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.
