Repairs, Damage and Ordinary Wear in Calgary
by Platuni | 25 Sep, 2026 | 5 mins read
Platuni
25 September, 2026
5 mins read
1. The statutory line exists, but it's deliberately general
Section 21 of the RTA sets the tenant's baseline obligations: don't cause significant damage to the premises, and keep the unit in reasonably clean condition. What the Act doesn't do is define exactly where ordinary deterioration stops and "significant damage" starts. That gap is intentional in the sense that a fixed rule couldn't account for every situation, but it also means landlords and tenants are frequently left guessing at exactly the moment they need certainty most, during a move-out walkthrough with a deposit on the line.
This is why the actual working definition comes from case law rather than the statute's text alone. Relying on the bare words of section 21 without the case law that interprets them is how landlords end up either over-charging for ordinary deterioration or under-documenting genuine damage they were entitled to claim.
2. The actual test: normal use versus avoidable harm
The clearest statement of the test comes from Barry v Navratil, where the decision defines reasonable wear and tear as unavoidable deterioration in the dwelling and its fixtures resulting from normal use. The court's own examples are worth keeping close at hand: carpet wear from ordinary foot traffic over the course of a tenancy is wear and tear, not damage. A cigarette burn, by contrast, is avoidable, and counts as damage regardless of how it happened.
The distinguishing factor isn't how bad something looks, it's whether the deterioration is something that happens simply from someone living in the space, or whether it resulted from an event or conduct that a reasonable tenant could have avoided. The court itself acknowledges this involves some genuine ambiguity and subjectivity, since what counts as "normal" use varies between people and households. That ambiguity doesn't mean the test is useless, it means applying it carefully and documenting the reasoning matters more, not less.
3. Even real damage isn't automatically full replacement cost
This is the part landlords most often get wrong in the other direction. Once something is genuinely damage rather than wear and tear, it's tempting to assume the tenant owes the full cost of replacing it. Courts don't work that way. When a damaged item still had remaining useful life, or when its replacement is of higher quality than the original, the landlord's recovery gets reduced through what's called a betterment adjustment, crediting the tenant for the value the landlord effectively gained.
Courts have applied this in a few different ways: calculating the accelerated cost of having to replace something sooner than it would otherwise have needed replacing, accounting for the cost of borrowing money for the replacement or the interest lost, or simply awarding the item's depreciated value rather than its replacement cost. In Barry v Navratil itself, the landlord recovered only 75 percent of the cost to replace a damaged countertop and backsplash, because the new materials installed were of better quality than what had been there originally.
4. Deposit deductions only work with proper inspection reports
Everything above determines whether a deduction is justified in principle. Whether it's actually lawful to take depends on a separate, procedural requirement: move-in and move-out inspection reports. These have to be completed within one week before or after the tenant moves in and moves out respectively, and they need to include the statements and signatures the regulation requires. If a tenant refuses to participate, the landlord can still complete the report on their own, but only after offering the tenant two separate inspection times, on different non-holiday days, between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.
Without a proper inspection report on both ends, the landlord cannot deduct for cleaning or repair costs from the deposit, even where the underlying damage is completely genuine and would otherwise pass the normal-use test easily. Unpaid rent is the one exception; that can still be deducted regardless of inspection-report status. This procedural requirement trips up more landlords than the wear-and-tear distinction itself, because it's easy to have a strong substantive case and still lose the ability to act on it over a missing or incomplete report.
5. The deposit return clock, and what happens if you miss it
Once a tenancy ends, the landlord has 10 days to either return the security deposit plus any interest owed, or provide the tenant a statement of account explaining what's being deducted and why. A full, final accounting is due within 30 days. Interest on the deposit compounds annually on the tenancy's anniversary date, at a rate the province sets each year, and generally has to be paid annually unless both parties agreed in writing to defer that payment until the tenancy actually ends.
This timeline runs independently of how solid the underlying damage claim is. A landlord with a well-documented, legitimate damage claim who misses the 10-day statement-of-account deadline is in a weaker position procedurally, even though the substantive claim itself hasn't changed. The two obligations, having a valid claim and meeting the return/accounting timeline, are separate requirements that both need to be satisfied.
Frequently asked questions
Is a small carpet stain from a spill damage, or wear and tear?
It depends on whether it's the kind of thing that would happen from ordinary use, or whether it resulted from something avoidable. A spill that was cleaned promptly and left minimal trace leans toward ordinary use; a stain from neglect or a substance that clearly shouldn't have been near carpet leans toward damage. This is exactly the kind of judgment call the normal-use test is built for.
If my tenant damaged a 15-year-old appliance, can I charge them for a brand-new replacement?
Not automatically, no. Courts apply a betterment adjustment that accounts for the item's age and remaining useful life, so a claim based on full replacement cost for an already-depreciated item is likely to be reduced. Calculating the item's actual depreciated value gives a more defensible number.
What happens if I never did a move-in inspection report and now want to deduct for damage at move-out?
Without a proper move-in inspection report, you generally cannot deduct for damage or cleaning from the deposit, even if the damage itself is genuine. Unpaid rent remains deductible regardless, but the damage and cleaning deductions specifically depend on having both inspection reports in place.
How long does my landlord have to return my deposit after I move out?
10 days to either return the deposit plus interest or provide a statement of account explaining any deductions, with a full final accounting due within 30 days. Missing this timeline is a separate issue from whether any underlying damage claim is valid.
Can my landlord charge me for repainting if I lived there for five years and the paint just looks tired?
Generally, paint wearing down or fading over a normal multi-year tenancy is treated as ordinary wear and tear rather than damage, since it results from the simple passage of time and normal occupancy rather than a specific avoidable event. Landlords typically can't deduct for routine repainting on that basis alone.
Stay Informed
Subscribe to the Platuni B2B Newsletter to receive industry insights,
new feature announcements, and exclusive growth reports