Paint Walls (Damage)(RTA)

🥷 Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2025 ©
Date Retrieved:	2025-11-21
CLNP Page ID:	2065
Page Categories:	[Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB)], [Damage to Rental Unit (RTA)], [Section 34 (RTA)]
Citation:	Paint Walls (Damage)(RTA), CLNP 2065, <https://rvt.link/30>, retrieved on 2025-11-21
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2025/11/18

Cahill v Mahaffey, 2021 CanLII 129708 (ON LTB)

8. At the hearing the Landlord testified that the Tenant has caused damage to several parts of the rental unit and residential complex, including holes in the stairwell, a missing banister, patches of scribbling on walls, a missing set of bi-fold doors in the laundry area, a decal stuck to a wall in the unit, missing closet doors, and staples in the vinyl window frame. The Landlord also testified that the Tenant has painted the unit in bold colours. The Landlord claims $2,558.42 in total for the repair of the damage. At the hearing the Landlord testified that she arrived at this number through consultation with her handyperson.

9. The Landlord filed photographs showing all of the damage that the Landlord alleges.

10. Based on the Landlord’s uncontested evidence, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Tenant or another occupant of the unit wilfully or negligently caused damage to the rental unit and residential complex.

11. I also find that the cost to repair the damage is reasonable. However, I do not find that the bold paint is damage that is compensable at this time. Tenants are entitled to paint their units and if they do so in bold colours they are expected to paint the unit in a neutral colour prior to moving. The Tenant has not moved out and so this part of the Landlord’s claim is premature. The Landlord attached a breakdown of the cost of repairing the various issues and the amount claimed for painting over bold colours is $380.00. This amount is deducted from the total claimed and so I find a reasonable cost to repair the damage is $2,178.42.

TSL-78627-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 100387 (ON LTB)

10. Although I agree that the Tenant breached the lease by painting the unit without permission, s. 89(1) is not an avenue available to a landlord to sue a tenant for general damages or breach of contract. Such claims must be brought elsewhere.

11. The pictures filed by the Landlord do not show walls that have suffered “undue damage”. There is nothing to indicate that the quality of the paint job is so deficient that it would constitute “undue damage”. The Tenant simply painted the unit in colours he liked. I do not agree with the Landlord’s submission that repainting the walls is “undue damage” within the meaning of s. 89(1) regardless of the quality of the paint job. This is particularly true in cases like this one where the Tenant lived in the rental unit for more than ten years and the Landlord would be expected to repaint the unit on turnover regardless of what the Tenant had done to the walls during the tenancy. As a result, I am not prepared to grant the Landlord’s application with respect to the cost the Landlord will incur to repaint the unit’s walls to suit the Landlord’s taste in colours.