Last Updated: August 23 2026
How do I handle a possible civil trespass to land in Ontario and what damages might apply?
Byfield Legal Services can help if someone entered or interfered with your property without permission, since in Ontario trespass to land is a civil tort that can involve any unjustified intrusion onto land in the possession of another, with liability able to arise even from a mistake and without proof of damage. To assess your claim, we look for direct and physical intrusion (including contact, placement, or propelling an object or discharging a substance), confirm the intrusion was voluntary, and gather evidence of where and when it happened. Damages may range from nominal or token amounts when there is technical trespass with no measurable harm to more substantial compensation when you can prove loss. For a clear next step plan in Ontario, call (289) 927-7365 to speak with a paralegal about options, evidence, and practical redress.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Protections Against Property Interference
People often think trespassing is solely criminal, such as a break & enter; yet trespass to property is also a civil tort in addition to being a chargeable offence. As a prosecutable offence, trespass to property falls under the Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21 and the cases interpreting it, and may also engage the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, depending on the nature of the trespass. As a tort, trespass to property is wide-ranging involving any uninvited entry or interference with the land of another, or exceeding the limits of an invitation or authorized use, can amount to trespass.
Note: Please contact Byfield Legal Services by phone at: (289) 927-7365 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
The Law
The elements to the tort of trespass to property were well reiterated in the case of Ontario Consumers Home Services v. Enercare Inc., 2014 ONSC 4154 wherein it was said:
[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.
The tort of trespass to property, often called trespass to land, can happen on purpose or by accident. An intentional example appears in Gross v. Wright, [1923] S.C.R. 214, which involved an attempt to take over a neighbour’s space. Trespass can also happen innocently, such as when a property owner crosses a boundary without intending harm, as seen in Barnstead v. Ramsey, 1996 CanLII 1574, and Sinkewicz v. Schmidt, 1994 CanLII 5148, where trees on a neighbour’s land 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
Trespass to property has a very broad application; and because it is strict in nature, liability can arise even when the trespass happens by accident. In cases without wrongful purpose or any actual injury, damages awarded in a lawsuit are usually minor. However, an accidental trespass can occasionally cause substantial harm.
NOTE: A considerable quantity of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate a desire for prompt and proficient legal assistance rather than a particular title. In Ontario, licensed paralegals fall under the regulation of the same Law Society that governs lawyers, granting them the authority to represent clients in specific litigation scenarios. Core to this role are advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural expertise. Byfield Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and effective advocacy to secure efficient and favourable outcomes for clients.
