Frozen Pipes in a Rental: When the Tenant Pays for the Burst, and When the Landlord Does
The repair invoice has arrived. Before you pay it or refuse it, here is what an Ontario landlord can actually do with it, and what the Landlord and Tenant Board would look at.
If your landlord bills you for a burst pipe, are you legally required to pay?
Only if the burst counts as undue damage caused by wilful or negligent conduct, which is the test in s.34 of the Residential Tenancies Act. Each phrase does its own job: undue damage sets a threshold, so not every repair after a freeze lands on the tenant; wilful or negligent asks about conduct, and covers the tenant, another occupant, or someone the tenant let in; residential complex stretches the responsibility past the unit to the rest of the building, which can include the ceiling of the unit below. Outside that test, s.20(1) keeps repair with the landlord.
Source: Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, ss.2(1), 20(1) and 34 (Ontario e-Laws, consolidation from September 21, 2026)
I’m Arthur Zhao, a real estate broker in Toronto. This one starts after the water has been cleaned up. The plumber has been, the drywall is drying, and now there is a letter from the landlord: an invoice for the pipe repair, maybe the ceiling downstairs too, and a line asking you to pay. You are wondering whether you actually owe it.
The Residential Tenancies Act has no section about frozen or burst pipes. What it has are general rules about who repairs what, and two procedures a landlord can use to collect. I’m going to start with those procedures, because they tell you what the invoice can and cannot turn into. Then I’ll work backwards to the question the Landlord and Tenant Board would ask: was this damage caused wilfully or negligently, and by whom?
What a landlord can do first: a notice under s.62
An invoice on its own is a request. The Act gives the landlord a formal tool in s.62: if the tenant, another occupant, or a person the tenant permits in the building wilfully or negligently causes undue damage to the unit or the residential complex, the landlord may give a notice of termination. On the Landlord and Tenant Board’s forms list, the matching notice is the N5, “Notice to End your Tenancy for Interfering with Others, Damage or Overcrowding”.
Section 62(2) sets what that notice must contain:
- a termination date not earlier than the 20th day after the notice is given;
- the grounds for termination;
- a requirement that the tenant, within seven days, repair the damaged property or pay the reasonable cost of repairing it (or replace it or pay the reasonable cost of replacing it, where repair is not reasonable).
Then s.62(3): the notice is void if, within seven days after receiving it, the tenant does what clause (2)(c) requires, or makes arrangements satisfactory to the landlord to do it.
A notice is also not an eviction. Under s.69(1), a landlord who has given notice to terminate may apply to the Board for an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant; the Board decides. There is a shorter, 10-day notice in s.63, but s.63(1)(a) is limited to damage caused wilfully, and s.63(3) switches off the seven-day repair window for it. A frozen pipe argued as negligence sits under s.62, not s.63.
What a landlord can do instead, or as well: an application under s.89
Section 89(1) is the money route. A landlord may apply to the Board for an order requiring a tenant or former tenant to pay the reasonable costs the landlord has incurred or will incur to repair damaged property, or to replace it where repair is not reasonable. The conditions mirror s.62: while the tenant was in possession, the tenant, another occupant, or someone the tenant permitted in the building wilfully or negligently caused undue damage to the rental unit or the residential complex.
Two features of s.89 matter for a burst pipe:
- It does not require ending the tenancy. The application is about costs. A tenant can stay and still face an order to pay.
- It is open after the tenant leaves. Section 89(1.1) allows the application while the tenant is in possession, or no later than one year after the tenant or former tenant ceased to be in possession.
The Act also places a duty on whichever side is claiming. Under s.16, when a landlord or tenant becomes liable to pay an amount because of a breach of the tenancy agreement, the person entitled to claim has a duty to take reasonable steps to minimize their losses. With water involved, that duty has practical weight: on the wording of s.16, a landlord who left a leak running would have a harder time claiming the extra damage that followed.
