Your Landlord Is Fixing the Building, and You Live in the Noise: When Ontario Tenants Get a Rent Abatement for Repair Work
Elevator, balcony and window projects can make a building hard to live in. Whether that turns into money depends on ten conditions your landlord may already have met, and on caps that start at 25%.
Can an Ontario tenant get a rent abatement when the landlord’s building-wide repair work disrupts daily life?
Ontario Regulation 516/06, section 8, sets the rules the Landlord and Tenant Board applies, and the answer depends on two separate questions. Question 1: can the Board order an abatement at all? Only if the work was an interference that was unreasonable in the circumstances (s.8(3)), and never if the landlord satisfied all ten conditions in s.8(4). Question 2: how much? The Board weighs the factors in s.8(5); the abatement is capped at 25% of monthly rent for each month or part of a month of interference (s.8(6)), can exceed that only under s.8(7), and can never exceed 100% (s.8(8)).
Source: O. Reg. 516/06 (General, under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006), s. 8, e-Laws consolidation in force from 2026-09-21
I’m Arthur Zhao, a real estate broker in Toronto. Let me start with arithmetic. Say your rent is $2,280 a month (a hypothetical figure, used only to show the math), and your building spends several months replacing elevators and repairing balconies. If the Landlord and Tenant Board orders the standard maximum under Ontario’s regulation, 25% of monthly rent, that is $570 for each month or part of a month of substantial interference. Four months at that level would add up to $2,280, one month’s rent.
That number is a ceiling, not something you are owed. Before any amount is discussed, the regulation asks a prior question: can the Board order an abatement at all? For a landlord who gave proper notice and ran the job properly, the answer can be no, however loud the work was. So this article follows the order the money depends on: first what shields the landlord, then how the amount is set, then how a tenant applies.
→
→
→
The landlord’s side: when the Board cannot order any abatement
Two things have to be true before the shield even comes into play. Under section 22 of the Residential Tenancies Act, a landlord must not substantially interfere with a tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the unit or the residential complex. Under O. Reg. 516/06 s.8(3)(b), the Board cannot call repair work a substantial interference unless carrying it out was an interference that was unreasonable in the circumstances, and s.8(3)(a) tells the Board to look at the effect of the work on how you and your household actually use the unit and the building.
If the Board does find substantial interference, s.8(4) then says the Board shall not order an abatement of rent if all ten listed conditions are satisfied. The word that matters is “all”. If the landlord misses even one, s.8(4) no longer bars an abatement, and the Board moves on to weighing the amount. The ten conditions are numbered 1 to 10 in the regulation; below they are grouped by what they are about, which is easier to check against what actually happened in your building.
Group 1: Notice
Five of the ten conditions are about what the landlord told tenants, and when:
- Timing (¶1): notice to the tenant or former tenant at least 60 days before the work started, or, in an emergency, as soon as was reasonable in the circumstances.
- New tenants (¶2): notice to any prospective tenant at the first opportunity, before the landlord signed a new tenancy agreement with them.
- Content (¶3): the notice describes the nature of the work, the expected impact on tenants and their households, and how long the work is expected to take.
- Accuracy (¶4): the notice was reasonably accurate and comprehensive in the circumstances at the time it was given.
- Updates (¶5): if there was a significant change to that information, the landlord gave an update in a timely manner.
One detail on wording: ¶1 says the landlord “gave notice”. Section 8(4) does not say that notice has to be in writing. That is different from the entry notice under RTA s.27, which does have to be written (more on that in the FAQ).
Group 2: The work itself
Two conditions look at what the project is, not how it was announced.
The purpose of the work (¶6). The work must fall into at least one of six categories. It:
- is necessary to protect or restore the physical integrity of the residential complex or part of it;
- is necessary to comply with maintenance, health, safety or other housing-related standards required by law;
- is necessary to maintain a plumbing, heating, mechanical, electrical, ventilation or air conditioning system;
- provides access for persons with disabilities;
- promotes energy or water conservation; or
- maintains or improves the security of the residential complex.
The regulation does not name specific projects. Whether a given elevator replacement, balcony repair or window replacement fits one of these categories is a question of fact for the Board, and the answer turns on why the work was being done.
The permit (¶7). If the Building Code Act, 1992 required a permit for the work, a permit was issued.
Group 3: How it’s carried out
The last three conditions are about the conduct of the job day to day:
- Hours (¶8): the work was carried out at reasonable times, or, if a municipal noise control by-law was in effect, during the times that by-law permits. This article does not list specific hours; they come from your municipality’s by-law, which you would need to check.
