Ontario’s Trespass to Property Act for Homeowners: Three Beliefs About “No Trespassing” Signs, Checked Against the Statute
A sign is one way to give notice under the Act. It is not a licence to act on your own, it does not put the fine in your pocket, and leaving it off does not leave your lawn unprotected.
Under Ontario law, what does a person actually have to do to commit trespass?
Section 2(1) of the Trespass to Property Act gives two separate routes. Route one: entering premises where entry is prohibited under the Act, or doing an activity there that the Act prohibits, without the occupier’s express permission. Route two: not leaving immediately after the occupier, or someone the occupier authorized, tells the person to go. On route one, the defendant has to prove the permission, not the owner. Either route can lead to a fine of up to $10,000 on conviction.
Source: Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 2(1) (e-Laws consolidation from June 5, 2025; fine amount in force since September 1, 2016).
I’m Arthur Zhao, a real estate broker in Toronto. Here is the moment this article is written for: you are standing at the side gate of a house that sits empty between tenants, a screwdriver in one hand and a freshly bought “No Trespassing” sign in the other. Before the screws go in, it is worth being clear about what you think that sign will do.
Three beliefs can ride along with it. One, that once the sign is up you are entitled to deal with an intruder yourself. Two, that if someone is charged, the fine is your compensation. Three, the mirror image: that a property with no fence and no sign is fair game. Each of these runs into a specific section of Ontario’s Trespass to Property Act, and the sections say something more useful than the beliefs do. Below, each belief is set against the wording of the statute, with the sections named so you can read them yourself.
First, who counts as the “occupier”
Almost every right in the Act is given to the occupier, so it matters who that is. Section 1(1) defines it to include a person in physical possession of the premises, or a person who has responsibility for and control over the condition of the premises, the activities there, or over who is allowed to enter, and it expressly allows for more than one occupier of the same premises. An owner holding a vacant house or an empty lot fits the second part of that definition. “Premises” is broad: land and structures, and it also covers water, trailers and portable structures used for residence, business or shelter, and vehicles that are not in operation.
Belief 1: “Once the sign is up, I can handle it myself”
The Act does give occupiers an arrest power, and it is worth reading all of it rather than the first line. Section 9(1) allows a police officer, the occupier, or a person the occupier has authorized to arrest without warrant anyone they believe on reasonable and probable grounds is on the premises in contravention of s.2. Section 9(2) then attaches a duty: a person who is not a police officer and makes that arrest shall promptly call for the assistance of a police officer and give the person into police custody. Section 9(3) treats the receiving officer as having made the arrest for the release, detention and bail provisions of the Provincial Offences Act. The power and the hand-off to police come as one package in the statute; the second half is not optional.
The Criminal Code adds a separate, federal layer. Section 35, defence of property, says a person is not guilty of an offence if all four of these elements are met: (a) they believe on reasonable grounds they are in peaceable possession of the property; (b) they believe on reasonable grounds someone is entering, taking, damaging or destroying it without legal entitlement; (c) what they do is for the purpose of preventing that or removing the person; and (d) what they do is reasonable in the circumstances. Subsections (2) and (3) carve out cases where the defence does not apply. None of this is a guide to what you should do at your gate; it is what the text requires.
One boundary belongs under this heading. A tenant living in a rental unit is not a trespasser. The tenant is in physical possession, and the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, s.39 says a landlord shall not recover possession of a rental unit subject to a tenancy unless the tenant has vacated or abandoned it, or a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting the tenant authorizes it. A sign on the door does not change that.
⚠️This article explains what the statutes say. It is not legal advice and not a guide to confronting anyone. Where the Act lets an occupier arrest, it also requires that person to promptly call police and hand the person over (s.9(2)). For a specific situation, speak with a lawyer or contact police.
Belief 2: “If they are fined, that money is mine”
According to s.2(1) of the Trespass to Property Act, a person convicted of trespass is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000. That is a penalty imposed by the court. Nothing in s.2 directs the fine to the occupier.
What the Act gives the person who actually suffered a loss is in s.12, and it has conditions. Under s.12(1), where someone is convicted under s.2 and caused damage during the offence, the court shall determine the damages and make a judgment in favour of the person who suffered them, on the request of the prosecutor and with that person’s consent. The current text sets no dollar ceiling on that judgment (s.12(1) was amended in 2016, in force September 1, 2016). Under s.12(3), damages and costs are in addition to any fine.
The fine and the damage award are two different things
Section 12(4) and (5): choosing between the two routes
Two parts of s.12 deserve a slow read before you consent to anything. Section 12(4) means that once a damage judgment is made in your favour, you cannot then sue the same person in civil court for damages arising out of the same facts. Section 12(5) runs the other way: if no one asks for the award, or the court refuses it, your right to bring a civil action is unaffected. So consenting under s.12(1) is a choice between two routes, and it is worth knowing that before the day in court.
💡 What the 2025 amendment changed, and what it did not. The Act was last amended by 2025, c. 5, Sched. 2, in force June 5, 2025. It added s.2(3): two circumstances a court must treat as aggravating when setting the penalty. The first is where the occupier, or someone authorized, gave notice to leave and the defendant was still on the premises in breach more than 24 hours later (or after any longer period the notice specified); s.2(4) says leaving and coming back does not reset that clock. The second is where the court finds at sentencing that the defendant is likely to contravene the section again. The same amendment revised the definition of “premises” and the wording of s.9(3).
