The relationship between landlords and tenants often hinges on one critical issue: maintenance and repairs. While Ontario's Residential Tenancies Act clearly establishes that landlords must maintain rental units in good repair, the reality is far more nuanced. What constitutes a reasonable maintenance request? When do tenant expectations cross the line into unrealistic demands? And how do landlords balance their legal obligations with practical limitations?
Through an analysis of recent Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decisions, we can see how these disputes play out in real-world scenarios, offering valuable insights for both landlords and tenants navigating maintenance issues.
The Legal Framework: Section 20(1) of the RTA
Under section 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, landlords have a clear obligation to "repair or maintain the rental unit and comply with health, safety, housing or maintenance standards." However, the application of this seemingly straightforward requirement becomes complex when examined through actual LTB cases.
The Board consistently applies what legal experts call a "contextual approach," evaluating the entirety of the factual situation rather than applying rigid rules. This approach considers factors such as:
- The landlord's knowledge of the issue
- The reasonableness of the landlord's response time
- The nature and urgency of the repair needed
- Whether the tenant provided adequate notice
- The tenant's cooperation with repair efforts
When Landlord Responses Are Deemed Reasonable
Several cases demonstrate that landlords who respond promptly and reasonably to maintenance issues, even if not perfectly, often avoid liability. In Narayanan-v-DMS-Property-Management-20220119, the LTB found that "the Landlords reacted timely, responsibly and reasonably to each maintenance problem as they were alerted to it."
The case involved heating problems and flooding incidents. Despite the inconvenience to tenants, the Board noted that "the Landlords took prompt action in response to the Tenants' complaints each time the Tenants notified the Landlords." The heating repair took approximately two months, but tenants had heat throughout this period, and the landlords "took reasonable and responsible steps to remediate the flooding incidents promptly."
Similarly, in Majlish-v-Metcap-Living-Management-20211124, the Board found that "the Landlord's responses and actions to repair and resolve the remaining items after being advised by the Tenant were addressed in a timely manner and are reasonable in the circumstances." The only exception was a freezer unit that wasn't repaired for several months due to supply issues during the pandemic.
The Importance of Notice and Communication
A recurring theme in LTB decisions is that landlords cannot be held responsible for issues they don't know about. In Singer-v-Singer-20211229, the Board dismissed the tenants' maintenance claims because "the Tenants failed to advise the Landlord of the issues during the tenancy, and the Landlord could not reasonably be expected to address concerns he was unaware of."
This principle was reinforced in C.C.-v-C.B.P.-and-J.S.M.-20170612, where the Board stated that "the Landlords cannot be held financially responsible for the maintenance issue/problem of which they had no knowledge or could not reasonably be expected to have knowledge."
When Tenant Expectations Become Unreasonable
While tenants have legitimate rights to properly maintained housing, some cases reveal expectations that cross into unreasonable territory. The LTB has identified several scenarios where tenant demands exceed what the law requires:
Unrealistic Timelines and Perfection Standards
In DW-v-HLHL-20160726, the landlord's representative attempted to characterize the tenant's requests as "unreasonable and unnecessary embellishments." While the Board ultimately found for the tenant in this case, it highlights how disputes often center on differing expectations about the scope and timing of repairs.
Noise and Disruption During Necessary Work
Several cases demonstrate that tenants must tolerate reasonable disruption during necessary repairs and renovations. In li-v-njs-capital-20231011, tenants complained about six months of renovation work, but the Board found that "the noise and disruption experienced by the Tenants was expected and reasonable given the nature of the renovation work being performed."
The Board emphasized that "the work carried out by the Landlord did not constitute an interference that was unreasonable in the circumstances."
Expecting Immediate Solutions to Complex Problems
In Vilvarasa-v-Choudary-20221107, while the landlord was ultimately found liable for a septic tank issue, the Board noted that "the Landlord's response to the maintenance issues was found to be timely and reasonable for most issues except the septic tank problem." This case illustrates that complex problems may require extended time to resolve properly.
