Our Court Cases

A major fire caused smoke damage to a dental office, damaging most of Doctor Freedman’s advanced dental equipment, including his 3D crown making printers. The doctor’s insurance company hired Envista and Newtron Group to assess whether his medical equipment could be safely cleaned. They determined that cleaning medical equipment was possible for less than $100K. At Appraisal, Vincent Rochon, P. Eng. (Electrical Engineer) at Roar Engineering, testified that it was not possible to thoroughly or safely clean smoke damaged medical equipment, so it must be replaced. The Umpire agreed and awarded Doctor Freedman his policy limit for contents of $1,695,000. A judicial review of this matter was dismissed with costs awarded to Doctor Freedman.

When a quasi-judicial panel refuses to hear and consider relevant expert testimony from Vincent Rochon, PE, P.Eng., with over 30 years of fire protection engineering experience, and ‘hides’ behind R. v. Mohan, their decision will be set aside on appeal and a new hearing will be held with a different panel.

This is a great example of ensuring you have the right expertise for the job at hand. Reletronic-Remech sent a Millwright, Kirk Labelle, to defend their position that Gebus Machine’s water damage was overstated. Vincent Rochon, PE, P.Eng., testified that Mr. Labelle was not qualified to assess the damage to the CNC machines that were damaged by water and that he grossly underestimated the damage to these machines. The Umpire accepted Mr. Rochon’s expert evidence and awarded $1,400,000.00; over $1M more than was initially paid out.

This is a well-reasoned judgment on a complex and expensive challenge by counsel regarding an expert’s alleged bias. Note that Justice Raikes leaves the ‘door open’ for this type of motion if the expert’s company is owned by an adjusting or insurance company, which will be interesting if counsel for the defendants employs this tactic/strategy again. So, if you prefer not to spend $100K on a motion, make certain your expert is independent and impartial.

Proving that an arsonist started a fire is not an easy task. Our engineers complete a thorough and comprehensive site investigation in order to meet the demands of the trier of facts. Experience at providing expert testimony is critical for providing opinion evidence that can withstand the test of a serious challenge.

In 2011, a major explosion and fire caused extensive damage to a Woodstock apartment building. The Ontario Fire Marshal, TSSA, Ministry of Labour, Police, and other authorities having jurisdiction completed their investigation into the cause of the incident and excluded all other interested parties. Access to the investigation documentation was restricted, and the Class Action Attorneys and Mr. Vincent Rochon, PE, P.Eng., submitted three motions (in 2014, 2015, and 2016) to obtain all the relevant documentation from authorities having jurisdiction. The authorities having jurisdiction and regulatory agencies were forced to produce documentation relating to their respective investigations by the judge’s order.

The appeal court judge agreed with the original decision. He noted that 16 witnesses were called, including a number of expert witnesses. He also noted that the trial judge ‘catalogued his concerns with the reliability’ of each of the Parkview experts and specifically admonished two experts ‘for their lack of objectivity and partisanship and attached no weight to their evidence’. The appeal court ultimately accepted Mr. Vincent Rochon’s evidence.

A punitive damages case can be very damaging to an expert’s reputation. Our experts provide impartial opinions that are accepted at trial. In this case, our expert report was accepted by the trial judge … other expert’s opinions (some that testified at trial) were not.

Should your expert refer to other experts’ opinions as “invisible leprechauns”? Probably not. Read this description carefully, as the evidence presented by the experts for Parkview will amaze you. More remarkable is that the court compelled a “hot-tubbing” session for the experts before the trial, and the Parkview experts refused to change their opinion despite the overwhelming evidence that the fire had been caused by a boiler in the basement of the building. The expert evidence of Mr. Vincent Rochon, PE, P.Eng., was accepted by His Honour, Justice Nadeau.

When does the battle of experts become personal? When an expert is ‘more invested in protecting his professional turf than assisting the court in its search for the truth.’ The 2004 fire caused approximately $100,000 in damage but required weeks of trial to resolve the case. The expert evidence of Mr. Vincent Rochon, PE, P.Eng., was accepted by His Honour, Justice McIsaac.

A 2002 fire caused approximately $200,000 in damage to a home. Several experts for the defendant electrician tried to suggest that a mouse chewing through wires was the cause of this electrical fire. Justice Miller agreed with the expert testimony of Mr. Vincent Rochon, PE, P.Eng., that the probable cause was a misdriven and overdriven staple that compromised the electrical wiring. The bigger story, however, was that the defendant had to pay all costs, amounting to approximately $480,000.

In 2008, a major explosion and fire caused extensive damage to the Sunrise Propane facility, surrounding businesses, a school, and several homes. The Ontario Fire Marshal and authorities having jurisdiction completed their investigation of the cause of the incident and excluded all other interested parties. The Class Action Attorneys and Mr. Vincent Rochon’s access to the Ontario Fire Marshal investigation was suppressed, so a motion for their documentation was held in 2008. The authorities having jurisdiction and regulatory agencies were forced to produce documentation relating to their respective investigations by the judge’s order.