⚠️One-year limit. Under RTA s.89(1.1), once the tenant has moved out, a landlord’s damage application must be made no later than one year after the tenant or former tenant ceased to be in possession of the unit. While the tenant still lives there, the application can be made at any time.
Where both routes stop
Two limits come from the text itself.
The Board’s monetary ceiling. Section 207(1) says the Board may order payment of an amount “up to the greater of $10,000 and the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.” The second figure is set outside the RTA, so check the current Small Claims limit before assuming what the ceiling is.
Whose costs. Section 89(1) is built around costs that the landlord has incurred or will incur. On that wording, it reaches the landlord’s own repair bill: the pipe, and the ceiling or walls of the residential complex if they belong to the same landlord. The section does not, on its text, give anyone else a claim. If the person downstairs is a separate tenant with soaked furniture, or a separate owner in a condominium building, s.89 is not their application to bring. Claims between a downstairs neighbour and an upstairs tenant fall outside what this article covers.
The definition of residential complex in s.2(1) covers a building or related group of buildings in which one or more rental units are located, including common areas. A basement unit in the same house, rented by the same landlord, sits inside that definition. Whether damage to it can be charged to the upstairs tenant still runs through the same s.34 test.
ℹ️Ceiling on what the Board can order. RTA s.207(1) caps a Board payment order at the greater of $10,000 and the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court. The Small Claims figure is set separately and can change, so confirm it at the time of any claim.
💡 My own read of s.62(3): it separates two questions that a burst-pipe bill raises at the same time, do I owe this money and do I have to move. The termination notice is void if, within seven days, the tenant pays, repairs, or makes an arrangement the landlord is satisfied with. If you as a tenant care most about keeping your home, you could settle the repair inside that window and the eviction track ends there. If you dispute the amount, you can still raise that; the landlord’s money claim then goes through s.89, where the Board decides whether the damage was undue and caused wilfully or negligently. One does not have to be resolved before the other.
What the Board would weigh: “undue” and “wilful or negligent”
None of these words is defined in the Act. Section 34 and s.89 do not say that turning the heat down is negligent, and they do not say it isn’t. The Board decides on the facts of each case. If a frozen pipe ends up in front of the Board, these are the kinds of facts that would bear on whether the conduct was negligent:
- whether the pipe or the heating system had a problem that was the landlord’s to fix under s.20(1);
- what the thermostat was set to, and for how long the unit was empty;
- whether the landlord had given any warning or instructions about winter heating;
- who was paying for the heat;
- who could actually set the temperature in the unit.
The first point on that list cuts the other way. Section 20(1) makes the landlord responsible for keeping the residential complex in a good state of repair and complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards, and s.20(2) says that applies even if the tenant knew about a problem before signing. If the freeze came from something in the building rather than something the tenant did, s.34 may not be engaged at all.
The lease can’t move that line either. Section 4(1) makes any provision in a tenancy agreement that is inconsistent with the Act or the regulations void. The Act does not say whether a clause asking a tenant to keep the heat on is inconsistent with it; a clause that tried to hand the landlord’s s.20 repair duty to the tenant would run into s.4(1).
How heating arrangements change which rules apply
Two temperature rules, two calendars
There is no single “minimum heat” number in Toronto. There are two, and they come from different laws.
The provincial rule is in O. Reg. 516/06, the general regulation under the RTA. Section 4(1) prescribes September 1 to June 15 as the part of the year when heat is a vital service, and s.4(2) requires at least 20°C, measured 1.5 metres above floor level and one metre from exterior walls in habitable space.
The City of Toronto rule is Municipal Code Chapter 497. Section 497-1.2 A requires the landlord to maintain a minimum air temperature of 21°C in all areas of the dwelling unit from October 1 to May 15. Subsection B limits that to units normally heated at the landlord’s expense, and subsection C says a landlord whose unit is already at 21°C is not required to run a heating unit. Under §497-1.3, a tenant in a unit heated at the landlord’s expense can complain and an officer may inspect.
