Yes No Share to Facebook
Trespass to Property: The Wrongful Interference with Land Including Things Affixed Thereto
Question: What are the legal implications of trespassing on property in Ontario?
Answer: Trespassing can be both a criminal offence and a civil tort in Ontario, governed by the Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21 and the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c. C-46. Whether accidental or intentional, trespassing can lead to legal consequences and potential damages, making it essential to understand your rights and liabilities. Paladin LLP can guide you through these complexities, ensuring your property rights are protected and your interests are defended.
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.
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.
Trespass to land may happen both deliberately and accidentally. A deliberate example comes from Gross v. Wright, [1923] S.C.R. 214, where one party tried to seize space from a neighbour. Trespass can also happen by mistake, such as crossing a property line without realizing, as occurred in Barnstead v. Ramsey, 1996 CanLII 1574, and Sinkewicz v. Schmidt, 1994 CanLII 5148, where trees belonging to a neighbour were cut down by mistake.
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.
