Sorbam Investments Ltd. v. Litwack

Sorbam Investments Ltd. v. Litwack

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to adduce evidence of negligence or of knowledge by the respondents sufficient to found nuisance; mere leasing to dry-cleaners does not create a duty to inspect or supervise, and the Patterson Reports did not show migration of contamination to the appellant's lands, so no triable issue existed.

Citation
2017 ONCA 850
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Sorbam Investments Ltd.; Defendant (respondent): Alan David Litwack; Defendant (respondent): Gary Michael Litwack; Defendant (respondent): Deborah Ruth Litwack, in her capacity as Estate Trustee of the Estate of Moses Litwack, deceased; Defendant (respondent): Samuel Litwack; Defendant (respondent): 1129892 Ontario Limited
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Dismissing Tort Claims (order Dated February 24, 2017)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Duty of Care, Liability for Tenant Activities, Notice of Contamination, Remediation
Source Language
English
Tort Nuisance Negligence Environmental Contamination Property Law Summary Judgment Duty of Care Liability for Tenant Activities +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sorbam Investments Ltd.

Plaintiff (appellant)

Alan David Litwack

Defendant (respondent)

Gary Michael Litwack

Defendant (respondent)

Deborah Ruth Litwack, in her capacity as Estate Trustee of the Estate of Moses Litwack, deceased

Defendant (respondent)

Samuel Litwack

Defendant (respondent)

1129892 Ontario Limited

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Dismissing Tort Claims (order Dated February 24, 2017)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment dismissing nuisance and negligence claims
  2. 2 Whether the respondents owed a duty to inspect or supervise dry-cleaning tenants
  3. 3 Whether Patterson environmental reports put respondents on notice that contamination had migrated to the appellant's lands

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to adduce evidence of negligence or of knowledge by the respondents sufficient to found nuisance; mere leasing to dry-cleaners does not create a duty to inspect or supervise, and the Patterson Reports did not show migration of contamination to the appellant's lands, so no triable issue existed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs to respondents fixed at $25,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements