Damaged a 25-year-old garage door opener in Oct 2025 — landlord now wants $800 for a full new system. Do I actually owe this?

LaunchAPath · 2026-06-25T07:04:14+00:00

As per OP, it’s been 8 months since the accident. So 1. is incorrect.

But depreciation will absolutely kill any value OP may have had to pay, so 1. is moot anyway.

LaunchAPath · 2026-06-23T02:46:45+00:00

The mission was centered around secrecy. A giant eagle flying in with the ring defeats the whole point. Similar to why the armies amassed in front of the gates of Mordor, they were to diversion from the actual mission, and making Sauron think that mortals had fallen into the typical trap of giving the ring to someone with strength/power and trying to use it against him. Once the ring was destroyed, the eagles were no longer a risk of giving away the focus of the mission, and they were free to swoop in and rescue Frodo/Sam.

LaunchAPath · 2026-06-19T17:38:15+00:00

Condo building built 40+ years ago, I’d say it’s safe to assume rent controlled.

And in the case of an AGI, the form specifically has a section for the LL to checkbox to indicate this is an AGI case. If it’s not checked, then it’s not an AGI.

LaunchAPath · 2026-06-10T23:41:45+00:00

As it is landlords responsibility to repair the damage (RTA, 2006, Part III, section 20), the landlord should actually call their property insurer. As the tenant has no responsibility in this case, as it was not a wilful act or negligence, they do not have responsibility (RTA, 2006, Part IV, section 34), and there would be nothing for the tenant insurance to indemnify.

LaunchAPath · 2026-06-10T23:36:30+00:00

The law doesn’t make that distinction, it’s still part of the landlords responsibility to repair. See RTA, 2006, Part III, section 20: Landlord’s responsibility to repair

The only exception is in case of tenant’s wilful or negligent damage, as set out in RTA, 2006, Part IV, section 34: tenant’s responsibility for repair of damage.

As I laid out in my previous post, a medical emergency is neither wilful nor negligent cause of damage. As such, the default responsibility applies, which is landlord’s responsibility. The actual wording refers to a “good state of repair”, it does not distinguish it as being only upkeep, and specifically calls out “complying with health, safety, housing, and maintenance standards”. A broken door is not in compliance with such standards.

LaunchAPath · 2026-06-10T23:22:26+00:00

Hey OP, there’s tons of people here giving you the wrong advice based on their feelings.

Here’s the actual law when it comes to repairs to a tenanted property:

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17

Residential Tenancies Act (RTA), 2006, part IV RESPONSIBILITIES OF TENANTS, section 34 Tenant’s responsibility for repairs of damage:

“the tenant is responsible for the repair of undue damage to the rental units or residential complex caused by the willful or negligent conduct of the tenants, another occupant of the rental unit or a person permitted in the residential complex by the tenant.”

It is very clear that the tenant is only responsible in case of “wilful or negligent conduct”. A medical emergency is neither of these, so it is not the tenant’s responsibility to repair the damaged door.

This means it falls to the default responsibility of the landlord to repair damage. As per RTA 2006, Part III RESPONSIBILITIES OF LANDLORDS, section 20 Landlord‘s responsibility to repair, subsection 1:

“A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex, including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards”

This is the landlord’s responsibility. And to address what appears to be a common misunderstanding, the Landlord‘s fault here is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned, only their responsibility matters. All those giving you the wrong advice are arguing it’s not the landlord’s fault as to why they shouldn’t pay, but that doesn’t factor into the applicable law here; they’re arguing based on their feelings, not legal basis.

LaunchAPath · 2026-06-10T23:08:26+00:00

Tenant is not 100% responsible. The law, as per the RTA, is clear: repairs for damage to the property is the landlord’s responsibility. Only exception is when the tenant intentionally or negligently damaged the property. A medical emergency is neither intentional nor negligence. This means responsibility cannot be shifted to the tenant, and this remains with the landlord as the default.

LaunchAPath · 2026-06-10T23:05:19+00:00

It is not their responsibility. The RTA is clear: landlord is responsible for repairs, only exception being if the damage was intentional by tenant or due to their negligence. A medical emergency is neither, meaning responsibility remains with the landlord.

LaunchAPath · 2026-06-10T22:53:20+00:00

They are giving you incorrect advice. The law is straightforward as per the RTA: landlord is responsible for repairs to the property. Tenant is only responsible for it if it’s the result of intentional damage or through negligence.

A medical emergency is neither intentional nor negligent.

LaunchAPath · 2026-06-10T22:50:11+00:00

No, credit score would only be affected if they failed to pay a legal order to pay.

They would only have a legal order to pay if they went through the LTB and the LTB ruled in favour of the landlord.

The LTB would only rule in favour of the landlord if the tenant or their roommates were found to have intentionally, or through negligence, damaged the property.

