The answer is more Daedalian than appears on the Standard Form of Lease, because the Standard Form of Lease fails to warn that the RTA never spells out your quoted bullet point explicitly! The reader must deduce this bullet point from a COMBINATION of at least 4 sections in the RTA!
Section 4 — Anything contrary to the RTA is void.
s. 20 — Landlords are always responsible for providing maintenance and repairs, regardless of how something broke. s. 20 doesn't specify who is responsible for paying, merely that the landlord is the one to fix that thing.
s. 34 — Tenants are responsible for merely wilful, or negligent, undue damages. To wit, tenants aren't responsible for normal wear and tear.
s. 134(1)(b) — Landlords can't charge fees for services, like repairs, as a condition to continue the tenancy.
The RTA expects things to wear out! O. Reg. 516/06 even sets forth a Schedule for "Useful life of work done or thing purchased".
Now I deduce your bullet point from these sections. If something breaks from normal usage, that means it's due damage, a.k.a. normal wear and tear. Normal wear and tear doesn't fall under s. 34, and the tenant isn't responsible for paying. Then Landlord shall pay, as they are responsible for providing repairs under s. 20.
If something breaks because of tenant's negligence, that means it's undue damage. Undue damage falls under s. 34, and tenant would be responsible for paying. But Landlord would still be responsible for providing the repair under s. 20.
Either Landlord or Tenant can apply to LTB, to dispute whether a repair falls under s. 34.