Tenant Wins Full Security Deposit Return in Landlord-Tenant Dispute

Small Claims Court OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: [COMPANY]. v. [NAME] , 2026 NSSM 4 Date: 20260223 Docket:  549013 Registry: Halifax Between: [COMPANY]. v. [NAME] ON APPEAL FROM THE DIRECTOR OF RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES Adjudicator: [NAME], KC Heard: February 3 rd , 2026, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Decision: February 23, 2026 Counsel: [redacted] By the Court: [ 1 ]              This is a Landlord appeal of a decision f the Director of Residential Tenancies dated November 19th, 2025. [ 2 ]              In that decision, the Tenant [NAME] sought the return of their security deposit of $1100.00.  She had lived in the unit for two years. [ 3 ]              The fixed term tenancy between the parties ended August 31, 2025, and the Landlord filed a security deposit claim within 10 days on September 10 th , 2025, in accordance with the statutory requirement under section 12A of the Residential Tenancies Act , R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 401 (hereafter the “RTA:). [ 4 ]              By filing that claim, the Landlord, [NAME] (“[NAME]”), represented at the Board and before this Court by [NAME], was seeking to retain the entire security deposit.  The totality of the amount being claimed by the Landlord was in excess of the security deposit, totaling $1601.15. [ 5 ]              The Officer awarded the Tenant the return of $1020.58 of the $1100.00 security deposit. [ 6 ]              The Landlord has appealed to this Court for the same reasons claimed before the Officer. At the hearing before me, I heard from [NAME], an owner of [NAME], and [NAME] appeared on her own behalf.  Both parties provided evidence, primarily photos, to support their claim. [ 7 ]              The specific items that the landlord is seeking to retain the security deposit total $1551.15, and are: •         Replacement of tub overflow drain - $50 •         Replacement of water damaged trim for walk in shower -$100. •         Replacement of main entry door trim - $100.00 •         Replacement of broken garbage bin- $100 •         Damage to walls outside the unit -$50.00 •         Cleaning - $605 •         Two broken freezer rails on the refrigerator $546.15 The Legislation: [ 8 ]              In Nova Scotia, section 9 (1) 4 of the RTA establishes that the standard required of a Tenant is “ordinary cleanliness”: 9 (1)

4. Obligation of the Tenant The tenant is responsible for the ordinary cleanliness of the interior of the premises and for the repair of damage caused by wilful or negligent act of the tenant or of any person whom the tenant permits on the premises. [ 9 ]              Section 12(15) of the RTA states “A claim for damages from a security deposit shall not include any costs associated with ordinary wear and tear of the residential premises.” [ 10 ]          Section 2(k) of the RTA states that “wear and tear” means the usual degree of depreciation or deterioration caused by living in a residential premise, relative to the duration of the lease.” [ 11 ]          The RTA recognizes that over the term of the lease there will be some depreciation or deterioration in any home by the process of daily life.  Contrary to [NAME]’s view, it is not realistic to expect to get back a unit that is in exactly the same condition it was in two years previous. The requirements for cleaning and repairs included in the Landlord’s lease form: [ 12 ]          [NAME] relies upon a section of the Lease signed by [NAME] titled Schedule B, “Special Regulations”.  This is a large document which includes pet and smoking restrictions as well, but relevant to this case is four pages showing amounts the Landlord says that they are entitled to recoup from the Tenant in the event that cleaning or repair of the unit is not to the Landlord’s satisfaction.  The document is too large to recreate here, but I will note some of the proposed charges relevant to this appeal. [ 13 ]          There is an initial section titled “Floors”, which commences with “Floors must be swept and mopped (no streaks showing), and it then appears to attach a price to various sized units, for example, “1 Bedroom + Den” $100. [ 14 ]          Under “REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENT” is included: LABOUR Per hour rate (2 hour minimum) $75.00 COUNTERTOP Minor repairs such as chips or scratches $300.00 [ 15 ]          There are other categories under this heading such as Flooring, Fixtures, and Plumbing and Fixtures, with a price associated with each item. [ 16 ]          The next section commences with “Cleaning:  To avoid costly cleaning charges, the following items must be cleaned prior to vacating the apartment”. [ 17 ]          There are then a page of expectations, from “stove”, which must be pulled out, “range hood”, stating “filter must be soaked overnight”, as well as an expectation that “ceilings” will be “completely cleaned”. [ 18 ]          Each of these items has a price attached to it, presumably to be deducted from the security deposit and beyond should the Landlord find that some aspect of cleaning was in their opinion insufficient. [ 19 ]          The list goes on, with “chips and scratches to refrigerator, stove, dishwasher and basin (where finished is practical). Cost is $80.00 per scratch or chip.” [ 20 ]          Against “Refrigerator” - All damaged or broken parts - FMV (Fair Market Value”. [ 21 ]          [NAME] reiterated before me that [NAME] signed this Schedule in addition to the Lease.  