Tree Liability Risk: The Duty of Care Owed to Persons Who May Be Harmed by Trees | DK Legal Practice
Helpful?
Yes No Share to Facebook

Tree Liability Risk:

The Duty of Care Owed to Persons Who May Be Harmed by Trees



Last Updated: August 22 2026

Question: When can I be liable in Ontario for injuries or property damage caused by a falling tree or limb?

Answer: 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

Although trees are extensively found throughout our urban and rural landscape, the value and benefits of trees are often taken for granted. Additionally, the potential liability risks are often unappreciated or misperceived. Owners and contractors, among others, should carefully heed the potential liability risks arising from the ownership, care, or control, of trees.

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).

Accordingly, it appears that some level of awareness by knowledge, or constructive knowledge, of a dangerous condition is required if liability is to arise for negligence in the ownership, care, or control, of a tree.  It is notable that "constructive knowledge" means knowledge that the law imparts upon a person who ought to actually hold knowledge based upon reasonableness principles; and as such, if a reasonably acting person would know of about a dangerous condition such is "constructive knowledge" and proving actually held knowledge is unnecessary.  In many circumstances, proving constructive knowledge is much easier than proving actually held knowledge.  As an example, following a severe storm, a court may deem that reasonably acting property owners would inspect trees for broken branches among other dangerous conditions.  In this regard, it is important to note that intentionally avoiding the inspection of trees, among other things, and thereby choosing to remain ignorant of a dangerous condition may be deemed an act from which constructive knowledge is 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.

At
Our Desk Now!
Need Help? Let's Get Started Today

NOTE: Do not send confidential information through the web form.  Use the web form only for your introduction.   Learn Why?
7

NOTE: A considerable amount of inquiries featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicate an urgency for competent legal assistance rather than merely seeking a specific title.  In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” fall under the regulation of the same Law Society that governs lawyers, granting them the authority to represent clients in certain litigation matters.  Core functions of this role include advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise.  DK Legal Practice provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and effective advocacy to attain timely and beneficial outcomes for clients.

AR, BN, CA+|EN, DT, ES, FA, FR, GU, HE, HI
IT, KO, PA, PT, RU, TA, TL, UK, UR, VI, ZH
Send a Message to: DK Legal Practice

NOTE: Do not send confidential details about your case.  Using this website does not establish a legal-representative/client relationship.  Use the website for your introduction with DK Legal Practice. 
Privacy Policy & Cookies | Terms of Use Your IP Address is: 216.73.216.158
DK Legal Practice

2010 Winston Park Dr., Suite 200
Oakville, Ontario,
L6H 5R7

P: (416) 906-6663
E: info@dklegalpractice.ca

Business Hours:

09:00AM - 05:00PM
09:00AM - 05:00PM
09:00AM - 05:00PM
09:00AM - 05:00PM
09:00AM - 05:00PM
Monday:
Tuesday:
Wednesday:
Thursday:
Friday:

By appointment only.  Please call for details.








Assistive Controls:  |   |  A A A