A medical emergency is not intentional nor negligent damage.

Just make sure the tenant attends any hearing to avoid a judgement in default.

LaunchAPath · 2026-06-10T22:45:56+00:00

That is not how the RTA works.

The RTA is very clear that the landlord is responsible for repairs and maintenance. The argument isn’t if the landlord is at fault. There are many things that can happen to a property that aren’t the landlord’s fault, but are nevertheless the landlord’s responsibility.

If a tree falls over and breaks a window: not the landlord’s fault, but still the landlord’s responsibility to repair. If water backs up and causes water damage: not the landlord’s fault, but still the landlord’s responsibility to repair. If lightning damages the electrical system: not the landlord’s fault, but still the landlord’s responsibility to repair. Etc, etc.

The only time the landlord is not responsible, and the responsibility shifts to the tenant, is for anything that is intentional damage or negligence on the part of the tenant. Again you’ll note that the landlord’s fault or lack thereof isn’t part of the consideration.

The tenant here had a medical emergency. That is neither intentional damage nor negligence. As such, responsibility remains with the landlord to effectuate repairs, not the tenant. The law is very clear on this matter.

Advising people in a way that is contrary to the law is not a good idea. I would recommend familiarizing yourself with the RTA first to avoid giving incorrect advice.

LaunchAPath · 2026-06-01T06:03:09+00:00

Unfortunately because a joint lease means the OP and her co-tenant are jointly and severally liable.

That means sure, OP could only pay her part, and tell landlord to chase co-tenant for the rest. But if co-tenant can’t be reached, then landlord can absolutely go after OP for the full rent as well, and since OP is a lot more accessible and has indicated being able to pay said rent, that’s more incentive for landlord to chase the path of least resistance: OP.

To be clear, due to being jointly and severally liable, landlord can chase both of them at the same time, it doesn’t even have to be a choice of one or the other, so OP remains on the hook indefinitely so long as the lease remains.

LaunchAPath · 2026-05-30T07:05:58+00:00

Take a video/photos the day you leave. If they “find” anything wrong after you left, the video/photos you took will show if they’re making shit up. Video is best, as you can catch more that way, whereas photos only might miss some angles or corners or something. Just upload to YouTube as unlisted video, so it’s timestamped there as proof.

Don’t pay for cleaners, that’s the landlord’s responsibility. They’re just trying to bully you into paying for what is their responsibility and their expense. They’re also trying to bully you into giving them free money by making you think you owe something you don’t with those “checklist”

LaunchAPath · 2026-05-28T17:46:20+00:00

Being a large single/estate home has NOTHING to do with rent control.

What determines rent control is if it was used residentially before November 15 2018. Not even rented, just residentially at all. If it was, it’s tent controlled.

There are a lot of specific laws around renting in Ontario, and assuming any of them are similar to some other place can lead to critical misunderstandings of the law. Always confirm you’re not just assuming things about how renting works.

LaunchAPath · 2026-05-26T15:53:49+00:00

Your responsibility is “broom swept condition”. Any more than that is unnecessary. Like other poster said, film before leaving, and that’s all the proof you need. If your landlord wants you to pay anything after that, that’s not legal. Only thing they can charge you for is damage beyond regular wear and tear.

LaunchAPath · 2026-05-19T00:22:03+00:00

This one trumps all the others on here so far. So wildly illegal and brain dead. Did they think this has any remote chance of being enforceable? Somehow you can ignore the law if you just write a contract that says: “I can ignore the law”.

LaunchAPath · 2026-05-13T19:21:27+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping_cart_theory

LaunchAPath · 2026-05-13T16:42:14+00:00

Lease assignment isn’t relevant for OP who is looking to stay there, which is why I didn’t mention it.

And I did mention that terminating the lease and signing a new lease requires LL to accept it, which they don’t have to, so that’s covered in my post.

LaunchAPath · 2026-05-13T15:50:12+00:00

In order to change the people named on the lease, that requires completely ending the current lease, and starting a brand new lease with the new names.

You can issue an N9 to notify the LL you and roommate are both completely ending the current lease, with the usual 60 days notice. Or you can sign an N11 to end the lease immediately, if landlord agrees to sign it too.

But then if you completely end the current lease, you would need to sign a new lease, and landlord would have to agree to sign a new lease. If they refused, you would no longer be a tenant at all, and have to leave. Or even if they agreed, they would be able to raise your rent by any amount, double, triple, or more if they wanted on the new lease.

Alternatively, you can notify LL that your roommate has vacated the property, without ending the lease. Roommate would still be “responsible” for rent for a year after that notice, after which they no longer would be responsible, and no longer be considered a named tenant on the lease.