The Middle Ground: Reasonable Expectations
The most successful maintenance relationships occur when both parties maintain reasonable expectations. Several cases demonstrate this balance:
Timely Response, Not Instant Solutions
In Pollock-v-Miller-20240527, a tenant's oven failed, and while the landlord's initial response was inadequate, the Board applied "the contextual approach from Onyskiw v. CJM Property Management Ltd., evaluating the landlord's response to the maintenance issue." The tenant was awarded compensation, but the amount ($311.53) reflected the relatively minor nature of the issue and short duration.
Cooperation and Mitigation
The Board expects tenants to cooperate reasonably with repair efforts. In KB-v-RM-IW-and-LAL-20171106, the Board noted that "a tenant is expected to mitigate loss by cooperating reasonably with a landlord's efforts to do repairs."
Proportionate Remedies
When maintenance issues do occur, the Board typically awards remedies proportionate to the impact. In JPS-and-KW-v-JS-and-RC-20211116, despite tenants seeking $25,000 in rent abatement, the Board awarded only a 10% monthly abatement for the affected period, finding this "appropriate to address the Landlords' breaches."
Red Flags: When Expectations Cross the Line
Demanding Perfection in Older Buildings
In SO-v-VL-and-SI-20160627, a tenant complained about smoke odors in an older building. The Board noted that "in an old building, where many tenants smoke, one may expect some level of odour in a unit, and a person's response to odour is subjective." The landlords' response of having the unit re-cleaned was deemed reasonable.
Refusing Access for Repairs
In JB-v-DS-20170601, a tenant withheld rent claiming maintenance issues but "refused entry for repairs." The Board found the tenant's maintenance claims were dismissed due to lack of evidence and noted that the tenant's "rent withholding was found to be unjustified."
Expecting Landlords to Control External Factors
Some tenants have unrealistic expectations about what landlords can control. In cases involving noise from construction or neighboring units, the Board often finds that landlords cannot be held responsible for factors beyond their reasonable control.
Best Practices for Both Parties
For Tenants:
- Document issues properly with photos, dates, and written communications
- Provide reasonable notice to landlords about maintenance problems
- Cooperate with repair efforts and allow reasonable access
- Have realistic expectations about timelines, especially for complex issues
- Understand that some inconvenience during repairs is normal and expected
For Landlords:
- Respond promptly to maintenance requests, even if repairs take time
- Communicate clearly about timelines and any delays
- Keep detailed records of all maintenance activities and communications
- Address urgent issues like heating, plumbing, and safety concerns immediately
- Don't ignore problems hoping they'll go away – early intervention is usually less costly
The Cost of Getting It Wrong
When maintenance disputes escalate to the LTB, both parties face costs beyond just monetary awards. In Lahaie-v-Rotfleisch-20230209, the tenant was awarded $2,978.61 for various maintenance issues, but the case also noted that "the Tenant could have strengthened their case by providing more consistent testimony regarding repair dates and better documentation of issues."
Meanwhile, in neilson-v-clv-group-20240510, tenants dealt with water damage for 20 months before receiving a $4,725 rent abatement. The prolonged dispute likely cost both parties far more than addressing the issue promptly would have.
Conclusion: Finding the Balance
The key to successful landlord-tenant relationships lies in understanding that maintenance obligations exist within a framework of reasonableness. Landlords must take their repair obligations seriously and respond appropriately to legitimate concerns. Tenants, meanwhile, must have realistic expectations about what constitutes reasonable repair timelines and acceptable living conditions.
As the LTB consistently demonstrates, the law doesn't require perfection from either party – it requires reasonableness. Landlords who respond promptly and appropriately to maintenance issues, even if they can't solve every problem immediately, generally avoid liability. Tenants who communicate clearly, cooperate with repair efforts, and maintain realistic expectations are more likely to see their legitimate concerns addressed.
The most expensive maintenance disputes are often those that could have been avoided through better communication, reasonable expectations, and prompt action when issues arise. In Ontario's rental market, understanding these principles isn't just good legal practice – it's essential for maintaining positive, productive landlord-tenant relationships.
