Yes No Share to Facebook
Tree Liability Risk:
The Duty of Care Owed to Persons Who May Be Harmed by Trees
Question: Can I be held liable in Ontario if a tree on my property falls and injures someone or damages a neighbour’s property?
Answer: In Ontario, liability for tree-related injury or damage often turns on whether you knew or should reasonably have known the tree was unsafe and failed to take reasonable steps to inspect or maintain it, including under Occupier’s Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2. Hall Paralegal Services provides Ontario paralegal services to help you assess potential exposure, gather evidence, and respond to claims related to tree maintenance and alleged negligence.
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.
The Law
Duty of Care
The basic principles of common law, particularly negligence and the legal test regarding duty of care as founded within the Donoghue v. Stevenson case (a general principles case rather than tree specific case), prescribe that property owners owe a duty to ensure that other persons and the property of others persons is reasonably safe. In Ontario, these duties are also codified the Occupier's Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, whereas it is said:
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. 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: A considerable number of online searches for “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicate an urgent requirement for competent legal representation instead of a particular professional designation. In Canada, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are empowered to represent clients in specified litigation matters. Advocacy, legal evaluation, and procedural expertise are pivotal to that function. Hall Paralegal Services provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and persuasive advocacy designed to secure efficient and favourable outcomes for clients.