His position is that she agreed to be bound by these provisions. [ 22 ]          However, a tenant in a residential tenancy cannot be bound to terms that violate the RTA. [ 23 ]          The Officer in their decision found the cleaning requirements and cost list “just absurd”, and illegal as outside the provisions of the RTA. [ 24 ]          I find that the purpose and effect of the lease provisions which ascribe a set price to cleaning and repairs that may amount to normal wear and tear, is an attempt to rewrite the RTA.  Its effect is to remove the Tenant’s right to claim their security deposit in circumstances where “ordinary wear and tear” and “ordinary cleanliness” apply. [ 25 ]          Such provisions are absolutely contrary to the RTA, are not enforceable, and should not included in any residential lease in Nova Scotia. [ 26 ]          The reliance upon this Schedule by the Landlord created exactly the problem one would expect, that is, requiring perfection in cleaning, not ordinary cleanliness. [ 27 ]          The conclusion that it was relied upon is clear from the verbal evidence of the Landlord, and a provided review of a move out video.  This review identifies as a cleaning deficiency, “clump of lint from lint trap not being cleaned”.  Other than the Landlord’s Schedule B, I have never seen a “clump” dryer lint being treated as a deficiency. [ 28 ]          Again, the standard for surrender of a unit at the end of a lease is ordinary cleanliness.   I have examined the pictures that were provided by both parties.  My finding is that the apartment looks pristine upon moveout.  The Tenant says that she was “encouraged” by the Landlord to hire a cleaner.  She spent $300.00 doing so, and it shows. [ 29 ]           The landlord has provided photos which they say show deficiencies in cleaning.  Taken together, these alleged deficiencies are so minor that they will require little or no remediation. [ 30 ]          I will review the claims, many of which are, by the Landlord’s evidence, estimates of the cost of repair. (a) Tub Overflow – tub drain cover $50.00 [ 31 ]          There is nothing specific regarding this item on the Schedule B price list.  It is possible that the tub overflow drain cover was replaced, but nothing to confirm what it cost to do so.  I am not allowing this expense. (b)   Damaged Trim for Walk in Shower - $100.00 [ 32 ]           With respect to the issues in the bathroom, [NAME] says that his workers cleaned off the mold and re-caulked, by the photos, a very small area in one corner outside the tub.  He says [NAME] had a shower curtain that was too short.  She says it was impossible to keep water in. [ 33 ]          He says that is not sufficient, and seeks to retain $100.00, but I note that nothing more has been done that the cleaning and caulking, and it has been over six months.  From the photos shown, there could be design issues in the bathroom equally responsible for the slight water damage.  Nothing takes it beyond normal wear and tear. Replacement of Main Entry Door Trim/Damage to walls:  $100.00 - $50.00 [ 34 ]          There is no evidence of how this occurred, and there is no evidence that this is beyond normal wear and tear. Replacement of broken garbage bin - $100.00: [ 35 ]          The Tenant’s evidence is that she advised the Landlord months before the tenancy ended that the plastic garbage bin in the kitchen cabinets had broken and got no response.  I find that there is no evidence that this was beyond normal wear and tear. Cleaning - $600.00 [ 36 ]          The Tenant spent $300.00 hiring a cleaner.  There is no evidence that further cleaning was required to meet the ordinary cleanliness standard. Replacement of the refrigerator - $546.15: [ 37 ]           The Landlord testified that the refrigerator from the unit has been put in the building’s amenities room and the refrigerator in the unit replaced.  The refrigerator has not been repaired.  The Landlord is seeking the cost estimated for the repair of two freezer rails, which he says was damaged by the Tenant. [ 38 ]          The Landlord is relying upon the written invoices from the technician who attended to repair the unit after [NAME] notified the Landlord that the refrigerator was freezing food in the fridge section. [ 39 ]          [NAME] says that technician report confirms that the issue was caused by the tenant, either storing food by the back wall of the refrigerator or having too much food in the freezer section. [ 40 ]          [NAME] says that after the first incident she did not put a lot of food in the fridge and freezer because she was afraid of losing it, as the fridge never worked properly and was freezing food. [ 41 ]          The technician that the Landlord is relying upon did not testify before me.  His invoices do not show causation of what is claimed, damage to the freezer rails. [ 42 ]          I do not accept that a tenant should be expected to not store food in the back of a fridge.  I find that there is no evidence that the repair required of a fridge known to be malfunctioning was the result of [NAME]’s negligence.  This claim is dismissed. Conclusion: [ 43 ]          [NAME] says that the Landlord is “not being picky” in this case, but that is not what the evidence shows.  His expectation was that he would get the unit back exactly as it had been two years previous at the commencement of [NAME]’s tenancy.  That is not in accordance with the RTA’s acknowledgment of the reality of ordinary wear and tear. [ 44 ]          I order the return of the $1100.00 security deposit to [NAME], as well as her costs of filing with Residential Tenancies.  An order will issue accordingly. [NAME], KC, Chief Adjudicator Small Claims Court