The two rules overlap but do not match: different temperatures, different dates, different scope. Neither one is a rule about who pays for a burst pipe. They matter because they tell you whether the heat in the unit was the landlord’s job, and that feeds directly into the negligence question above.
What to do with the bill, depending on where you stand
- ☐Check whether you received an invoice only, or a notice under s.62 (N5) with a termination date.
- ☐If it is a notice, mark the date seven days after you received it.
- ☐Ask for the itemized repair invoice; the Act speaks of reasonable costs.
- ☐Write down the thermostat setting, how long you were away, who pays for heat, and any warning you received.
- ☐Decide whether to pay, repair, or propose an arrangement in writing within the seven days, or to dispute the claim.
- ☐Tell your own insurer about the incident.
- ☐Stop the water and arrange the repair; s.16 expects reasonable steps to limit the loss.
- ☐Keep every invoice and photo; s.89 is about reasonable costs incurred or to be incurred.
- ☐Confirm from the lease who controls and pays for heat before alleging negligence.
- ☐Choose the route: an s.62 notice, an s.89 application, or both, and note the one-year limit after move-out.
- ☐Do not take the cost out of the rent deposit; s.106(10) applies it to the last rent period.
- ☐Report the water to your own landlord in writing.
- ☐Photograph the damage and keep receipts for anything you replace.
- ☐Take reasonable steps to limit further damage to your belongings.
- ☐Notify your own insurer.
- Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, ss.2(1), 4(1), 16, 20, 21(1), 34, 62, 63, 69(1), 89, 105, 106 and 207(1) (Ontario e-Laws, consolidation from September 21, 2026)
- O. Reg. 516/06 (General), s.4 (Ontario e-Laws, consolidation from September 21, 2026)
- City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 497, Heating (page footer April 30, 2025)
- Tribunals Ontario, Landlord and Tenant Board forms list (N5 title)
Tenant Damage in Ontario: Build the Record First, Then Choose N5 or N7, Then Claim the Repair Bill →Repairs in an Ontario Rental: Landlord vs Tenant — Who Pays for What →Tenant Insurance Isn’t About Your Furniture: What It Really Covers, What It Costs, and Why Landlords Want It →First-Time Renter Guide →
Frequently Asked Questions
Can my landlord take the repair cost out of my last month’s rent deposit?
Not on their own. Under RTA s.105(1) the only security deposit a landlord may collect is a rent deposit, and s.106(10) requires it to be applied to the rent for the last rent period. The deposit only comes into a damage claim through s.89(2), when the Board orders both payment and termination and sets the deposit off against what the tenant owes.
Does the landlord have to fix the pipe first and argue about the cost later?
The Act is built to allow that order. Section 89(1) covers costs the landlord “has incurred or will incur”, so a repair can be done and claimed afterwards, and s.16 requires the person claiming to take reasonable steps to minimize losses. Section 20(1) also keeps the landlord responsible for the state of repair of the building.
What counts as negligent when it comes to setting the heat?
The RTA does not define it, and it has no rule about thermostat settings. Whether conduct was negligent under s.34 or s.89 is decided by the Landlord and Tenant Board on the facts, which could include who controlled the temperature, who paid for heat, how long the unit was empty, and whether any warning was given.
I got an N5 after a burst pipe. Do I have to move out?
Not automatically. Under RTA s.62(3) the notice is void if, within seven days of receiving it, you repair, pay the reasonable cost, or make arrangements satisfactory to the landlord. If it is not voided, s.69(1) lets the landlord apply to the Board for an eviction order, and the Board decides.
Does my tenant insurance matter here?
This article does not cover insurance claims or how an insurer would respond. What the RTA decides is whether you are responsible for the repair as between you and your landlord, under s.34, s.62 and s.89. It is still worth reporting the incident to your insurer and reading your own policy.
Discover more from GTA Real Estate Broker | Arthur Zhao
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