What it did not change is the maximum fine. The $10,000 ceiling dates from 2016, c. 8, Sched. 6, in force September 1, 2016. My read is that the practical news in 2025 is the aggravating factors, and they reward one specific habit: giving a clear direction to leave, and being able to show when you gave it.
Belief 3: “No fence, no sign, so I can’t call it trespass”
Section 3(1) says entry may be prohibited by notice, and then lists premises where entry is prohibited without any notice:
(a) a garden, field or other land under cultivation, which the section says includes a lawn, an orchard, a vineyard, land planted with trees that have not reached an average height of more than two metres, and woodlots on land used primarily for agricultural purposes; and
(b) premises enclosed in a manner that indicates the occupier’s intention to keep people off or keep animals in.
So a front or back lawn is covered by the Act with no sign at all, and a fence that reads as “keep out” does the work of a notice by itself.
For land that falls into neither category, such as an unfenced, uncultivated lot, the second route in s.2(1) still applies: a person who does not leave immediately after being directed to by the occupier, or someone the occupier authorized, commits the offence. The direction can be spoken; s.5(1)(a) says notice may be given orally or in writing.
The Act also runs the other way. Section 3(2) creates a presumption that access for lawful purposes to the door of a building, by a route apparently provided and used for that purpose, is not prohibited. A courier walking up the front path to deliver a parcel is the kind of access that presumption describes. And notice can be selective: under s.4 and s.8, you can permit or prohibit particular activities, or apply notice to only part of the property.
If you do post notice, what the Act recognizes
Section 5(1) gives three methods: oral or written notice; signs posted so that a sign is clearly visible in daylight under normal conditions from the approach to each ordinary point of access; or the marking system in s.7. Under s.6, a sign naming or picturing an activity means it is permitted, and the same with an oblique line through it means it is prohibited. Under s.7, red markings give notice that entry is prohibited, and yellow markings give notice that entry is prohibited except for certain activities. Each marking must be large enough that a circle 10 centimetres in diameter fits wholly inside it, and must meet the same daylight-visibility rule. Section 5(2) says substantial compliance with the sign or marking method is sufficient notice.
What sits next to this Act
Two other statutes come up alongside trespass. According to the Occupiers’ Liability Act, s.3(1), an occupier owes people entering the premises a duty to take reasonable care that they are reasonably safe, and s.4 sets out narrower cases where that duty is reduced (covered in the FAQ below). The Criminal Code, s.177, makes it a summary conviction offence to loiter or prowl at night, without lawful excuse, on another person’s property near a dwelling-house on that property. The Trespass to Property Act itself is provincial; s.9(3) ties arrests under it to the Provincial Offences Act.
Someone Slips at Your Open House — Are You Liable? Ontario’s Occupiers’ Liability Act, Explained for Sellers and Landlords →Your Commercial Building Has Sat Vacant Too Long: Toronto’s Chapter 632 Duties vs. the Vacant Building Registry Model Elsewhere in Ontario →Transferring the House to Beat Creditors: How Ontario’s Fraudulent Conveyances Act Undoes It →First-Time Renter Guide →
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I need the official red markings, or is an ordinary “No Trespassing” sign enough?
Either can work. Section 5(1) of the Trespass to Property Act lists signs and the s.7 marking system as separate methods, and s.5(2) says substantial compliance with either is sufficient notice. A red marking must be big enough to contain a 10 cm circle (s.7(3)), and both signs and markings must be clearly visible in daylight from the approach to each ordinary point of access.
What if the person says they thought the land was theirs?
Section 2(2) of the Trespass to Property Act gives a defence, known as colour of right, where the land is concerned: the person reasonably believed they had title to or an interest in the land that entitled them to do what they did. The belief has to be reasonable; whether it was is decided on the facts by the court.
If I prosecute the trespasser myself, can I get my costs back?
Section 12(2) of the Trespass to Property Act says that where a private prosecutor conducts the prosecution and the defendant is convicted, the court shall determine the actual costs reasonably incurred and order the defendant to pay them. The exception is where the court thinks the prosecution was not necessary to protect the occupier or the occupier’s interests. Under s.12(6), that costs award can be filed in Small Claims Court for enforcement.
If a trespasser gets hurt on my property, am I liable?
The Occupiers’ Liability Act starts from a duty of reasonable care to people entering the premises (s.3(1)). The duty is reduced to not deliberately creating a danger and not acting with reckless disregard where the person was there to commit a criminal act (s.4(2)), or entered premises on the s.4(4) list where entry was prohibited under the Trespass to Property Act (s.4(3)(a)). That list covers rural premises (including vacant or undeveloped rural land), golf courses when closed, utility corridors and a few others; an urban backyard is not on it, and how a court treats a trespasser there is a case-law question this article does not answer.
Someone keeps walking around my house at night. Is that a different offence?
It can be. Section 177 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence, punishable on summary conviction, to loiter or prowl at night without lawful excuse on another person’s property near a dwelling-house on that property. That is federal criminal law, separate from the provincial Trespass to Property Act.
Discover more from GTA Real Estate Broker | Arthur Zhao
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
