1815212 Ontario Inc. et al. v. Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. et al.
1815212 ONTARIO INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Papazian Heisey Myers
BEDROS (PETER) AVEDIAN
Law Firm / Organization
Papazian Heisey Myers
CLAUDIO PETTI
Law Firm / Organization
Papazian Heisey Myers
MARIO D'ORAZIO
Law Firm / Organization
Papazian Heisey Myers
ENBRIDGE GAS DISTRIBUTION INC. operating as ENBRIDGE GAS DISTRIBUTION
Law Firm / Organization
Zuber & Company LLP
Lawyer(s)

James G. Norton

ENBRIDGE SOLUTIONS INC. operating as ENBRIDGE ENERGY SOLUTIONS
Law Firm / Organization
Zuber & Company LLP
Lawyer(s)

James G. Norton

ENBRIDGE INC .
Law Firm / Organization
Zuber & Company LLP
Lawyer(s)

James G. Norton

LAKESIDE PERFORMANCE GAS SERVICES LTD. operating as LAKESIDE GAS SERVICES
Law Firm / Organization
Zuber & Company LLP
Lawyer(s)

James G. Norton

ALPHA DELTA HEATING CONTRACTOR INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Lerners LLP
AUBREY LEONARD DEY
Law Firm / Organization
Lerners LLP
TOB HEATING and AIR CONDITIONING
BRENTOL BISHOP a.k.a. BRENT BISHOP
ENBRIDGE SOLUTIONS INC. operating as ENBRIDGE ENERGY SOLUTIONS
ENBRIDGE INC.

Overview

  • 1815212 Ontario Inc. (“1815”) sued Enbridge Gas and others for economic losses following a 2010 explosion and fire at its Toronto apartment building.
  • Plaintiffs claimed higher vacancy rates, lost rental income, inability to expand the building, and property devaluation.
  • The key issue was the admissibility of expert evidence from forensic accountant Ivor Gottschalk, who quantified lost revenues.

Court’s Analysis on Expert Evidence

1. Lack of Necessity

  • Expert evidence is presumptively inadmissible unless it meets the R. v. Mohan test, requiring necessity, relevance, proper qualifications, and no exclusionary rule.
  • The court found Gottschalk’s work involved only arithmetic calculations, applying rent figures and assumptions provided by plaintiffs.
  • Since no specialized expertise was required, the evidence failed the necessity test.

2. Lack of Independence & Impartiality

  • Experts must be objective and independent per White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co.
  • Gottschalk failed to scrutinize key assumptions (e.g., “market rents” from plaintiff Avedian).
  • Alternative data (a 2013 email and 2019 appraisal report) suggested lower market rents, but Gottschalk never investigated.
  • The court found his report merely advocated for the plaintiffs, failing to meet expert duty standards.

3. Gatekeeping – Exclusion of Evidence

  • Even if admissible, the judge would exclude it under a cost-benefit analysis.
  • The limited benefit of the calculations was outweighed by the risk of trial distortion.

Ruling

  • Gottschalk’s report was ruled inadmissible, as it lacked necessity, independence, and objectivity.
  • The case reinforces strict standards for expert evidence in damage quantification cases.
  • Since the court excluded the plaintiffs’ expert evidence, this was a procedural win for the defendants
  • No monetary award specified.
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
CV-12-458715
Civil litigation
Defendant