Jeremy Rubenstein

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded over $1.8 million in damages for environmental contamination against one defendant but was unsuccessful against another, the court determined the costs payable by the unsuccessful defendant.

The court rejected the plaintiff's request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the defendant's conduct was not egregious.

The court applied a partial indemnity scale, reducing the fees by 10% to account for the successful co-defendant's involvement, and by a further 15% to reflect divided success on the issues and limited financial success compared to the amount claimed.

Total costs of $214,890.44 were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff property owner sued the adjacent dry cleaning business and its principal for environmental contamination caused by the migration of dry cleaning solvents (PCE/TCE) onto his lands.

The court dismissed claims in trespass, strict liability, and negligence, but found the corporate defendant liable in private nuisance and under section 99 of the Environmental Protection Act.

The individual defendant was not found liable as he did not own or control the pollutant at the time of the spills and his subsequent inaction did not cause the plaintiff's damages.

The court awarded the plaintiff $1,632,500 for remediation costs and $201,726.71 for engineering expenses.

The plaintiff tenant sought a declaration and specific performance of an agreement to purchase leased commercial lands from the defendant landlord following a barn collapse and insurance settlement.

The court held that the landlord's long-time property manager had actual or apparent authority to bind the corporation, that an enforceable agreement existed for the sale of the severable six-acre parcel, and that any deficiency under the Statute of Frauds was overcome by part performance.

The court further found the property was sufficiently unique and damages inadequate, particularly given the plaintiff's substantial improvements and the defendant's attempt to renegotiate after receiving the insurance cheque.

Specific performance was granted, the approval authority was directed to accept the severance application without the owner's consent, and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.