Trespassers, Uninvited Kids and 'Attractive Nuisance' in Canada

"They were trespassing, so I can't be liable" is one of the most confidently repeated half-truths in Canadian property law. The trespasser part is often true. The conclusion isn't. Occupiers still owe trespassers something — just considerably less than what's owed to someone invited onto the property lawfully.

Can a trespasser sue you if they get hurt on your property?#

Yes, in every Canadian province, but the standard is much lower than the "reasonable care" duty owed to a lawful visitor. Ontario's Occupiers' Liability Act and BC's Occupiers Liability Act both generally limit the duty owed to someone who enters without permission, or who is deemed to have willingly assumed the risk, to not creating a danger with deliberate intent to harm them, and not acting with reckless disregard for their safety. That's a meaningfully thinner duty — but "thinner" is not "none."

What does "willingly assumed all risks" actually mean?#

It's the statutory phrase both provinces use to describe someone who enters property understanding they're not welcome, or who's committing a criminal act while there. Under Ontario's Occupiers' Liability Act, a person on premises with the intention of committing, or in the commission of, a criminal act is deemed to have willingly assumed all risks. BC's Occupiers Liability Act uses nearly identical language: a trespasser committing or intending a criminal act is deemed to have willingly assumed all risks, and the occupier owes only the reduced duty described above.

The practical effect: a porch pirate injured while grabbing a package off your steps has a much weaker claim than an invited guest tripping on the same steps — but "much weaker" still isn't the same as "impossible," if the hazard was something you created on purpose or ignored with obvious disregard.

The two duties, side by side#

What about someone who's uninvited but not exactly a trespasser — a delivery, a canvasser, someone lost?#

This is the gap in the "trespasser" framing that trips people up. Someone approaching your front door to deliver a package, canvass for a cause, or ask directions is generally treated as having an implied licence to walk up your driveway or path to the door — a common-law concept distinct from trespassing outright. They haven't been invited the way a dinner guest has, but they haven't trespassed either, and the full reasonable-care duty owed to lawful entrants generally applies to them, not the reduced trespasser standard. The uninvited-but-implicitly-licensed visitor and the outright trespasser are not the same legal category, even though neither received a personal invitation.

Is Alberta's rule the same as Ontario's and BC's?#

Broadly similar, worded differently. Alberta's Occupiers' Liability Act uses a "wilful or reckless conduct" standard for non-criminal trespassers rather than the "deliberate intent to harm" and "reckless disregard" phrasing Ontario and BC use, but the practical effect lands in the same place: an occupier isn't liable to an ordinary trespasser absent conduct that's intentional or recklessly careless. The exact wording differs enough between provinces that leaning on one province's phrasing to predict another's outcome is a common and avoidable mistake — confirm which province's Act actually governs your situation.

Does a "No Trespassing" sign protect me?#

Partially, and it's often overrated as a shield. A posted sign can help establish that entry was prohibited — which matters for the reduced-duty analysis under provincial Occupiers' Liability Acts — but it does not erase liability for a hazard you created deliberately or maintained with reckless disregard. The over-correction people make is treating a sign as a complete legal force field. It shifts the analysis in your favour; it doesn't end the analysis.

Is "attractive nuisance" a real thing in Canada?#

Not as a named legal doctrine. "Attractive nuisance" is American terminology, and Canadians who encounter it online reasonably wonder if it applies here. It doesn't, by that name — but the underlying reasoning does show up in Canadian occupiers' liability analysis. Courts ask what an occupier should reasonably have anticipated, and an unfenced pool, a visible but broken play structure, or a climbable pile of construction material in a residential neighbourhood is foreseeably attractive to a child regardless of whether "attractive nuisance" is the phrase used to describe it. The doctrine's name doesn't cross the border. The common sense behind it does.

What actually raises your risk with an uninvited entrant?#

A handful of patterns show up again and again in occupiers' liability cases involving trespassers or uninvited guests:

• You created the hazard, rather than merely failing to fix one. Deliberately dug holes, intentionally left dangerous, unlit conditions — these look like the "deliberate intent to harm" the reduced duty still prohibits.
• The hazard was known and ignored for a long time. A collapsing structure, a broken step, a downed fence around a pool — the longer a known danger sits unaddressed, the closer it gets to "reckless disregard."
• Children are foreseeably nearby. Courts generally expect more care in situations where child entrants are predictable, whether or not "attractive nuisance" is the label applied.
• The property looks inviting, not forbidding. An open gate, a well-worn shortcut path, or an unlocked pool area reads differently than a fenced, signed, genuinely secured property.

This is also the natural territory of a related, more common scenario: an invited guest hurt on your stairs or at a gathering faces the full reasonable-care duty, not the reduced one covered here. Someone Fell on Your Property: The First 48 Hours covers what to actually do in that far more common situation, and Occupiers' Liability is the underlying concept for both.

Where does this show up most often in practice?#

Backyard pools, trampolines, and icy walkways are the recurring settings. Backyard Pool Drowning Liability and Trampoline Injury Liability both deal with the invited-guest version of these hazards, where the full reasonable-care duty applies regardless of trespasser rules. The trespasser question matters most for the uninvited version of the same hazard — the neighbour's kid who climbs the fence, not the one you asked over.

Does this apply to a dog bite too?#

A related but distinct body of law. Dog Bite Lawsuit Canada explains that strict liability rules under most provinces' Dog Owners' Liability-type statutes work somewhat differently from the occupiers' framework here — precautions can affect damages without eliminating liability in ways that often surprise owners. Don't assume the trespasser reasoning above transfers directly to an animal claim; check the dog-specific page instead.

What should you actually do if you have a known hazard on your property?#

1. Fix what you can, promptly. A known, unaddressed hazard is what tips "reduced duty" toward "reckless disregard," regardless of who eventually gets hurt on it.
2. Fence and secure attractive hazards — pools especially — rather than relying on signage alone.
3. Post signage where entry genuinely isn't wanted, understanding it helps your position; it doesn't replace fixing the underlying danger.
4. Don't assume a trespasser claim is worthless. It's weaker than an invited-guest claim, not automatically zero, and your home policy's liability section still responds to defend you either way.

The bottom line#

Trespassing narrows your legal duty considerably — it does not eliminate it. Canadian occupiers' liability law protects property owners from claims by people who deliberately entered where they weren't wanted or were committing a crime, but it still expects you not to create real danger on purpose or ignore an obvious one for years. Most trespasser claims genuinely go nowhere, which is the honest reassurance; the exceptions are concentrated exactly where you'd expect — deliberate hazards, ignored warnings, and children who were foreseeably going to wander in.