Steven Greenberg

Following a judgment awarding the plaintiff damages for diminution in property value and engineering expenses due to environmental contamination, the parties disputed the calculation of prejudgment interest.

The plaintiff sought interest from the date the defendant was put on notice of the contamination at the presumptive rate of 1.3%, while the defendant argued for a later date and lower rate.

The court agreed with the plaintiff, finding no reason to depart from the presumptive rate or the date the cause of action arose, and awarded prejudgment interest accordingly.

The plaintiff, former owner of a commercial property, sued the neighbouring property owner for environmental contamination caused by the migration of dry-cleaning solvents (PCE, TCE, DCE).

The defendant purchased the neighbouring property in 2007 and was put on notice of the contamination in 2010 but failed to take reasonable steps to investigate or remediate the issue, ignoring Ministry of the Environment requests until a Provincial Officer's Order was issued.

The court found the defendant liable in nuisance and negligence for allowing the continuing migration of contaminants after acquiring knowledge of the issue.

The plaintiff was awarded $1,291,307.21 in damages, representing the diminution in the property's market value and reasonable engineering expenses incurred to obtain a Record of Site Condition.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the moving party sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The responding parties had attempted to resile from Minutes of Settlement and made unproven allegations of fraud and breach of trust against the moving party.

The court found that the responding parties' conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings and that their unproven allegations of dishonesty warranted an exception to the usual costs rules.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the moving party, excluding the costs of preparing the costs submissions.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage and its agent brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce Minutes of Settlement signed by all parties at a pre-trial conference.

The defendant vendors opposed the motion, arguing they did not understand the English proceedings or the settlement document due to a language barrier, and did not intend to release their counterclaim.

The court rejected the language barrier argument, noting the defendants had retained unilingual English professionals for the underlying transaction, conducted prior pleadings in English, and were represented by bilingual counsel at the pre-trial conference.

The court found a clear meeting of the minds on the essential terms of the settlement and granted summary judgment enforcing the agreement.

Family law trial addressing custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization following the breakdown of a short marriage.

The respondent claimed a beneficial interest in a residential property held in the applicant’s name pursuant to a declaration of trust for her mother and alleged the property constituted a matrimonial home or, alternatively, that he was entitled to compensation through unjust enrichment.

The court rejected both arguments, finding the property was an investment owned beneficially by the applicant’s mother and never occupied as a matrimonial home.

The respondent failed to prove financial contributions sufficient to establish deprivation for unjust enrichment.

Sole custody of the child was granted to the applicant with supervised access to the respondent and guideline child support based on the respondent’s income.

The respondent father brought a motion to change existing custody, access, and child support orders regarding his five children, who were in the legal custody of their maternal grandparents.

He sought custody of one child, unsupervised access to three younger children, and a reduction or elimination of child support arrears, arguing a material change in circumstances as he was studying medicine abroad.

The court found no material change regarding child support, as the father remained intentionally underemployed, and maintained the arrears.

Custody of the older child was reserved pending a report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer, and access to the younger children was ordered to remain supervised.

The father was also prohibited from bringing further child support proceedings until he paid outstanding costs awards.