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
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.
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
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
The owners of trees, or those entrusted with the care and maintenance of trees on behalf of the owners, owe a duty of care to reasonably ensure that the trees are maintained. If a person becomes injured or property becomes damaged by a tree that was improperly maintained, liability for the injury or damage may arise.
NOTE: A significant amount of inquiries related to “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicate a demand for prompt and proficient legal assistance rather than a specific designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in certain litigation matters. Advocacy, legal interpretation, and procedural expertise are fundamental to this role. Freed Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy designed to secure efficient and favourable resolutions for clients.
