Yes No Share to Facebook
Trespass to Property:
The Wrongful Interference with Land Including Things Affixed Thereto
Last Updated: August 22 2026
Question: What legal steps should an Ontario property owner take if someone enters or interferes with their land without permission?
Answer: If someone entered or interfered with your Ontario land without permission, the issue can involve both a civil claim for trespass to property and, depending on the conduct, a chargeable offence under the Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21 and potentially the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46; the civil tort generally requires a direct and physical intrusion (or placement of objects) onto your land, done voluntarily even if not intentionally, and damages are not always large when the trespass causes little or no harm. For practical next steps, Lynxs Paralegal can help you document what happened (dates, photos, witnesses, any boundaries or signage), preserve evidence, assess whether the intrusion exceeded an invitation, and determine whether a demand letter or claim is worthwhile based on likely damages and available defences. Book a quick intake by calling (647) 249-6676.
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.
The Law
Guidance on what qualifies as tortious trespass is outlined in the decision of Ontario Consumers Home Services v. Enercare Inc., 2014 ONSC 4154, where it was stated:
[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
Figuring out the exact harm caused by trespass is often tricky. Sometimes, in cases of technical trespass where no real damage occurs, finding the right remedy can also be difficult. In those situations, courts usually award only a token amount. The Court of Appeal explored this issue of trespass damages in detail in TMS Lighting Ltd. v. KJS Transport Inc., 2014 ONCA 1, noting, among other things, the challenge of proving damages with precision and stating:
[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 considerable amount of online searches for terms like “lawyers in my vicinity” or “top lawyer in” often indicate a pressing need for effective legal assistance rather than a particular title of a legal professional. In Ontario, licensed paralegals operate under the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are empowered to represent clients in specified litigation matters. Skills in advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise are crucial to their function. Lynxs Paralegal provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, preparation of evidence, and persuasive advocacy geared towards attaining efficient and advantageous resolutions for clients.