A single family dwelling was destroyed by fire and had to be demolished and rebuilt for the family. A friend of the homeowners’ son was living in the basement and lost all of his belongings. He sued the homeowners, claiming that they had signed a promissory note that indicated he would be compensated for his loss. At trial, the judge relied on the expert opinion of Jason D’Ornellas. Mr. D’Ornellas testified that the fire resulted from the careless misuse or disposal of smoker’s materials within the basement. The judge indicated that she doubted the defendant’s claim that he did not sign a promissory note, which favoured the plaintiff. However, based on Mr. D’Ornellas’ origin and cause determination the judge concluded that the Plaintiff was liable for the fire, forcing her to find in favour of the defendant.

Ever have to deal with an exceptionally persistent claimant? The time, lost wages, and expenses caused by these individuals can be wearing. Do not let them get to you. In this case, based on the expert testimony of Mr. Michael Rochon, P.Eng., the justice found that the plaintiff’s abuse of the power to summon witnesses and his claim was dismissed.

So, your expert was not involved in the original site investigation and did not attend the scene? Can you still defend your case? Of course. Experts, working for the Halls, claimed that a carpet iron caused the fire, but ignored burn patterns and technical evidence that did not support their hypothesis. Justice Ferguson accepted the ‘sophisticated knowledge’ of expert witness Mr. Vincent Rochon, PE, P.Eng., relating to a broader range of relevant considerations, including the scientific method, fire patterns and combustion.

The appeal justices agreed with the original decision. They agreed that the trial judge was not ‘obliged to deal with other more speculative possible causes put forward by the’ Turnpike experts. The expert testimony of Mr. Vincent Rochon, PE, P.Eng. was accepted by the Appeals Court.

Can you buy a win at trial by qualifying a seemingly never-ending parade of experts? Probably not. This 1999 fire caused extensive damage to a million-dollar home. Justice Blenus Wright accepted the expert witness testimony of Mr. Vincent Rochon, PE, P.Eng., that pyrolysis had occurred and that a chimney fire was the probable cause of this fire.

There are many examples where the evidence of the Authority having Jurisdiction has not been accepted at trial (see Canada Schoester and Danyliw). This case is a very good example of why you should not rely on the Authority having Jurisdiction to ‘make your case’. Our experts provide the court trusted evidence that you will need at trial.

A residential fire occurs and results in $100,000 worth of damage. The uninsured basement tenants sues the homeowner as a result of all of his belongings being destroyed. The Fire Department indicated that they suspected the fire to be electrical in nature. The plaintiff made claims that a fire damaged building electrical cable could have initiated the blaze. Was the homeowner negligent in that the building wiring was in an unsafe state? Is the homeowner to blame for the destruction of all of plaintiff’s belongings? Jason D’Ornellas testified as an expert at this trial and the judge accepted his opinion that this fire was unrelated to building wiring, but rather the result of a failure along a previously spliced/repaired power cord belonging to an item owned by the tenant. Mr. D’Ornellas’ expert opinion was accepted by the court. The court concluded that the plaintiff was negligent in that his use of this power cord created an unreasonable and foreseeable risk. As a result of Mr. D’Ornellas’ testimony, not only was the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, but the defendants’ claim for the maximum monetary amount allowed was granted.

The Ontario Fire Marshal (OFM) and other authorities having jurisdiction excluded other interested parties from a site investigation and wouldn’t share the evidence gathered from their investigation. This motion addresses the requirement to share information with interested parties. An order required the OFM to produce evidence and documentation obtained during their site investigation to Mr. Vincent Rochon, PE, P.Eng., the expert hired by Optimum. They also had to pay for the motion.

Can you prove that a fire was caused by arson? Well, it’s not an easy task, but if you complete a thorough and comprehensive investigation, you can prove arson. This 1997 fire was proved on a balance of probabilities, including the fact that Ottenbrite had the motive and opportunity to burn his house down and that he padded his claim.

Munden Park Electric relied on its experts to disprove the obvious cause of this fire —a massive electric failure of a supply circuit that was not installed to code. Their metallurgical expert made several bold statements before the trial, suggesting that the courts would ultimately accept his flawed opinion. Ultimately, the court agreed with the expert testimony of Mr. Vincent Rochon. PE, P.Eng., and ruled that Munden Park was negligent.

Ontario Hydro presented several experts in an attempt to disprove the probable cause for this 1991 fire: a misdriven and overdriven staple into an electrical conductor. Experts for Ontario Hydro told the court that arc tracking could not occur between insulated 120-volt conductors. The 2014 NFPA 921 and the Ignition Handbook can now be used to demonstrate that arc tracking can occur at a voltage significantly lower than 120 volts. However, in 1998 (the date of the trial), Mr. Vincent Rochon’s expert testimony had to rely on CSA standards and his electrical and fire protection engineering experience to prove this theory.

This is an example of Case Law used in Law Schools for the proper application of NFPA 921, “Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations.” The Ontario Fire Marshal’s office (OFM) concluded that this 1993 fire was arson, but their investigation did not withstand the test of a serious challenge. In particular, the OFM did not follow NFPA 921 and was unable to eliminate the probable cause of the fire as an electrical failure. Instead, Her Honour, Justice Haley accepted the expert electrical engineering evidence of Vincent Rochon, PE, P.Eng., that an electrical failure caused the fire. The OFM changed its SOPs as a result of this case.