- Duration (¶9): the length of the work was reasonable in the circumstances.
- Noise (¶10): the landlord took reasonable steps to minimize interference from the noise of the work.
Read together with Group 1, the picture is clear enough: a landlord who announced the work properly, did work that fits a listed purpose, had the permit, and ran it at permitted hours, for a reasonable time, with reasonable noise steps, is protected from an abatement. A tenant’s application has somewhere to go when at least one of those ten facts is missing.
How the six ¶6 categories change the picture
The amount: the five factors the Board weighs
When s.8(4) does not bar an abatement, s.8(5) lists what the Board must consider in deciding whether an abatement is appropriate and how large it should be:
- The interference itself: its nature, duration and degree.
- Delay: whether the tenant or former tenant is responsible for any undue delay in the work.
- The landlord’s mitigation: the steps the landlord took during the work to minimize interference.
- The tenant’s use of what was offered: whether the tenant took advantage of any service or arrangement the landlord provided to reduce interference.
- The cost of not doing the work: whether failing to do it could reasonably be expected, within a reasonable time, to lead to interference with reasonable enjoyment, a reduction or loss of a service or facility, damage to the unit, the building or anything in them, a risk to anyone’s health or safety, or a breach by the landlord of RTA s.20 or s.161.
That last factor matters for building-wide projects. RTA s.20(1) makes the landlord responsible for keeping the residential complex in a good state of repair and fit for habitation. If skipping the work would have put the landlord in breach of that duty, the regulation asks the Board to weigh it.
⚠️Your own delays count. Under O. Reg. 516/06 s.8(5)¶2, the Board considers whether the tenant or former tenant is responsible for any undue delay in carrying out the work. If access to your unit was refused or put off and that dragged the project out, expect it to weigh against the amount.
The caps: 25%, above 25%, and 100%
The standard cap, s.8(6). According to O. Reg. 516/06 (e-Laws consolidation, 2026), except as s.8(7) allows, no abatement can exceed 25% of the monthly rent for each month or part of a month during which there was substantial interference. With the hypothetical $2,280 rent from the opening, that is up to $570 a month. A partial month still counts as a month for the cap.
Going higher, s.8(7). The Board may order more than 25%, but only if two things are both true: (a) the interference far exceeded the level that would normally be expected, considering all relevant circumstances; and (b) the Board is satisfied that at least one of these applies:
- the work is not in the six ¶6 categories;
- the work was done at unreasonable times or at times not permitted by an applicable noise by-law;
- the work contravened a condition or requirement of a Building Code Act permit;
- the work took far longer than would normally be required, after allowing for exceptional circumstances outside the landlord’s control, including weather, delays in government approvals or permits, and market shortages of suitable goods, services or qualified labour at reasonable cost; or
- the landlord refused to take reasonable steps during the work to minimize interference.
The hard ceiling, s.8(8). No abatement can exceed 100% of monthly rent for each month or part of a month the Board finds the work substantially interfered. In the hypothetical, $2,280 a month is the top of the range.
ℹ️100% is the absolute ceiling. Even where s.8(7) allows more than 25%, s.8(8) says the Board shall not order an abatement exceeding 100% of the monthly rent for each month or part of a month of substantial interference. An abatement under section 8 cannot exceed the rent itself.
💡 My own view: the line in this regulation worth reading twice is s.8(7). Proving that the work was miserable does not, by itself, take an abatement past 25%. The Board needs both a finding that the interference far exceeded what would normally be expected and one of the five specific situations in s.8(7)(b). A tenant who shows only the first stays under the 25% cap. So does a tenant who shows only the second, for example that the work fell outside the six categories, without showing that the disruption went far beyond normal. If you are aiming above 25%, build the case on both conditions at once.
Applying: what the tenant files and what the Board can order
The application is made to the Landlord and Tenant Board under RTA s.29(1), paragraph 3: an order determining that the landlord, superintendent or agent of the landlord substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex by the tenant or a member of the household. Section 29(1) lets a tenant or former tenant apply.
The time limit. According to the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (e-Laws consolidation, 2026), s.29(2), no application can be made more than one year after the day the alleged conduct occurred. For a project that runs for months, the statute counts from the conduct; it does not spell out how that applies to each stretch of an ongoing project, so filing within a year of the earliest disruption you want covered is the safer approach.
