Last Updated: August 24 2026
In Ontario, what counts as trespass to land and how do I protect my property if someone enters or interferes without permission?
In Ontario, trespass to land includes a direct and physical intrusion onto property in another person’s possession, plus voluntary (not necessarily intentional) acts, and it can be actionable even without proving actual damage. It can also cover unauthorized interference over or beyond permission, such as stepping onto a yard, placing or propelling an object onto the land, or discharging a substance, and the issue may be both a civil claim and, in some situations, a prosecutable offence under Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21 and the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46; courts like in Ontario Consumers Home Services v. Enercare Inc., 2014 ONSC 4154 have described the core elements as an unjustified intrusion with a physical entry requirement. If you need help documenting the interference, assessing whether you can seek damages (including nominal damages where harm is minimal), or responding quickly to stop further access, Paladin LLP can help you take clear next steps for property protection across Ontario at (289) 925-1572 .
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Protections Against Property Interference
Trespassing upon property is commonly understood as a unlawful act in respect of the criminal law, such as in the context of a break & enter; however, trespass to property is a civil law tort in addition to a prosecutable offence. As a prosecutable offence, trespass to property is addressed by the Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21 and the cases arising therefrom and perhaps the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 depending on the relevant nature of the trespass. As a tort, trespass to property is very broad and involves presence upon and interference with the land of another as well, technically, could arise at any time an uninvited person enters upon the lands of another, or when invited, oversteps or uses the lands of another in an unauthorized way.
Note: Please contact Paladin LLP by phone at: (289) 925-1572 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
The Law
The Court in Ontario Consumers Home Services v. Enercare Inc., 2014 ONSC 4154, set out a straightforward explanation of tortious trespass, by noting:
[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.
Trespass to property, or trespass to land, covers both intentional and accidental situations. In Gross v. Wright, [1923] S.C.R. 214, the trespass was deliberate, involving an attempt to steal a neighbour’s space. On the other hand, trespass can arise innocently, such as crossing into another’s property without realizing, as demonstrated in Barnstead v. Ramsey, 1996 CanLII 1574, and Sinkewicz v. Schmidt, 1994 CanLII 5148, where the cutting of neighbour-owned trees was accidental.
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 tort of trespass to property is extremely broad in potential application. As a strict tort, liability for trespass may occur even when the trepass was accidental; however, in the absence of illicit intentions or harm, it is anticipated that such an innocent trespass would yield very little damages. With such said, sometimes an accidental trespass without illicit intentions may still result in significant harm.
NOTE: A considerable amount of online inquiries featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate a pressing need for competent legal assistance rather than merely looking for a specific title. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers, granting them the authority to represent clients in certain legal disputes. Skills in advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural expertise are vital to this function. Paladin LLP provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and effective advocacy aimed at securing efficient and beneficial outcomes for clients.
