Last Updated: August 22 2026
In Ontario, can I claim damages if a tree limb falls and I believe poor maintenance caused it?
In Ontario, you may have a negligence claim if you can show the occupier knew or ought to have known about a dangerous tree condition and failed to take reasonable care to prevent harm, rather than relying only on the fact that the limb fell; the duty is grounded in Occupier’s Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1, s. 3(1) and common negligence principles (including Donoghue v. Stevenson) also guide duty of care Ontario cases like Hallok v. Toronto Hydro Electric System Ltd., 2003 CanLII 8519 stress that liability typically needs evidence of actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition, such as after storms or obvious defects if you’re dealing with injuries, property damage, insurance issues, or need help assessing evidence and timelines, Freed Legal Services can help review the maintenance history and strengthen your position, call (800) 716-1897 for a free 1/2 hour consultation.
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 Freed Legal Services by phone at: (800) 716-1897 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
Generally, the owner of a tree, or other persons responsible for the care of a tree such as hired maintenance contractors, will be held liable for injury or damage caused by the tree only when it was known, or constructively known, that a tree failure risk was present and the owner, or other person, failed to take proper care of the tree. Accordingly, it should be viewed that the injury or damage resulted due to neglect in the care of the tree rather than as a result of inherent risks. Essentially, it is the man-made risk of negligent failure to maintain a tree rather than an inherently natural tree risk that is said to give rise to liability for injury or damage. On the point that liability arises for the negligent failure to maintain trees rather than being absolute so to include inherent risks, such concerns were addressed within the case of Hallok v. Toronto Hydro Electric System Ltd., 2003 CanLII 8519, wherein it was stated:
[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: A considerable quantity of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically signifies a demand for prompt and competent legal assistance, rather than a specific job title. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and have the authority to represent clients in specific litigation cases. Key elements of this role include advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. Freed Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and persuasive advocacy aimed at securing effective and positive outcomes for clients.