What the Board can order. If it finds substantial interference, RTA s.31(1) lets the Board: (a) order that the landlord, superintendent or agent not engage in further such activities against any tenants in the complex; (b) order payment to the tenant of reasonable costs to repair or replace damaged property, and other reasonable out-of-pocket expenses; (c) order an abatement of rent; (d) order the landlord to pay the Board an administrative fine of up to the greater of $10,000 and the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court; (e) terminate the tenancy; and (f) make any other order it considers appropriate. Section 8 of the regulation is the rulebook for (c) when the cause is repair work.
Checklist: building repair work and a possible abatement
If you are living through building-wide work and may apply, these are the practical steps, grouped by topic.
- ☐Keep every notice and update the landlord gives you, and write down the date you received each one (s.8(4)¶1 and ¶5).
- ☐Log the dates and times work was happening and which parts of the building were affected (s.8(4)¶8, s.8(5)¶1).
- ☐Note each service or arrangement the landlord offered to reduce disruption, and whether you used it (s.8(5)¶4).
- ☐Record each request for access to your unit and your response, so the delay question in s.8(5)¶2 can be answered from your side.
- ☐Ask what the work is, how it will affect your unit, and how long it is expected to take, if the notice does not say (s.8(4)¶3).
- ☐Ask whether a building permit was required and whether it has been issued (s.8(4)¶7).
- ☐Ask what steps are planned to reduce noise during the work (s.8(4)¶10).
- ☐Check the date: s.29(2) bars applications made more than one year after the day the conduct occurred.
- ☐Go through the ten s.8(4) conditions and identify which one, if any, you say the landlord did not meet.
- ☐Decide whether you are also asking for other s.31(1) orders, such as reasonable out-of-pocket expenses under s.31(1)(b).
- ☐If you want more than 25%, set out evidence for both s.8(7)(a) and at least one s.8(7)(b) situation.
Landlord Won’t Fix It? Ontario’s T6 Application, Step by Step →Your Upstairs Neighbour Won’t Stop the Noise and Your Landlord Just Shrugs: What Ontario’s Right to Reasonable Enjoyment Actually Requires →Frozen Pipes in a Rental: When the Tenant Pays for the Burst, and When the Landlord Does →First-Time Renter Guide →
Frequently Asked Questions
I already moved out of the building. Can I still apply for an abatement for the months of construction?
Yes, the right to apply is not limited to current tenants. RTA s.29(1) lets a tenant or former tenant apply, and O. Reg. 516/06 s.8 applies to interference with a former tenant’s enjoyment too. The one-year limit in s.29(2) still runs from the day the conduct occurred, not from the day you moved out.
The work is in the lobby, hallways and elevators, not inside my apartment. Does that count?
It can. RTA s.22 protects reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or the residential complex, and s.2(1) defines a residential complex to include “all common areas and services and facilities available for the use of its residents”. O. Reg. 516/06 s.8(1) also defines the covered work as work carried out in a rental unit or a residential complex.
My landlord didn’t offer any alternative arrangements during the work. Does that help my case?
It goes to several parts of the test. O. Reg. 516/06 s.8(5)¶3 tells the Board to consider the steps the landlord took to minimize interference, s.8(4)¶10 requires reasonable noise-reduction steps for the landlord to be shielded at all, and s.8(7)(b)(v) treats a refusal to take reasonable steps as one route above 25%. The regulation does not say how the Board weighs the absence of an offer in a particular case; the ¶4 factor, whether the tenant used what was provided, simply has nothing to measure if nothing was provided.
Besides a rent reduction, what else can the Landlord and Tenant Board order?
RTA s.31(1)(b) allows an order that the landlord pay the tenant reasonable costs of repairing or replacing property that was damaged, plus other reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. The Board can also prohibit further interference, order the landlord to pay the Board an administrative fine up to the greater of $10,000 and the Small Claims Court’s monetary jurisdiction, terminate the tenancy, or make any other appropriate order. Section 8(4) of the regulation is worded as a bar on an abatement; it does not mention these other orders.
What does the landlord’s 60-day work notice have to say, and is it the same as a notice to enter my unit?
To help shield the landlord, the notice must describe the nature of the work, the expected impact on tenants and their households, and how long the work is expected to take (O. Reg. 516/06 s.8(4)¶3), and it must be reasonably accurate and comprehensive when given (¶4). It is a different notice from the entry notice in RTA s.27, which must be written, given at least 24 hours before entry, and state the reason, the day, and a time of entry between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. One governs whether an abatement is barred; the other governs whether someone may come into your unit.
Discover more from GTA Real Estate Broker | Arthur Zhao
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
