Last Updated: August 22 2026
Can I be liable if a tree on my property (or my hired contractor’s) falls and damages someone’s car in Ontario?
In Ontario, liability for a fallen limb or tree is usually tied to negligence, meaning the owner or occupier (including a paralegal in Ontario who can help organize facts and duties) must have taken reasonable care and it generally requires proof of actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition before you can be held responsible. The occupier’s duty is set out in Occupier's Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, s. 3(1) and courts commonly say an owner can’t be held liable just because something fell, as reflected in Hallok v. Toronto Hydro Electric System Ltd., 2003 CanLII 8519 at para. 14. If severe storms occur, you’re typically expected to inspect and address hazards rather than ignore obvious risks, because willful blindness can support constructive knowledge. If you’re dealing with a claim or potential lawsuit, Caruso Legal Services can help you assess duties, evidence, and next steps and help you reduce avoidable exposure, call (289) 271-0488.
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 Caruso Legal Services by phone at: (289) 271-0488 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
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).
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 number of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicate a desire for prompt and competent legal assistance rather than a particular professional designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specified litigation matters. Key components of this role include advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. Caruso Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at achieving effective and positive outcomes for clients.