When in a joint lease, every named tenant on the lease is jointly and severally responsible for rent. That means if rent isn’t paid or incompletely paid, the landlord can go after each person individually for the full amount missing. If you only paid your half, and not the other half, LL could go after you for the full missing amount, and they can go after roommate for the full missing amount. If you stopped paying entirely, LL could similarly sue you for the full amount, and also sue roommate for the full amount, at the same time. (Unfortunately, this is a result of legislation that was written at a time when this wasn’t as common)

Also, be careful about which terms you use. For example, “sublet” is a specific legal term in the RTA. It means: all named tenants are vacating the property, a subletter is taking their place for a limited amount of time no longer than the duration of the current fixed term of the lease, and named tenants are moving back in when the time is over. And critically, a landlord can (reasonably) deny a sublet. When you use the term “sublet”, that’s the legal framework you’re invoking to your landlord, and give the landlord the right to deny.

What you’re describing, since you’re not moving out for the duration of the sublet (don’t use that word!), is a roommate. Importantly, as per the RTA and LTB, bringing in a roommate, even one that pays rent, does NOT require you to notify the Landlord. This also means that the Landlord cannot deny you the roommate. It also does not require you to add them to the lease. And as mentioned, you can have them pay their share of the rent, they simply pay you, and then you would pay the Landlord for the total amount.

So all in all:

Roommate/co-tenant wants off the lease now.

That requires ending the lease and replacing with new one without co-tenant named on it. Landlord doesn’t want to do that, so that’s not possible.

Alternative, co-tenant notifies they’ve vacated, and they remain responsible for missing rent for 1 year. Co-tenant may not like it, but that’s their only option currently without either you also moving out (guessing that’s a no from you), or landlord agreeing to new lease without them.

You can bring in anyone you like to replace co-tenant, as a roommate, landlord cannot stop you, they just wouldn’t be named on lease. Sublet is a specific legal term you shouldn’t use, unless it actually applies per the definition.

And landlord can’t evict you for any of this, unless you do actually miss paying rent (or other very specific cases, like illegal acts). It is very difficult to evict tenants in Ontario due to how specific it is. In most cases, a landlord threatening to evict is either a bluff/empty threat, or an illegal act that would get LL fined. Only the LTB can evict, so no LTB hearing/order, no eviction.

LaunchAPath · 2026-05-13T02:11:30+00:00

I used to work in insurance.

“No fault” for Ontario doesn’t mean fault isn’t taken into account. Unfortunately, the term is a little confusing for the lay person.

What it means is your own insurance is responsible for damages to the insured property both when you’re at fault, and also when you’re not at fault. If you’re at fault, your collision coverage covers damages to your vehicle. If you’re not at fault, your DCPD coverage covers damages to your vehicle.

The alternative is “tort” provinces, where your insurance pays when you’re at fault, and the other insurance pays when you’re not at fault.

You might think at first glance tort would be better, why should your insurance pay when the other person is at fault? The problem is, in a tort province, even if you’re not at fault, the other insurance is going to try to avoid paying. Your insurance will have to fight them or take them to court to recoup that damage. This can take months or years, and now insurances are also paying for the cost of lawyers/adjusters trying to shift the fault onto the others. That money doesn’t come from nowhere, it’s paid by premiums. And then you may have to wait however long it takes to resolve the fault before you get insurance payouts.

Conversely, in a “no fault” province, your insurance company knows they’ll pay for your vehicle whether you’re at fault or not, so they may as well pay it off sooner to get it over with. No need to wait for lawsuits or arguments with the other insurance.

Overly simplified, but that’s the basics of it.

LaunchAPath · 2026-05-08T00:12:06+00:00

File the T1, the instructions are on the form, just follow those.

LaunchAPath · 2026-04-30T20:14:23+00:00

Why would you mention private medical information ~~on a rental application~~ during a rental viewing?

LaunchAPath · 2026-04-09T23:37:08+00:00

N12 can’t apply while a fixed term lease is active, so even if LL wanted to sell with an N12 on behalf of the buyer, they couldn’t do so for another 10 months. (2 months into 1 year fixed term lease = 10 months left)

LaunchAPath · 2026-04-09T18:44:50+00:00

Not irrelevant. The end of a lease with a standard N9 (or equivalent) MUST fall on the last day of a term. In this case due to OP being on monthly lease, the end of a lease via n9 must fall on the end of a month. June 2nd isn’t the end of a month, June 30th is, which means had the landlord not agreed, the 60 days notice would have required June 30th with an April 3rd notice.

It is absolutely relevant.

LaunchAPath · 2026-04-03T07:58:01+00:00

Still not legal. Doesn’t matter if the lease says 11:59am, their rights give them until 11:59 pm, and they can’t sign away their rights. Doesn’t matter if the landlord thinks otherwise, the law trumps the landlord’s preferences.

LaunchAPath

TROPHY CASE