At Grigoras Law, we understand that property damage can significantly impact your life, causing both financial loss and emotional distress. Our experienced legal team is dedicated to helping you navigate the complexities of property damage claims, ensuring you receive the compensation and justice you deserve. This page provides an in-depth overview of the main types of property torts, including trespass to land, nuisance, and the rule from Rylands v. Fletcher, and how we can assist you in each area.


Understanding Trespass to Land

Trespass to land occurs when an individual directly and physically intrudes onto land in the possession of another without lawful justification. This tort protects the possessor’s right to exclusive control over their property. The essential elements of trespass to land include:

  1. Direct and Physical Intrusion: The intrusion must be a direct physical act, such as entering the property without permission or placing objects on it.

  2. Possession: The plaintiff must have a right to possess the land.

  3. Intention: The act must be voluntary, though it need not be intentional. However, accidents or negligence can sometimes be defences.


To maintain an action in trespass, the plaintiff must prove a right of possession. This means demonstrating that they have actual control over the land and the intention to exclude others from it. Possession is not the same as ownership; even someone without legal title can sue for trespass if they have control over the property. This principle protects tenants, licensees, and others in lawful possession of land.

  • Possession vs. Ownership: It’s crucial to distinguish between possession and ownership. Possession involves actual control and the intention to exclude others, whereas ownership is the legal title to the property. For instance, a tenant in possession of a rented property can bring an action for trespass even if they do not own the property.

  • Establishing Possession: To prove possession, the plaintiff must show they have the right to occupy the land and exercise control over it. Evidence can include maintaining the land, paying property taxes, or having legal documentation like a lease or deed.


While trespass does not require proof of intention to trespass, the act must be voluntary. Accidental intrusions may not constitute trespass if the intruder did not voluntarily enter the land. However, if negligence led to the intrusion, the trespasser might still be liable.

  • Voluntary vs. Involuntary Acts: A voluntary act is one that the trespasser willingly performs, even if they are unaware they are trespassing. Involuntary acts, such as being pushed onto someone’s property, do not constitute trespass.

  • Negligence and Trespass: If the trespass is due to negligence, such as failing to control pets that wander onto another’s land, the trespasser may still be liable. This liability arises from the duty to prevent foreseeable intrusions


The physical act of trespassing involves a direct interference with the property. This can include walking onto the land, dumping waste, or constructing buildings or fences that encroach on the land. Trespass is actionable without proof of actual damage, meaning the plaintiff can claim for the mere violation of their possession rights.

  • Forms of Trespass: Trespass can take many forms, from physical entry to placing objects on another’s land. For example, driving a vehicle onto someone’s property without permission is a clear act of trespass. Similarly, overhanging tree branches or throwing debris onto neighbouring land also constitute trespass.

  • Constructive Trespass: Even if the trespass does not cause immediate physical harm, it can still be actionable. For instance, if someone places a sign or structure that encroaches on your land, it is considered trespass even if it does not cause immediate damage.


Common defences to trespass include:

  • Consent: If the plaintiff consented to the intrusion, there is no trespass. Consent can be explicit, such as a verbal or written agreement, or implied from the circumstances, like allowing a neighbour to use your driveway occasionally.

  • Necessity: Trespass may be excused if it was necessary to prevent greater harm. For instance, entering someone’s land to save a person or animal in distress is often justified.

  • Accidental Entry: If the entry was not voluntary, it may not be considered trespass. This applies when the trespasser had no control over their actions, such as being pushed or carried onto the property.

  • Legal Right: If the defendant had a legal right to enter the land, such as an easement, they may not be liable for trespass. Easements allow specific uses of the property, like a right of way.


Trespass is actionable per se, meaning that the plaintiff does not need to prove actual damage to bring a claim. However, if the trespass causes damage, the plaintiff can claim compensation for any losses. The concept of remoteness limits the damages recoverable to those that are a direct and foreseeable result of the trespass.

  • Nominal Damages: Awarded when no substantial harm has occurred, recognizing the violation of rights. This serves as a symbolic acknowledgment of the trespass.

  • Compensatory Damages: Covering actual losses suffered by the plaintiff, such as costs for repairs, loss of use, and other quantifiable damages.

