Tree Liability Risk:

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

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

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:

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:

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.