Last Updated: August 22 2026
When can I be liable in Ontario for injuries or property damage caused by a falling tree or limb?
In Ontario, a property owner or the person in control of trees may face liability if a court finds a duty of care to keep people and property reasonably safe, reasonable maintenance was not done, and the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition before the incident, rather than the limb simply falling on its own; the occupier’s duty is set out in Occupier’s Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, s. 3(1) and negligence analysis often traces to Donoghue v. Stevenson.
For tree maintenance cases, decisions like Hallok v. Toronto Hydro Electric System Ltd., 2003 CanLII 8519, highlight that liability typically requires evidence of knowledge (or what a reasonable person ought to have known), including situations after storms where broken branches should reasonably be investigated, and willful blindness may support constructive knowledge; to discuss your specific Ontario facts and next steps for a claim or defence, contact DK Legal Practice by phone at (416) 906-6663.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Liability Involving Tree Maintenance
The value and benefits of trees are often overlooked and the potential liability risks associated with trees are often underestimated or misunderstood. It is important for owners, contractors, and other individuals to take due care of trees so to minimize the potential for trees to cause injury or damage and thus to minimize the potential liability risks.
Note: Please contact DK Legal Practice by phone at: (416) 906-6663 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
The Law
Duty of Care
Property owners have a duty to ensure that other people and the property property of other people are reasonably safe from harm arising from the negligence of a property owner. Such a duty in law was established within the general principles case of, among others, Donoghue v. Stevenson, which established the legal test for duty of care within the basic principles of negligence law. In Ontario, such a duty of care is also codified per the Occupier's Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, wherein it is stated:
3 (1) An occupier of premises owes a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises, and the property brought on the premises by those persons are reasonably safe while on the premises.
Negligently Performed Maintenance
Owners of trees, or others responsible for trees (such as hired maintenance contractors), generally face liability only when it was known, or constructively known, that a tree failure risk was present and the owner (or others) failed to properly tend to the tree. In this way it can be thought that the injury or damage was a result of delay in caring for the tree rather than the result of risks inherent in a tree. Essentially, the negligent failure to maintain is a man-made risk rather than a natural tree risk. On the point of liability for failure to maintain trees, such was addressed within the case of Hallok v. Toronto Hydro Electric System Ltd., 2003 CanLII 8519, wherein it was said:
[14] It would appear to be common ground that a property owner, such as Park Lawn, cannot be held responsible for damage resulting from a limb on a tree falling simply on the basis that the limb or tree fell. If the evidence does not establish that there was knowledge on the part of the defendant, Park Lawn, of a dangerous condition of a tree or that there was a dangerous condition of which the defendant Park Lawn ought to have knowledge, a finding of negligence is unavailable as a matter of law. (See: Culley v. Maguire, [1957] O.J. No. 52 (C.A.) at p. 1; Quinlan v. Gates, [2000] O.J. No. 5292(S.C.J.) at p. 2; Buttoni et al. v. Henderson et al., 21 O.R. 309 (H.C.J.) at p. 371; Doucette v. Parent, [1996] O.J. No. 3493 (Gen. Div.) at p. 4; Gasho v. Clinton (Town), [2001] O.J. No. 4505 (S.C.J. (Small Claims) at p. 4).
As such, it seems that knowledge, or constructive knowledge, of a dangerous condition is a requirement of liability for negligent maintenance of trees. Note that "constructive knowledge" is knowledge which the law deems a person ought to have based on reasonableness. If a reasonably diligent person would know of a dangerous condition this is "constructive knowledge" and proving actual knowledge becomes unnecessary. Constructive knowledge is often much easier to prove than actual knowledge. For example, following severe storms, property owners should reasonably be on alert for broken branches as well as other dangerous conditions. Additionally, it is important to recognize that intentionally avoiding investigation and thereby choosing to remain unaware of a dangerous condition may be deemed an act of willful blindness from which constructive knowledge may also be imposed.
Conclusion
Tree owners, or other persons who are hired to provide the care and maintenance of trees on behalf of the owners, are prescribed by law with a duty of care to reasonably ensure that the trees are maintained in a safe condition. If a person becomes injured or if property becomes damaged by a unreasonably maintained tree, liability may arise.
NOTE: An extensive variety of inquiries featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically signify an urgent requirement for prompt and proficient legal assistance, rather than a particular job title. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” operate under the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and hold the authority to represent clients in specified litigation matters. Advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise are fundamental to this role. DK Legal Practice provides legal representation within its licensed mandate/scope, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy designed to secure efficient and favourable outcomes for clients.