  • Punitive Damages: Imposed to punish and deter particularly egregious conduct. These are awarded when the trespass is malicious or in flagrant disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.


Remedies for trespass include:

  • Injunctive Relief: A court order to prevent further trespassing.

  • Damages: Compensation for any loss or damage caused by the trespass, including:
    • Nominal Damages: Awarded when no substantial harm has occurred, recognizing the violation of rights.

    • Compensatory Damages: Covering actual losses suffered by the plaintiff.

    • Punitive Damages: Imposed to punish and deter particularly egregious conduct.


  1. Residential Intrusion: A homeowner sues a neighbour for building a fence that encroaches on their property, resulting in a successful claim for trespass and an order to remove the fence.

  2. Commercial Encroachment: A business owner brings a trespass claim against a construction company for unauthorized use of their land as a storage site, leading to compensatory and punitive damages.

  3. Environmental Trespass: An industrial company dumps waste on a neighbouring property, leading to significant environmental damage and a substantial award for cleanup costs and punitive damages.


Understanding Nuisance

Nuisance is a legal concept that refers to activities or conditions that significantly interfere with the use and enjoyment of property. It can take the form of excessive noise, unpleasant odours, or harmful pollutants that disrupt daily life. Nuisance can be classified into public nuisance, affecting a community or the general public, and private nuisance, impacting specific individuals or properties. Addressing nuisance issues often involves legal action to stop the disruptive behaviour and seek compensation for any harm caused.


Public nuisance affects the rights of the public or a significant portion of the community. Examples include obstructing a public road or polluting a river. Legal action can be taken by public authorities or individuals who suffer specific harm beyond that experienced by the general public.

  • Scope and Impact: Public nuisances often involve actions that harm a community or large group of people. These nuisances can interfere with public health, safety, comfort, or convenience.

  • Examples of Public Nuisance: Blocking a public roadway, illegal dumping of hazardous waste, and operating a business that creates excessive noise or pollution are typical examples of public nuisance.

  • Legal Standing: Typically, public authorities, such as municipalities or government agencies, initiate actions to abate public nuisances. However, private individuals may also sue if they suffer special damages distinct from the general public.


Private nuisance is a substantial and unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of land by an individual. This can include:

  • Noise: Excessive noise from a neighbour, such as loud music, machinery, or frequent gatherings.

  • Odours: Offensive smells from factories, farms, or waste disposal sites.

  • Pollution: Contaminants entering the property from an external source, such as industrial runoff or toxic chemicals.


To establish a claim for private nuisance, the plaintiff must prove:

  1. Interference: There must be an interference with the use or enjoyment of the land.

  2. Substantial Harm: The interference must be substantial, not trivial or minor.

  3. Unreasonableness: The interference must be unreasonable, judged by what an average person would tolerate.
  • Substantial Interference: For an interference to be considered substantial, it must be significant and not a minor inconvenience. For example, loud music played occasionally may not be substantial, but constant loud noise over an extended period could be.

  • Unreasonable Interference: The court assesses whether the interference is unreasonable by considering factors like the nature and duration of the activity, the sensitivity of the plaintiff, and the character of the locality. What might be acceptable in an industrial area could be unreasonable in a residential neighbourhood.


Defences to nuisance may include:

  • Statutory Authority: If the activity causing the nuisance is authorized by statute, it may not be actionable. For instance, if a factory operates within legal noise limits set by environmental laws, it might not be liable for nuisance.

  • Prescription: Long-term tolerance of the nuisance by the plaintiff can sometimes create a prescriptive right. If the nuisance has been ongoing for many years without objection, the defendant might argue that they have acquired a right to continue.

  • Contributory Negligence: If the plaintiff contributed to the nuisance, their compensation might be reduced. For example, if a homeowner builds a house next to an existing industrial site, they might have limited grounds to complain about noise.


Remedies for nuisance include:

  • Injunctive Relief: Stopping the nuisance activity. Injunctions can be permanent or temporary, depending on the circumstances and the court’s judgment.

  • Damages: Compensation for loss or discomfort suffered, which can include:

    • Compensatory Damages: For the actual harm suffered, such as physical damage to property, loss of use, or discomfort.

