Yes No Share to Facebook
Tree Liability Risk:
The Duty of Care Owed to Persons Who May Be Harmed by Trees
Last Updated: June 12 2026
Question: Who is liable in Ontario if a poorly maintained tree on someone’s property falls and injures a person or damages a neighbour’s property?
Answer: In Ontario, liability for a falling tree usually depends on whether the owner or maintenance contractor knew or should’ve known the tree was dangerous and failed to take reasonable care, including the occupier’s duty under Occupier’s Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2 and negligence principles from Donoghue v. Stevenson. For clear, practical guidance on your rights, evidence to gather, and next steps after tree-related injury or property damage, contact Freed Legal Services (Paralegal) serving clients across Ontario at (800) 716-1897.
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
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 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.
