This morning, I was notified by email of an interim order issued by the LTB. To summarize the contents of this LTB order: It says that a number of the units in the building will have their N13 eviction applications rejected due to the landlord not paying compensation by the required deadline. For the rest of the tenants, there is no conclusion yet since we ran out of time at the May 26th hearing. Additional testimony on the merits of these N13 applications will be heard at a future hearing that has not been scheduled yet.

The order contains the following noteworthy statements show below "in quotes". I have redacted some specific information using [in brackets] below:

"1. This interim order is issued to decide the Tenants’ preliminary motion to dismiss some of
the applications. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted."

"39.The Landlord has not proved, on a balance of probabilities, that it paid compensation in
respect of the [various dates] units by those deadlines. It paid [a tenant]
compensation for unit [unit number] on [date], which was after the deadline. It has not
proved that it paid the other [multiple units] at all."

"47.The applications against the [multiple units] with termination dates of [various dates] will be dismissed."

"It is ordered that:
1. The following applications are dismissed: [multiple units]
3. The following applications are adjourned to be heard together on a date to be set by the LTB: [most of the remaining tenants]"

In relation to questions that several tenants asked me about my testimony regarding insertion of documents into mail slots, the interim order from the LTB contains several statements that further explain the significance and relevance of testimony (such as the testimony that I provided) regarding insertion of mail into mail slots:

"35. The Landlord proposes an alternate explanation for [tenant's] testimony. It suggests
that perhaps [landlord's rep] delivered the payment on time, but did not put it all the way into
the mail slot. Perhaps the envelope fell out into the hallway, where somebody picked it
up and returned it to [landlord's rep]."

"36. The Landlord’s theory is farfetched, but even if true it would not assist the Landlord. If
[landlord's rep] had only delivered the payments partway through the mail slots, such that some
of them fell out and were returned to his office, then it would be impossible for the
Landlord to prove which payments, if any, had actually been delivered to the Tenants."