    • Special Damages: Covering specific losses, such as relocation costs or medical expenses. These are awarded for quantifiable financial losses directly resulting from the nuisance.

    • Exemplary Damages: Imposed to punish and deter particularly harmful behaviour. These damages are awarded in cases where the defendant’s conduct was especially malicious or egregious.


  1. Industrial Noise: A homeowner successfully sues a nearby factory for constant loud noises disrupting their peace, resulting in an injunction and compensatory damages.

  2. Chemical Spill: A farming community wins a nuisance claim against a chemical plant for contamination of soil and water, leading to significant compensatory and exemplary damages.

  3. Air Pollution: Residents sue a manufacturing company for air pollution that causes health issues and property damage, resulting in a court order to install pollution control measures and substantial compensation for medical and property repair costs.


Origin and Scope

The rule from the landmark case Rylands v. Fletcher establishes strict liability for harm caused by the escape of dangerous substances from a defendant’s land. It applies when a person brings onto their land something likely to cause damage if it escapes and fails to prevent its escape, resulting in harm to another’s property.

  • Historical Context: The rule originated from an 1868 English case where a reservoir burst and flooded a neighbouring mine. The court held the reservoir owner strictly liable for the damage, even without proof of negligence.

  • Strict Liability: Under Rylands v. Fletcher, the defendant is liable regardless of whether they were negligent. The focus is on the accumulation of a potentially dangerous substance and the subsequent escape and damage.

Factual Situations

Common applications of this rule include:

  • Industrial Activities: Chemicals or pollutants escaping from industrial sites, leading to contamination of neighbouring properties.

  • Water: Water escaping from reservoirs, pipes, or tanks and causing flooding or water damage to adjacent land.


For a claim under Rylands v. Fletcher to succeed, the plaintiff must prove:

  1. Accumulation: The defendant brought onto their land a substance likely to cause harm if it escapes.

  2. Escape: The substance escaped from the defendant’s land.

  3. Non-Natural Use: The use of the land was non-natural or unusual.

  4. Damage: The escape caused damage to the plaintiff’s property.
  • Non-Natural Use: This refers to uses that are not common for the land in question. For example, storing large quantities of industrial chemicals in a residential area would be considered a non-natural use.

  • Escape: The substance must physically leave the defendant’s property and cause damage. This could include scenarios like toxic waste seeping into groundwater or oil spilling onto adjacent land.


Defences to claims under Rylands v. Fletcher include:

  • Act of God: Natural events that could not be foreseen or prevented, such as extreme weather conditions. If a natural disaster causes the escape, the defendant may not be liable.

  • Plaintiff’s Fault: If the damage was caused or contributed to by the plaintiff, the defendant may not be liable. For example, if the plaintiff tampered with a containment system, causing the escape, their claim might fail.

  • Consent: If the plaintiff consented to the presence of the dangerous substance, they may not be able to claim for damages. Consent can be explicit or implied from the circumstances.


As with other torts, remedies include injunctive relief and compensation for damages caused by the escape of dangerous substances. Damages can cover the cost of repairs, loss of use of the property, and any other losses directly attributable to the escape.


  1. Chemical Leak: A neighbourhood sues a chemical plant for a leak that contaminated the local water supply, resulting in substantial compensatory and punitive damages.

  2. Reservoir Flooding: A farming community successfully claims damages from a company after a reservoir breach floods their lands, destroying crops and infrastructure.

  3. Toxic Spill: Residents of a rural area file a claim under Rylands v. Fletcher after a waste disposal company’s storage tanks rupture, releasing hazardous chemicals into the environment. The court awards significant compensation for environmental cleanup and health-related damages.


Dealing with property damage claims requires a deep understanding of property law and a strategic approach to ensure your rights are protected. If you are facing issues related to property damage, having the right legal representation can make all the difference. For individuals and businesses in Toronto and throughout Ontario, Grigoras Law is the premier choice for handling property damage claims.

Why Choose Grigoras Law for Your Property Damage Case?

