Tamara Farber

The defendant buyer in an aborted real estate transaction sought to have her case managed and tried together with six other similar actions involving the same developer.

The defendant raised environmental issues as a defence to the plaintiff's claim for damages.

The court dismissed the request for case management and a common trial, finding that a single 30-day trial would cause delay and that proceeding with a summary trial in the present action would be more efficient and could provide early rulings to streamline the other cases.

Intact, an insurer, appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action to recover $2.9 million in excess remediation payments for an environmental spill from other parties (pollutant owners/controllers and their insurer).

Intact sought recovery under s. 99(2)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act and the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Intact, as a voluntary payor beyond its policy obligations and without direct harm to its own property, did not qualify for compensation under s. 99(2)(a) of the EPA.

Furthermore, the unjust enrichment claim failed because the primary benefit of the payments accrued to Intact's own insured, and the payments were made voluntarily with knowledge of the respondents' position.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order dismissing its claims in nuisance and negligence relating to contamination of its lands.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the appellant failed to produce evidence of negligence or that the respondents knew or ought to have known the facts necessary to ground an action in nuisance.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that the respondents had a duty to inspect or supervise the activities of dry-cleaning tenants on their property, and found that environmental reports obtained by the respondents did not put them on notice of contamination migrating to the appellant's lands.

The defendants (Litwacks) successfully obtained summary judgment and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis for both the motion and the action.

The plaintiff (Sorbam Investments Ltd.) opposed the quantum and scale of costs.

The court considered the Litwacks' settlement offers, the complexity and importance of the issues, and the conduct of the parties, including the plaintiff's late submission of materials and technical objections.

While acknowledging the Litwacks' counsel's expertise, the court reduced the requested costs, particularly for out-of-town travel disbursements and excessive pre-trial time, and disallowed mediation costs.

The court fixed costs at an amount greater than partial indemnity but less than substantial indemnity, recognizing the Litwacks' settlement offers.

The plaintiffs brought a subrogated claim against W.O. Stinson & Son Ltd. for negligence following an oil tank leak in their basement.

The claim alleged Stinson was negligent in repositioning the tank and during annual maintenance, specifically regarding water dip tests, warnings about corrosion, and recognizing signs of damage.

The court found that Stinson met the standard of care required of a fuel oil service contractor and supplier, complying with TSSA regulations and industry standards.

The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to establish causation, as it could not be proven that "but for" Stinson's actions or omissions, the leak would not have occurred.

Consequently, the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed.

Damages were also assessed for completeness, with some criticisms of the remediation costs.

The plaintiff sued the defendants, adjacent property owners, for environmental contamination allegedly caused by a former dry-cleaning tenant on the defendants' lands.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims of nuisance, negligence, and statutory liability under the Environmental Protection Act.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendants had no knowledge of the contamination, did not authorize the nuisance, and owed no duty of care to monitor the tenant's activities.

The statutory claim failed because the defendants did not own or control the pollutant.

Following settlement of an environmental claim between the plaintiff and a third party for $30,000 shortly before trial, the parties were unable to agree on the wording of the release and the quantum of costs.

The court considered whether a confidentiality clause and an expanded derivative indemnity enforcement clause should be included despite not being specified in the settlement offer.

The court held that such terms cannot be implied where they were not negotiated as part of the settlement agreement.

The court also determined the appropriate quantum of partial indemnity costs and assessed proportionality and fairness in light of the litigation circumstances.

Costs were fixed at $38,000 with pre‑judgment interest calculated according to the settlement terms.

The plaintiff municipality sought to recover environmental remediation costs following a residential furnace oil spill that migrated onto public lands and into a lake.

Several defendants, including an insurer, insurance adjuster, and environmental remediation contractor, brought summary judgment motions to dismiss statutory and negligence claims against them under the Environmental Protection Act.

The court held that none of the moving parties were “owners of the pollutant” or persons “having control of the pollutant” within the meaning of the statute and dismissed the statutory claims.

However, the court declined to summarily dismiss the negligence claims, finding that the potential duty of care owed by an insurer, adjuster, or remediation contractor to an adjoining landowner presented a novel question requiring a full Anns analysis at trial.

Amendments to the statement of claim were also permitted as they arose from the same factual matrix and did not introduce a new cause of action.