No. LTB doesn't deal with people who are NO LONGER TENANTS

This is really embarassing. Please stop doubling down on your lies to someone who knows better.

The "rule" you're citing only applies to matters between Landlords and Tenants that are extraneous to the Lease, i.e. trespass, conversion, and are properly dealt with in civil court.

Termination is a lease matter. It would have been handled at the LTB. Maybe you should have another look at those documents because either:

i. you are lying; ii. you were served LTB papers and are fully aware of that and have claimed it's Small Claims anyways; iii. you were served LTB papers, somehow weren't aware that they were LTB, and none of the esteemed paralegals (and one lawyer) you checked with bothered to bring that up to you for some reason; iv. similarly, you were served with a claim in Small Claims and those paralegals and lawyers never mentioned to you that it was inappropriate and you should file a (quick and cheap) motion to have it dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Or, as the court has said:

Considering the foregoing authorities, the general analytical approach which I apply here is this: given this is a residential landlord and tenant matter in which the tenants remain in possession, it is prima facie a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board. For any part of the Plaintiff’s Claim or Defendant’s Claim to be properly before the Small Claims Court, there must be a rational basis to conclude that any such parts fall outside the jurisdiction of the Board.

Source

You had some bad lawyers if they didn't think a dispute about an actual term of the lease would be tossed out of SC. Or, you know, simplest explanation: you're lying.