Practical Perspective For an Ontario licensed paralegal acting within the permitted scope of practice, this type of matter highlights the importance of procedural preparation. A paralegal representing a landlord or tenant before the LTB may potentially assist with identifying the appropriate LTB process, reviewing the relevant legislation and Board requirements, organizing documents and other evidence, preparing submissions, and presenting or responding to evidence at a hearing, where the matter falls within the paralegal's authorized scope. A privacy or accommodation request also illustrates why procedural issues should be identified early. The Board's decision makes clear that submitting a request through the Tribunal's process does not necessarily mean the adjudicator will automatically consider it at the hearing. The party must raise the issue so the adjudicator has an opportunity to address it. A paralegal may also help a client understand the distinction between an original hearing and an LTB review. A review is not simply another opportunity to improve a case after an unfavourable result. Evidence preparation is equally important. If a party says additional evidence supports a request, the Board needs the evidence to be able to assess it. In this case, the tenant's decision not to provide the additional information meant the reviewing Vice Chair could not evaluate it. The decision therefore illustrates a broader part of Ontario paralegal practice: identifying the legal issue is only one part of the job. Timing, procedure, evidence, and presenting the issue to the decision-maker in the proper process can also matter. ## Key Takeaways **One: LTB decisions are generally open to public scrutiny.** Anonymization is exceptional because transparency is an important principle of the justice system. **Two: Privacy concerns should be raised through the proper process and brought to the adjudicator's attention at the hearing.** The Board specifically noted that the tenant had not raised the confidentiality request at the original hearing. **Three: Evidence matters.** The tenant referred to additional information but did not provide it. The Board therefore could not assess it. **Four: An LTB review is not an appeal.** A review is not an opportunity to present a better or different case after the original hearing. **Five: Embarrassment or reputational discomfort alone is not enough.** The Board requires circumstances strong enough to outweigh the public interest in transparency. For landlords, tenants, and Ontario paralegals, the broader lesson is straightforward: procedural issues should be identified early, properly raised, and supported with evidence that the Board can actually consider. **Watch:** [https://youtube.com/shorts/tHPXGVxnXWc?feature=share](https://youtube.com/shorts/tHPXGVxnXWc?feature=share&ref=landlordtenantinfo.ca) **Case:** *Asselin Lavigne v Bin Milud*, 2026 ONLTB 49371 **Decision date:** July 24, 2026 **Brought to you by The Landlord Tenant Information Ontario** **:** Ontario LTB denies a tenant’s anonymization request, explaining open justice, privacy, evidence, and why an LTB review is not an appeal. Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board, LTB, Ontario landlord tenant law, Residential Tenancies Act, Ontario tenant, Ontario landlord, LTB review, LTB hearing, LTB decision, anonymization, open justice, privacy, LTB evidence, Ontario paralegal **Disclaimer:** This content is provided for information and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client or paralegal-client relationship. The information is based on the case decision and materials available at the time of publication and may not reflect every aspect of the law or subsequent legal developments. This content may not have been prepared or reviewed by a lawyer or licensed paralegal. Readers dealing with their own legal matter should consider obtaining advice from a qualified legal professional.