P.E. Roger J.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action seeking the return of a $100,000 donation.

The plaintiffs alleged the donation was a conditional gift made for the sole purpose of purchasing a home for three young men with developmental disabilities, and claimed breach of contract and misrepresentation.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and utilized its fact-finding powers, concluding that the contemporaneous evidence and the parties' subsequent actions contradicted the plaintiffs' claim of a conditional agreement.

The court found the donation was made without strings attached and dismissed the action, awarding costs to the defendants.

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 applicant sought Crown wardship of two young children based on allegations of severe physical, emotional, and sexual abuse by the parents against older siblings.

The court found the children in need of protection due to a real risk of physical and emotional harm, primarily stemming from the father's historical violence and the mother's failure to protect the older siblings.

However, applying the least disruptive alternative principle, the court rejected Crown wardship.

Instead, the court ordered that the children be placed in the mother's care under a 12-month supervision order with strict conditions, including that she have no contact with the father, who was granted only limited supervised access.

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.