Yes No Share to Facebook
Trespass to Property:
The Wrongful Interference with Land Including Things Affixed Thereto
Last Updated: September 02 2026
Question: Can I sue for trespass to land in Ontario if someone entered my property without permission?
Answer: Yes, in Ontario you may have a civil claim for trespass to land (and in some situations a provincial offence under the Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21) if there was an unjustified, direct physical intrusion onto your land in your possession, even if the person entered accidentally or caused minimal harm. Forseti Legal Services (paralegal services across Ontario) can help you assess the facts, sort out whether it is tort trespass, a remedies/damages issue, or whether criminal or related charges may apply, then help you take next steps with clear documentation of dates, entry details, and any impacts. Call (705) 806-7577 to schedule a quick consultation.
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 Forseti Legal Services by phone at: (705) 806-7577 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
The Law
A useful description of what legally counts as trespass in tort law can be found in Ontario Consumers Home Services v. Enercare Inc., 2014 ONSC 4154, where the Court explained:
[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
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
Trespass to property has a very broad application; and because it is strict in nature, liability can arise even when the trespass happens by accident. In cases without wrongful purpose or any actual injury, damages awarded in a lawsuit are usually minor. However, an accidental trespass can occasionally cause substantial harm.
NOTE: A significant quantity of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicates a desire for prompt and competent legal assistance rather than seeking a particular title. In Ontario, accredited paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and have the authority to represent clients in specified litigation matters. Skills in advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural knowledge are fundamental to this position. Forseti Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and effective advocacy to attain efficient and favourable outcomes for clients.
