Yes No Share to Facebook
Trespass to Property:
The Wrongful Interference with Land Including Things Affixed Thereto
Last Updated: August 22 2026
Question: Can I sue for trespass to property in Ontario if someone entered my land without permission or went beyond their invitation?
Answer: Yes. Trespass to property (trespass to land) in Ontario can be a civil tort you may sue for even if no major damage is proven, and it can cover unjustified entry or interference with your land, including exceeding the limits of an invitation. The claim generally requires a direct and physical intrusion onto land in your possession plus a voluntary act, and intent is not always necessary. If you are dealing with a dispute or want to understand potential remedies and next steps, Civil Litigations Paralegal Services can help you assess evidence, damages, and a practical plan, call (416) 229-1479 for paralegal guidance across Ontario.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Protections Against Property Interference
The term trespassing is well understood in relation to criminal law such as where an intruder breaks and enters into a home or other building; however, the term trespassing also relates to civil law tort as well as a prosecutable provincial offence violation. As a prosecutable provincial offence, trespassing is addressed within the Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21 and, in some circumstances the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 where the trespass occurs as a break and enter to commit a crime. As tortious conduct in the civil law realm, which may arise in combination with trespass as a provincial offence or criminal charges, but may arise without such other issues, trespass is very broadly applicable to situations where an interference by presence upon land occurs and could, technically, arise any time an uninvited person enters upon the land without permission.
Note: Please contact Civil Litigations Paralegal Services by phone at: (416) 229-1479 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
The Law
The case of Ontario Consumers Home Services v. Enercare Inc., 2014 ONSC 4154, provides a clear explanation of what amounts to 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.
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 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 large number of queries like “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate a need for prompt and proficient legal assistance rather than a specific designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and can represent clients in specific litigation cases. Skills in advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural competence are vital to this function. Civil Litigations Paralegal Services provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic planning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy directed at obtaining efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.
