Steven J. 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.

The appellant appealed a Family Court order awarding the respondent spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines for both quantum and duration, as well as a payment for unjust enrichment based on a joint family venture.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by not deducting the respondent's Ontario Disability Support Program benefits from the spousal support calculation and by finding an inability to work without independent expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the support award and upholding the trial judge's application of the joint family venture framework to the unjust enrichment claim.

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for an upcoming appeal to be heard by videoconference.

The court provided detailed instructions on the use of ZOOM, electronic filing via a drop box, formatting of electronic documents, and the submission of factums, compendiums, and costs materials.

The applicant husband sought a determination of urgency for his proposed motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and a restraining order against the respondent wife, alleging chronic alcoholism and verbal abuse.

The respondent opposed the urgency but indicated a desire to seek urgent spousal support if the applicant's motion proceeded.

The court found the applicant's motion urgent based on evidence including an abusive recording and a police report, noting high conflict in the home.

The court urged the parties to pursue out-of-court settlement and suggested a private voice of the child report.

Following a 5-day family law trial regarding unjust enrichment and spousal support, the applicant sought full recovery costs of $59,083.06.

The respondent acknowledged entitlement but argued for partial recovery and significant reductions, including offsets for costs thrown away due to a prior trial adjournment.

The court awarded the applicant partial recovery costs of $18,750, applying deductions for a previously decided civil application, duplication of counsel, and a $7,000 offset for the respondent's costs thrown away.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully responding to the defendants' unsuccessful motion for summary judgment.

The defendants argued for partial indemnity costs of $10,000.

The court found that while the defendants acted unreasonably in bringing their motion, the plaintiff's own evidence had deficiencies and they abandoned their request for summary judgment in their favour.

Consequently, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the amount at $21,966.36, after adjusting hourly rates, percentages, and disallowing certain disbursements.

No costs were awarded for the costs submissions due to deficiencies in both parties' filings.

The defendants, Sarazen Realty Inc., Colin Sarazen, and Keith Sennett, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff Gerald McClelland's action for commission payment, unjust enrichment, and negligence related to a property sale.

The court found that McClelland's claims raised genuine issues requiring a trial, citing significant deficiencies and credibility issues in the defendants' affidavit evidence, including reliance on opinion evidence, hearsay, and improper "adoption" of evidence.

The court determined that these issues could not be resolved through the enhanced powers of summary judgment or a mini-trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion to find the defendants, Marcel and Jean-Georges Bisson, in civil contempt for deliberately refusing to sign Full and Final Releases as ordered by a previous judgment.

Applying the three-part test from Carey v. Laiken, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the order was clear, the defendants had actual knowledge of it, and they intentionally failed to comply.

The defendants were found in contempt, fined $20,000, and the releases were deemed signed by court order.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a full indemnity basis.

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.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking reinstatement of access to the parties’ two children after the respondent father unilaterally terminated the existing alternating-week parenting schedule following service of the application for custody and support.

The court found that the prior arrangement, which had operated for approximately 15 months, constituted the status quo and that no compelling reasons had been established to justify altering it.

The father’s unilateral restriction of the mother’s access was found to stem from an erroneous belief that he could control the children’s access and from a reaction to the litigation.

Applying principles from interim custody jurisprudence, the court held that compelling reasons are required to disturb the status quo on an interim motion and that shared parenting should be encouraged where feasible.

Access was therefore reinstated gradually, returning the parties to the previous alternating week schedule.

The appellant landlord appealed a trial judgment finding it had wrongfully terminated a commercial lease.

The trial judge found the parties had agreed on the quantum of rent arrears and the landlord had waived any additional amounts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusions on waiver, credibility, tax credits, or compensation for the tenant's equipment left on the premises.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting judgment to the respondent for an unpaid loan of $15,000.

The trial judge found the corporate appellants liable for breach of contract and the individual appellants liable for unjust enrichment.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in finding personal liability, drawing an adverse inference from a failure to testify, and using pleadings to assess credibility.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error, noting that the trial judge's credibility assessments and use of pleadings were reasonable and legally correct.

This was a costs endorsement following a six-day trial in which the applicant obtained a $20,000 award on an unjust enrichment claim.

The court held the applicant was the successful party notwithstanding that he claimed $60,000 and recovered less.

The court also recognized that a self-represented litigant may receive reasonable compensation for work personally performed, but reduced the amount sought to reflect documentary issues that caused trial time to be lost.

Costs were fixed at $8,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable forthwith.

In a family property dispute arising from unmarried cohabitation, the applicant sought compensation for labour and monetary contributions to three properties held solely in the respondent's name.

The court found the parties separated in December 2011, so the unjust enrichment claim was not statute-barred under the ordinary two-year limitation period running from separation.

Applying the unjust enrichment framework and the joint family venture approach, the court held the respondent retained a disproportionate share of equity generated through the parties' combined efforts and expenditures.

A proprietary remedy was unnecessary because a monetary award was adequate.

Judgment issued for $20,000 plus pre-judgment interest at 3% from January 1, 2012.

This was a costs endorsement following a civil action in which the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs after recovering a fraction of the damages originally claimed.

The responding party argued the result was modest and that lower costs would be proportionate.

The court held that success was partially divided because the landlord substantially reduced the damages, and fixed costs at $20,000 plus disbursements and HST.

Commercial lease trial arising from a landlord's lockout of a restaurant tenant after disputes over rent arrears and operating-cost adjustments.

The court found the landlord had agreed to accept three post-dated cheques in satisfaction of arrears then outstanding, and that this agreement constituted an implied waiver of default, precluding unilateral termination of the lease on that basis.

The subsequent lockout and termination were therefore wrongful.

The tenant recovered damages for leasehold improvements, inventory, equipment, and overpayment of rent, while the landlord's counterclaim was dismissed.

A parenting dispute concerning custody, access, child support, and a restraining order under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The court assessed the best interests of the child, including stability, the child’s relationship with each parent, and the caregiving environment provided by the maternal grandparents.

Sole custody was granted to the mother to preserve stability in decision‑making, while the father received structured parenting time to maintain a meaningful relationship with the child and his half‑siblings.

The court declined to impute the higher income sought by the mother, instead imputing minimum‑wage income for child support purposes.

A restraining order limiting contact between the parents was granted, largely to reduce conflict and support the parenting arrangement.

The appellants purchased a commercial property that was later discovered to be contaminated.

They sued the vendor for failing to disclose the contamination and their real estate lawyer for negligence.

The trial judge dismissed the claims, finding that the purchaser actually knew about the contamination before waiving the environmental condition and closing the transaction, and had instructed the lawyer not to order further reports.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility and findings of fact.