Expertise in Property Damage Law: Our legal team, led by experienced lawyers Denis Grigoras and Rachelle Wabischewich, brings extensive knowledge and experience to every case. Property damage law is a complex field that demands a thorough understanding of various legal principles. We navigate these complexities with precision, ensuring comprehensive legal guidance and effective advocacy across Ontario.

Client-Centric Approach: At Grigoras Law, your needs and well-being come first. We offer personalized legal solutions tailored to your unique situation, ensuring peace of mind and steadfast support throughout your legal journey. Our approach is centred on you; we listen, understand your concerns, and develop strategies that best suit your specific needs. Your peace of mind and satisfaction are our foremost priorities.

Proven Track Record: Our history of successful outcomes speaks to our ability to effectively represent clients in property damage cases. We have consistently helped clients protect their property rights and secure fair compensation for damages. Our reputation as litigation lawyers in Toronto is built on a solid foundation of successful cases. We consistently achieve favourable outcomes for our clients, demonstrating our commitment to excellence.

Holistic Legal Understanding: We integrate property damage law with other areas of civil litigation, allowing us to approach cases from a comprehensive perspective. Property damage often overlaps with issues like nuisance, trespass, and environmental law, which Grigoras Law is equipped to handle. Our multifaceted expertise ensures no stone is left unturned, whether you are asserting your rights or defending against allegations. Our team possesses in-depth knowledge across various areas of law, enabling us to provide holistic and nuanced legal support.

Convenient and Accessible: Based in the heart of Toronto, Grigoras Law is your local legal partner, easily accessible to clients throughout the GTA and Ontario. We are dedicated to providing expert legal support right when you need it most. Our central location ensures that you can easily reach us, and we are committed to serving clients from all corners of Ontario with the same level of dedication and expertise.

A Team You Can Trust: Our exceptional legal team, led by Denis Grigoras and Rachelle Wabischewich, is committed to your success. We pay close attention to every detail, respond promptly to your needs, and work tirelessly to find unique and effective solutions. With us, you’re not just getting legal support; you’re gaining partners who genuinely care about your situation. Our team is known for its dedication, professionalism, and unwavering commitment to our clients’ well-being.

Tailored Legal Strategies: At Grigoras Law, we understand that every property damage case is unique. We take the time to understand the specifics of your situation and tailor our legal strategies accordingly. Whether you are dealing with trespass, nuisance, or complex liability issues, we develop a customized approach to achieve the best possible outcome for you.

Comprehensive Support: We provide comprehensive support for all aspects of your property damage case. From gathering evidence and building a strong case to representing you in court, we are with you every step of the way. Our thorough and strategic approach ensures that all bases are covered, giving you the confidence that your case is in capable hands.

Protecting Your Property Rights: In today’s world, protecting your property rights is vital. We understand the importance of safeguarding your investments and take a proactive approach to protect them. Our team works diligently to address any property damage issues promptly and effectively, minimizing the impact on your life and future.

Navigating Complex Legal Challenges: Property damage cases can be complex, often involving multiple legal issues. Our team’s holistic understanding of the law allows us to navigate these challenges with ease. We are adept at handling cases where property damage intersects with other areas of civil litigation, ensuring that no detail is overlooked.

Take Control of Your Legal Situation

Protecting your property rights is crucial. When facing property damage issues, seek the guidance of Grigoras Law, your trusted ally in civil litigation. We are here to represent you, ensuring you have the advocacy and expertise needed to navigate your legal challenges. Take control of your legal situation with confidence, knowing that you have a dedicated and skilled legal team by your side.

Contact Grigoras Law Today

If you are dealing with property damage or if you are facing allegations related to property damage, don’t hesitate to reach out to our qualified Toronto civil litigation lawyers. We proudly represent clients across Ontario. Our team is dedicated to offering bespoke solutions, attentively crafted to suit your distinct needs. Choose Grigoras Law for a dedicated and skilled legal team ready to stand by your side every step of the way. We prioritize delivering a high standard of professional service, ensuring every aspect of your case receives focused and expert attention.

At Grigoras Law, we understand the profound impact that property damage can have on your life and assets. Our commitment to excellence, client-centric approach, and proven success make us the ideal partner for your property damage case. Trust us to protect your property rights and provide the robust legal support you need.


