Last Updated: August 22 2026
Can an uninvited person enter my Ontario property and what legal options do I have for trespass to land?
Olson Craig Legal can help if someone entered your land without permission or interfered with it, since in Ontario trespass to land (a civil tort) can be actionable even if the person did not mean to trespass, and it may also overlap with criminal conduct depending on the facts, including offences addressed by the Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21 and related case law like Ontario Consumers Home Services v. Enercare Inc., 2014 ONSC 4154. Elements generally require a direct and physical intrusion onto land in the plaintiff’s possession plus a voluntary act; proof of damage is not required, though damages are often nominal where harm is minimal. If you are dealing with a repeated or accidental intrusion, preserve evidence (photos, dates, witnesses), document any interference, and get a quick assessment from Olson Craig Legal by phone at (226) 886-2001 so a Lawyer & Paralegal team can help you choose the right next step.
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: Please contact Olson Craig Legal by phone at: (226) 886-2001 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.
As shown, trespass to land may be either purposeful or unintended. For example, Gross v. Wright, [1923] S.C.R. 214, involved a deliberate attempt to encroach upon a neighbour’s property. By contrast, trespass may also arise without wrongful intent, such as when a boundary is crossed unknowingly, as in Barnstead v. Ramsey, 1996 CanLII 1574, and Sinkewicz v. Schmidt, 1994 CanLII 5148, where trees belonging to a neighbour were mistakenly cut down.
Damages for Trespass
Calculating trespass damages is often complex. In cases of technical trespass with no resulting injury, compensation is usually limited to a token amount. The Court of Appeal discussed this difficulty at length in TMS Lighting Ltd. v. KJS Transport Inc., 2014 ONCA 1, emphasizing that proving damages with accuracy is challenging 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
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 considerable amount of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” usually indicate a desire for prompt and effective legal support rather than a particular designation. In Ontario, the same Law Society that governs lawyers also regulates licensed paralegals, allowing them to advocate for clients in specific litigation scenarios. Skills in advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural knowledge are foundational to this position. Olson Craig Legal provides legal representation within its authorized framework, focusing on strategic planning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy to achieve swift and positive outcomes for clients.
