Law360 Canada ( May 25, 2021, 9:19 AM EDT) -- Appeal by Victory Motors and Jansen Industries and cross-appeal by Super Save from an order allocating costs of environmental remediation between the parties. Jansen owned two contiguous parcels of land with commercial use buildings situated thereon. Victory owned a former gas station site across from the Jansen site that was operated for approximately 50 years until 1994. Thereafter, contaminants migrated from the Victory site to the Jansen site. The contamination was exacerbated by Victory’s failure to empty and remove underground gasoline storage tanks. Jansen commenced an action against Victory. Victory subsequently commenced an action against the various gas station operators. Jansen and Victory engaged an engineering company for remediation and obtained certificates of compliance under the Environmental Management Act. The engineering company’s costs were $259,218 for the Victory site and $136,488 for the Jansen site. At trial, Victory and Jansen sought recovery of the engineering costs and legal fees associated with remediation. Victory sought costs of removing the underground storage tanks and other incidental costs. The trial judge awarded the engineering costs and declined all other recovery. The judge assessed responsibility for the Victory site at 45 per cent to Victory, 35 per cent to Super Save, and 20 per cent to non-parties to the appeal. Responsibility for the Jansen site was allocated 50 per cent to Super Save, 30 per cent to Victory, and 20 per cent to non-parties. The judge found that Victory and Jansen failed to establish a basis for recovery of legal fees as costs of remediation. Victory and Jansen appealed and Super Save cross-appealed....