Last Updated: August 23 2026
If someone trespasses or interferes with my property in Ontario, what steps should I take to protect my rights and pursue damages?
If you are dealing with trespass to property in Ontario, document the incident (dates, times, photos, witnesses), preserve any relevant communications, and consider whether the conduct may be a civil tort and/or a prosecutable offence under Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, and possibly related criminal matters depending on the facts a paralegal team at Anderson Aylwin Begg & Co. can help you assess liability, estimate what damages may be recoverable (even where harm is difficult to quantify), and prepare next steps for cease-and-desist demands or litigation guidance for a quick Ontario assessment, call (905) 686-8080.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Protections Against Property Interference
Trespass usually brings to mind crime; think break & enter, but the law treats trespass to property as both a civil tort and a prosecutable offence. On the offence side, trespass is addressed in the Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, and, where appropriate, the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. On the civil side, trespass to property is expansive, capturing presence on and interference with the land owned or in the possession of another person without consent or, even with invitation, oversteps the permission or uses the land in an unauthorized manner.
Note: Please contact Anderson Aylwin Begg & Co. by phone at: (905) 686-8080 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
The Law
In Ontario Consumers Home Services v. Enercare Inc., 2014 ONSC 4154, the Court explained the meaning of tortious trespass, stating:
[52] With respect to the claim of trespass to land Lederman J. in Hudson’s Bay at para. 9 states as follows:
Clerk and Lindsell define trespass to land, at p. 837, as consisting of “any unjustified intrusion by one person upon land in the possession of another”. Halsbury’s, Vol. 45, para. 1384 states that “every unlawful entry by one person on the land in possession of another is trespassed for which an action lies…
[53] The elements for the claim of trespass to land are set out by Crane J in Grace v. Fort Erie (Town), 2003 CanLII 48456 (ON SC), [2003] O.J. No. 3475 (SCJ) at para. 86:
The elements of trespass have been described as follows:
- Any direct and physical intrusion onto land that is in the possession of the plaintiff, (indirect or consequential interference does not constitute trespass).
- The defendant’s act need not be intentional, but it must be voluntary.
- Trespass is actionable without proof of damage.
- While some form of physical entry onto or contact with the plaintiff’s land is essential to constitute a trespass, the act may involve placing or propelling an object, or discharging some substance onto the plaintiff’s land can constitute trespass.
As indicated, the tort of trespass to property, or as is also commonly referred to as trespass to land, may occur intentionally such as occurred in the case of Gross v. Wright, [1923] S.C.R. 214 which involved an effort to steal the space of an adjacent neighbour or the tort of trespass to property may occur in innocent and accidental ways such as where a property owner unintentionally crosses property boundaries without any illicit purpose as occurred in the cases of Barnstead v. Ramsey, 1996 CanLII 1574, and Sinkewicz v. Schmidt, 1994 CanLII 5148, where trees owned by a neighbour were mistakenly cut down.
Damages for Trespass
In many circumstances calculating the extent of harm caused by a trespass may be difficult. In other circumstances, involving a technical trespass without any corresponding harm, an appropriate redress for trespass is also troublesome. Generally, where trespass occurs without harm, a very nominal sum may be awarded. On the issue of trespass damages, the Court of Appeal addressed such at length within the case of TMS Lighting Ltd. v. KJS Transport Inc., 2014 ONCA 1,wherein, among other things, the difficulty to prove damages with exactitude was mentioned and it was stated:
[61] It is also beyond controversy that a plaintiff bears the onus of proving his or her claimed loss and the quantum of associated damages on a reasonable preponderance of credible evidence. Further, as the trial judge recognized in this case, a trial judge is obliged to do his or her best to assess the damages suffered by a plaintiff on the available evidence even where difficulties in the quantification of damages render a precise mathematical calculation of a plaintiff’s loss uncertain or impossible. Mathematical exactitude in the calculation of damages is neither necessary nor realistic in many cases. The controlling principles were clearly expressed by Finlayson J.A. of this court in Martin v. Goldfarb, 1998 CanLII 4150 (ON CA), [1998] O.J. No. 3403, 112 O.A.C. 138, at para. 75, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [1998] S.C.C.A. No. 516:
I have concluded that it is a well established principle that where damages in a particular case are by their inherent nature difficult to assess, the court must do the best it can in the circumstances. That is not to say, however, that a litigant is relieved of his or her duty to prove the facts upon which the damages are estimated. The distinction drawn in the various authorities, as I see it, is that where the assessment is difficult because of the nature of the damage proved, the difficulty of assessment is no ground for refusing substantial damages even to the point of resorting to guess work. However, where the absence of evidence makes it impossible to assess damages, the litigant is entitled to nominal damages at best.
See also Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd., 1999 CanLII 705 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 142, at para. 99; 100 Main Street East Ltd. v. W.B. Construction Ltd. (1978), 1978 CanLII 1630 (ON CA), 20 O.R. (2d) 401 (C.A.), 88 D.L.R. (3d) 1, at para. 80; Penvidic Contracting Co. v. International Nickel Co. of Canada, 1975 CanLII 6 (SCC), [1976] 1 S.C.R. 267, at pp. 278-79.
Conclusion
The law of trespass to property applies broadly. As a strict tort, responsibility can arise even where the trespass was unintentional. In situations without bad intent or real damage, only small damages are expected. Yet, there are cases where an accidental trespass has led to major consequences.
NOTE: A significant volume of online searches for “lawyers nearby” or “top lawyer in” tends to indicate a desire for prompt and adept legal assistance rather than a particular job title. In Ontario, paralegals who hold a license are governed by the same Law Society as lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation situations. Advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural proficiency are key components of this profession. Anderson Aylwin Begg & Co. provides legal representation within its licensed authority, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy designed to achieve effective and advantageous outcomes for clients.
