What Damages Is a Tenant Responsible for When Moving Out?
When a tenant moves out, they are not automatically responsible for every imperfection in the unit. The law draws a clear distinction between normal wear and tear and undue damage. Understanding this difference is critical in avoiding unfair claims or unexpected costs.
In simple terms, tenants are only responsible for damage that goes beyond what would reasonably occur through everyday living, particularly where that damage is caused intentionally or through neglect.
If you are unsure where that line is drawn in your situation, seeking guidance from a legal professional—such as Babbar Legal—can help you assess your rights and avoid costly disputes.
A Tenant Is Responsible Only for Damage Unduly Caused
What Counts as More Than Normal Wear and Tear?
Over time, any rental unit will naturally show signs of use. This is expected and legally recognized. Everyday living leads to gradual deterioration, and the landlord—not the tenant—bears the responsibility for maintaining and repairing these ordinary effects of use.
Examples of normal wear and tear commonly include:
- Worn carpeting from regular use
- Minor scuffs or marks on walls
- Small nail holes from hanging pictures
- Fading or aging paint
These are not considered the tenant’s fault. A tenant is not required to restore the unit to its original, pristine condition.
However, when damage goes beyond what would reasonably occur—for example, significant neglect, misuse, or intentional harm—it may be considered undue damage, and the tenant may be held financially responsible.
The Law
The Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 governs this issue in Ontario. Under section 89(1), a landlord may apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board to recover the reasonable cost of repairing or replacing property where:
- The damage was caused by the tenant, an occupant, or someone permitted onto the property; and
- The damage was caused wilfully or negligently and goes beyond normal wear and tear
Importantly, such an application can be brought during the tenancy or up to one year after the tenant has moved out.
This legal framework reinforces that liability only arises where the damage is “undue”, not merely the result of ordinary use.
Defining “Undue Damage”
Determining whether damage is “undue” depends on the specific circumstances, including the length of the tenancy and the nature of occupancy.
For instance, a heavily worn carpet after a short tenancy with minimal occupants may raise concerns. In contrast, similar wear after many years of family use would likely be considered entirely expected.
This distinction was addressed in Doucette-Grasby v. Lacey (2013 CanLII 95661), where the decision emphasized that:
- Tenants are not required to return the unit to its original condition
- They are not liable for ordinary wear and tear
- Liability arises only for damage that is excessive or beyond what is reasonable
The decision also acknowledged that everyday activities—such as hanging pictures or incidental contact with walls—are part of normal use. Even repainting after a few years may simply reflect the natural lifespan of paint, rather than tenant-caused damage.
Compensation Must Not Result in “Betterment”
Even where a tenant is responsible for damage, the law does not allow a landlord to come out ahead.
The principle is that compensation should restore the landlord to their prior position—not improve it.
This concept, often referred to as avoiding “betterment,” was discussed in decisions such as C.O. v. E.H. (2013 CanLII 50985) and C.P. v. L.D. (2017 CanLII 93872). These cases confirm that:
- A tenant is responsible for the reasonable cost of repair, not the most expensive or upgraded solution
- Compensation may be adjusted to reflect depreciation, particularly where older items are replaced
- The goal is fairness—not a windfall for the landlord
For example, if a damaged floor requires repair, the tenant may be responsible for restoring it, but not for funding a full upgrade that extends its lifespan beyond what it was before the damage.
Conclusion
Landlords must reasonably expect that a rental unit will show signs of use over time. The law does not require tenants to return a unit in perfect condition, only to avoid causing damage that goes beyond what is reasonable in everyday living.
Disputes often arise in determining where that line falls. If you are facing a claim for damages—or considering making one—it is important to properly assess whether the damage is truly “undue” under the law.
Babbar Legal can assist in evaluating your situation, ensuring your rights are protected, and helping you navigate any disputes with clarity and confidence.