Law360 Canada ( July 20, 2018, 7:54 AM EDT) -- Appeals by the plaintiff and defendant Fraser Ltd. from trial judgment. The parties were adjacent property owners. Fraser, owned by the defendant H, operated a dry cleaning business on its property. H owned a residential property adjacent to the residential property. From 1960 to 1974, solvents used in dry cleaning operations spilled onto the ground. In 2002, the plaintiff discovered the contamination of his property resulting from the spills. The Ministry issued a Provincial Officer’s Order in 2013 requiring Fraser to retain a qualified person and submit a detailed work plan to remediate the contamination. Fraser failed to comply with the order. The plaintiff commenced the present action for damages for remediation of his property. The trial judge held Fraser liable in nuisance and under the Environmental Protection Act. He awarded over $1.8 million in damages for the remediation of the plaintiff’s properties. The remediation strategies that most appealed to the trial judge were the ones that involved isolating the plaintiff’s properties. He found that these were the most likely to place the plaintiff in the position he would have been in had the contamination not occurred. The action against H was dismissed. H was sued only as the owner of the residential property. The property did not abut the plaintiff’s property. Fraser argued that the trial judge erred in finding it liable by failing to consider whether the environmental damage was reasonably foreseeable as part of his nuisance analysis. The plaintiff argued that the trial judge erred in failing to find Fraser negligent, in failing to find H liable in nuisance or in negligence, and in his assessment of damages....