If you serve a first N5 Notice and the tenant completely stops the problematic conduct within the seven-day void period, the notice becomes void and you cannot use it as grounds for an eviction application. The tenant has successfully used their opportunity to correct the behavior. However, if the same or similar conduct resumes later, you can serve a new N5 Notice, and because this would be the second notice within six months, the tenant would not receive another void period. This means tenants must permanently stop the conduct, not just pause it temporarily during the void period and then resume it afterward.

The challenge with voidable N5 Notices is proving whether the tenant genuinely stopped the conduct or merely paused it briefly. Keep detailed records documenting whether problematic behavior continued after you served the notice, including dates, times, and specifics about any incidents that occurred during or after the void period. If conduct resumes shortly after the void period, this demonstrates the tenant did not actually correct the problem permanently and supports your position that the notice was not successfully voided.

There is no specific dollar threshold that determines whether damage justifies an N5 Notice. The question is whether the damage resulted from willful or negligent conduct by the tenant or their guests that goes beyond normal wear and tear from ordinary use of the rental unit. Minor scuffs, small nail holes from hanging pictures, or worn carpets from regular foot traffic are normal wear and tear that do not justify N5 Notices. Holes punched in walls, broken fixtures, significant stains from spills that were not cleaned promptly, or destruction of property through careless handling all constitute damage that can support an N5 Notice.

The focus should be on the conduct that caused the damage rather than just the dollar value of repairs. Damage caused by a tenant hosting a party where guests became destructive demonstrates the type of willful or negligent conduct the N5 process addresses. Gradual deterioration from normal use over several years, even if repair costs are substantial, does not justify an N5 Notice because it reflects the natural lifecycle of property components rather than tenant misconduct. When in doubt about whether specific damage justifies formal notice proceedings, consulting with someone experienced in landlord representation helps you assess whether your situation warrants an N5 Notice or whether other approaches would be more appropriate.

Technically yes, you can serve an N5 Notice based on a single incident if that incident was severe enough to constitute substantial interference with reasonable enjoyment. However, the Landlord and Tenant Board tends to view patterns of conduct more seriously than isolated incidents when determining whether eviction is warranted. A single loud party that resulted in police complaints, property damage, or threats to other tenants could justify an N5 Notice and subsequent eviction if the conduct was egregious enough. A single party that was merely louder than you prefer but did not significantly impact other tenants’ ability to enjoy their homes is less likely to support eviction even if you technically have grounds to serve notice.

From a practical standpoint, landlords who pursue eviction based on single incidents face skepticism from adjudicators about whether the response is proportionate to the offense. Documenting multiple incidents demonstrating a pattern of problematic conduct creates stronger cases than relying on isolated events. This does not mean you cannot address single serious incidents through N5 Notices, but you should be realistic about the likelihood of obtaining an eviction order based solely on one occurrence unless that occurrence was particularly disruptive or dangerous.

This is a common challenge in N5 cases involving interference with reasonable enjoyment. Other tenants may have experienced the noise, disturbances, or threatening behavior but are reluctant to testify at hearings because they fear retaliation, want to avoid confrontation, or simply do not want to get involved in legal proceedings. Without testimony from affected parties, proving substantial interference becomes very difficult because you are relying on your own observations rather than evidence from the people whose enjoyment was actually affected.

Some strategies for addressing this challenge include obtaining written statements from affected tenants describing what they experienced, even if they cannot attend the hearing to testify in person. While written statements carry less weight than live testimony subject to cross-examination, they provide some corroboration of your claims. You can also document your own observations of the disturbances if you were present when they occurred or if the conduct was visible or audible to you directly. In some cases, police reports or bylaw enforcement records can provide independent third-party documentation that disturbances occurred. However, the reality is that eviction applications based on interference are significantly weaker without testimony from affected parties, which is why many landlords find professional representation valuable for navigating evidence requirements and determining whether cases are strong enough to proceed.