Last Updated: , 72 days ago.
What legal steps should an Ontario property owner take if someone enters or interferes with their land without permission?
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
Most people associate trespassing with criminal law, like a break & enter; however, trespass to property is also a civil tort as well as 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, along with the case law, and in some situations the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, depending on the circumstances. As a tort, trespass to property is broad and covers being on and interfering with the land of another person; and the tort of trespass can arise whenever a person enters land without permission, or, even if invited, goes beyond what was permitted or uses the land in an unauthorized way.
Note: For immediate help, please contact Lynxs Paralegal by phone at: (647) 249-6676 to retain services or to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
The Law
What constitutes as tortious trespass was well explained within the case of Ontario Consumers Home Services v. Enercare Inc., 2014 ONSC 4154 wherein it is 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.
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
The amount of damage from trespass can be hard to measure. When a trespass happens without causing real harm, deciding on fair compensation can be problematic, and courts usually grant only a nominal award. The Court of Appeal reviewed this issue thoroughly in TMS Lighting Ltd. v. KJS Transport Inc., 2014 ONCA 1, highlighting the challenge of proving damages precisely 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 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 quantity of inquiries featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently signify a desire for prompt, competent legal assistance instead of a particular title. In Ontario, certified paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specified litigation issues. Skills in advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural expertise are fundamental to that function. Lynxs Paralegal provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and persuasive advocacy intended to attain effective and advantageous outcomes for clients.
