Last Updated: August 22 2026
If a tree limb falls after a storm and I was hurt in Ontario, can I hold the property owner or their contractor liable?
In Ontario, property owners and those responsible for tree care can owe a duty of care to keep people and property reasonably safe, so liability is most likely where the owner (or hired maintenance contractor) knew or should have known about a dangerous tree condition and failed to take reasonable steps to maintain or address the risk. Under the Occupier’s Liability Act, Occupier's Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1, s. 3(1), and general negligence principles like Donoghue v. Stevenson, the key question is usually whether there was negligence tied to maintenance or care rather than the inherent fact that trees can fail. Courts also note that a property owner is generally not liable just because a limb falls; for example, Hallok v. Toronto Hydro Electric System Ltd., 2003 CanLII 8519. If you were injured or your property was damaged, a family law services provider paralegal at Denali Paralegal can help you understand potential claims, evidence to gather (photos, dates, weather, prior reports), and next steps for Ontario. For a practical legal plan, call (877) 414-4377 to book a FREE 1/2 hour consultation and discuss your situation.
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 Denali Paralegal by phone at: (877) 414-4377 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
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).
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 significant multitude of inquiries featuring “lawyers nearby” or “top lawyer in” typically indicate an urgent requirement for capable and effective legal assistance, rather than pinpointing a particular professional designation. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and possess the authority to advocate for clients in specific litigation contexts. Central to this role are advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. Denali Paralegal provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.