Disclaimer: The answers provided in this FAQ section are general in nature and should not be relied upon as formal legal advice. Each individual case is unique, and a separate analysis is required to address specific context and fact situations. For comprehensive guidance tailored to your situation, we welcome you to contact our expert team.

Nuisance in legal parlance is an act causing substantial and unreasonable interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of their property. Nuisance can come in various forms and contexts. Here are a few instances (based on previous cases) where certain actions can be regarded as a nuisance:

  1. Creating drainage ditches without appropriate licensing: A court may consider it a nuisance when a defendant unreasonably creates three drainage ditches that result in flooding to the plaintiff’s land. The defendant would have to first obtain a license under the relevant water legislation to carry out such activities. This is rooted in the principle that it is never reasonable for one landowner to drain land at the expense of another.

  2. Diverting water to a neighbour’s property: Installing a pipe for the purpose of diverting water to a neighbour’s property, in order to avoid the natural drainage of a neighbour’s property on one’s own property, may also be considered a nuisance. This action does not constitute a normal use of land.

  3. Failure to maintain a drainage pipe: If a landowner neglects to maintain a drainage pipe, and this results in a loss of enjoyment for the plaintiff, such negligence could be characterized as a nuisance. The harm here could be physical damage to the plaintiff’s property or simply an undue inconvenience.

  4. Damage caused by water or sewage lines: There have been many cases where damage to property, caused by issues like water or sewage lines, has led to courts finding municipalities liable for nuisance. This usually occurs when the municipality fails to uphold its duty to maintain these essential utilities.

However, it’s important to note that not every inconvenience qualifies as a nuisance. For instance, placing an object in waters that obstructs the neighbour’s view is not regarded as a nuisance, as loss of enjoyment of a view does not constitute a nuisance.

These examples provide an overview of the kinds of activities that can be considered a nuisance. However, whether a specific act will be deemed a nuisance often depends on the circumstances and severity of the interference, and such determinations are usually made on a case-by-case basis.

The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, a well-established common law principle, could be invoked in a property damage claim case between two neighbours. This rule establishes strict liability for damage caused by the non-natural use of one’s land which results in an escape of something harmful onto a neighbouring property.

To break it down further, here’s how the rule might apply:

Strict Liability Rule: According to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, the owner of a property who brings something onto their land (which is likely to do mischief if it escapes) is liable for any damage caused if it does escape, even if they took every possible care to prevent it from doing so. For instance, let’s consider a hypothetical scenario: if one neighbour constructed a large water reservoir on their property (which is not a typical, natural use of residential land), and due to some mishap, the water overflowed into the adjoining property causing damage, under this rule, the neighbour who constructed the reservoir would be strictly liable.

Non-Natural Use of Land: A key element of the rule is that it applies to a “non-natural” use of land. This essentially means an unusual or special use of the land that brings with it an increased risk of harm to others. The question of whether a use is “non-natural” can be somewhat subjective and depends on various factors. For example, while a small garden pond might be considered a natural use of a property, a large artificial lake or a chemical storage facility would likely be considered non-natural uses.

It’s important to note that the test for “non-natural” use does not necessarily relate to whether the use is unnatural in a common-sense way. It rather refers to a use that is special and not ordinary, which introduces a new danger to the vicinity that did not exist before.

General Benefit for the Community: If the use of the land is for the general benefit of the community, the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher does not apply. This caveat exists because certain necessary activities, although potentially hazardous, are beneficial or essential for the community at large. For example, if a city constructs a water tower (a non-natural use) that ends up leaking and causing damage, the city may not be liable because the tower provides a general benefit to the community.

However, it’s important to remember that the application of this rule can vary significantly depending on jurisdiction and specific factual circumstances. Certain jurisdictions might interpret and apply these principles differently, and factors such as local laws, regulations, and precedents could have an important impact on the case. Therefore, anyone dealing with a potential Rylands v. Fletcher situation should seek specific legal advice.

The key difference between a nuisance and a trespass to land lies primarily in the directness and physicality of the interference with a person’s property rights. Both nuisances and trespasses are forms of interference, however, they are distinctly different in terms of the nature and manner of the interference.

