Can you remove a tree that sits directly on your and your neighbour’s property line without asking them?
Dr. Mart Gross, a university biology professor in Toronto, thought the answer was yes—provided the tree was a safety hazard.
For years, Dr. Gross had eyed the mature Norway maple straddling his property line with his neighbor, Scott Scheuermann. As a biologist, he saw deep cracks and structural deformities that made him fear the tree would collapse onto his house. He called the city, and a forestry supervisor agreed it was dangerous, issuing a removal permit. The city even told Dr. Gross his neighbor’s objections didn’t matter if the tree was a hazard.
But the Scheuermanns loved the tree’s shade and had their own expert who insisted it was perfectly safe. Knowing his neighbors would never agree, Dr. Gross waited for the perfect moment. Over the Easter long weekend in April 2013, while the Scheuermanns were away, he hired a tree-removal crew.
When the Scheuermanns came home, they were devastated to find their beloved maple reduced to a stump. Furious, they launched a private prosecution against Dr. Gross under Ontario’s Forestry Act, which states that boundary trees are common property and cannot be injured or cut down without mutual consent.
At trial, Dr. Gross argued he was just protecting his property from an imminent hazard. But the judge didn’t buy it, pointing out that Dr. Gross had held onto the city permit for over three years before acting. You cannot claim a tree is an immediate emergency, the court ruled, and then wait years to cut it down behind your neighbor’s back.
Ultimately, Dr. Gross was found guilty and ordered to pay a $5,000 fine. The case sent a clear warning to homeowners: a city permit does not override civil property rights, and you cannot take the law into your own hands when a tree belongs to both of you.