Trespass to Land

A trespass to land occurs when there is a direct and physical intrusion onto another person’s property. This requires the interference to be immediate and tangible, involving an unauthorized entry, or the placement or projection of some material object on the property.

Examples of trespass might include throwing stones onto someone else’s property or deliberately discharging a substance such as water or oil onto another’s property. Notably, the nature of the substance, whether it’s toxic or non-toxic, does not factor into determining whether a trespass has occurred. The primary concern is the direct and unjustifiable interference with possession.


A nuisance, on the other hand, involves indirect interference with a person’s enjoyment of their property. It is generally caused by something that originates elsewhere but subsequently affects the plaintiff’s land.

For instance, allowing stones from a crumbling chimney to fall onto a neighbour’s property could be considered a nuisance. Other examples could include a noise or smell that crosses property boundaries or substances like water or oil that unintentionally flow or seep onto another person’s property. An important consideration here is that the defendant must have had some degree of control over the interference, although the situation doesn’t necessarily have to be one of “no control whatsoever.”

Direct vs Indirect Interference

Determining whether an interference is direct or indirect isn’t always clear-cut and may depend on the specifics of the case. For instance, a fence leaning onto a neighbour’s property due to natural forces like frost and snow might not constitute a trespass because the intrusion is beyond the defendant’s control. Likewise, a discharge of oil into the sea that eventually washes up onto someone else’s property might be considered a nuisance rather than a trespass because the interference is consequential rather than direct.

It’s also worth noting that the tangibility of the offending item isn’t the sole determinant of liability. For instance, nuisances could involve tangible objects like golf balls, water, or sewage. The key factor is not the substance itself but how it ended up on the other person’s property.


In essence, trespass to land involves direct, physical interference with another’s property, while nuisance pertains to indirect interference that affects a person’s enjoyment of their property. The nuances of each case can be complex, and the characterization of an act as a nuisance or a trespass might differ based on the specific circumstances. It’s always recommended to consult with a legal professional to fully understand the implications of these legal concepts in a particular situation.

The liability of the city for damage caused by sewage overflow onto your property from city property largely depends on the laws in your specific jurisdiction. However, there are some general principles of liability that are common across jurisdictions.

Municipalities can often be found liable in nuisance for damage caused to property due to water overflow unless legislation states otherwise. This would be applicable in cases like yours where sewage is overflowing from city property onto your own property and causing damage.

However, this liability is not absolute. The city may be able to avoid liability if it can show that the damage was an unavoidable result of an exercise of its statutory authority. Essentially, the city would need to prove that it had no alternative ways of managing the sewage and that it was practically impossible to avoid the nuisance in the course of carrying out its duties. This is a narrow defence and can be difficult for the city to establish.

Some jurisdictions may exempt municipalities from liability for damage caused by an overflow of water, such as in a sewer, drain, ditch, or watercourse if the overflow is due to natural causes like excessive snow, ice, or rain. It’s also worth noting that in some places, like Manitoba, the Crown (or government) can’t face greater liability than a municipality.

In some jurisdictions, the law may be designed to limit liability claims against municipalities to instances of negligence. This would require showing a higher standard of care, meaning that the city or one of its employees was directly responsible for the overflow due to a failure to act with proper care.

For instance, in Alberta and Prince Edward Island, legislation states that a city can only be held liable for water overflow damage if it can be shown that the overflow was due to the negligence of the city or one of its employees. British Columbia limits or precludes nuisance liability for municipalities in cases involving the breakdown or malfunction of sewer or water systems. Newfoundland and Labrador precludes nuisance liability for municipalities altogether.

However, in jurisdictions like Ontario, the exemption only applies to “escapes” of water or sewage, meaning if the damage is caused by surface water, the municipality may still be liable in nuisance.

In conclusion, the city’s liability for the sewage overflow damaging your property depends largely on the specific laws and regulations in your jurisdiction. If you are dealing with such a situation, it is highly recommended to consult with a legal professional who can provide guidance based on your local laws.

Proficient in handling claims.

Talk to a Property Damage Lawyer

At Grigoras Law, our property damage lawyers specialize in trespass, nuisance, and strict liability claims, providing diligent and expert legal representation for both plaintiffs and defendants.

negligence lawyer