Avedian v. Enbridge: A 15-Year Legal Odyssey (CV-12-458715)

Case Summary Avedian v. Enbridge: A 15-Year Legal Odyssey (CV-12-458715)

It is difficult to imagine trying a case in 2025 that was commenced in 2012, stemming from a relatively minor gas explosion and fire that occurred back in 2010 — more than 15 years ago. The extended timeline was driven by the plaintiffs’ approach: seldom agreeing to anything, disputing nearly everything, challenging procedural steps, filing motion records filled with statements and materials requiring detailed responses and appealing almost every interlocutory decision. The result was a lengthy and complex litigation history.

Over the course of this file, the defence responded to numerous procedural motions, at least four major motions to the Superior Court — including one where $195,000 in costs was awarded to the defence — and three appeals heard by panels of the Court of Appeal, along with motions in that court and the Divisional Court. The case involved direction from three different case management judges and various communications by the plaintiffs to the Regional Senior Justice and the Chief Justice of the Superior Court. Ultimately, the plaintiffs reduced their damages claim from over $50 million to just over $16 million, and the matter proceeded to trial.

While liability for the explosion and fire had been admitted long before trial, the hearing still lasted four weeks before Justice Schabas. His Honour issued a comprehensive decision, carefully analyzing the plaintiffs’ evidence. He found that, aside from immediate economic losses and the diminution in value of the property (as assessed from the date when repairs ought to have been completed), the plaintiffs failed to prove their numerous claimed losses. His Honour accepted the evidence of defence experts, valuing the total losses at $156,631 — a figure that stood in stark contrast to the millions claimed. His Honour accepted that the plaintiffs had already been compensated for consequential losses through a prior subrogated insurance action in the amount of $162,457.81. Consequently, they were not entitled to any damages from the defendants  and the action was dismissed in its entirety.

Further, even if the plaintiffs had proven a causal connection, the court indicated that the majority of the claims would still be denied based on principles of remoteness. The alleged losses were deemed “secondary damages” and not reasonably foreseeable to the defendants. These losses were not considered to arise “fairly, reasonably, and naturally” as a result of the negligence of the defendants.

Key Takeaways

This decision offers several important reminders for litigators, particularly in long-running, document-heavy commercial or property damage claims:

1. The Law of Evidence Must Be Front and Centre

Justice Schabas’ reasons underscore the importance of understanding how to present evidence at trial. The plaintiffs’ case failed largely due to reliance on hearsay and non-credible oral testimony, lack of documentation, failure to call key witnesses and improper expert evidence.

• The primary witness, Mr. Avedian, performed poorly under cross-examination and was found to be self-serving, evasive and not credible.
• Other witnesses offered little relevant or first-hand information.
• Crucial witnesses — such as the building superintendent or elevator repair technician — were not called, leading the judge to infer their evidence may have been unhelpful to the plaintiffs.

2. Documents Matter — Especially Contemporaneous Ones

Given the 15-year delay between the incident and trial, documentary evidence was critically important. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the record was incomplete and often inconsistent. Insurance policies were truncated, rent-rolls were conflicting, and important correspondence and records were missing or inadequate. The plaintiffs’ counsel had been involved from the date of the loss, so these deficiencies were particularly notable.

Justice Schabas remarked that contemporaneous documents, when finally produced, undermined many of the plaintiffs’ claims, and no satisfactory explanation was provided for their late disclosure or the failure to call those with direct knowledge.

3. Expert Evidence Must Meet the Standard

The court emphasized that expert evidence must both assist the court and be provided by qualified professionals. One of the plaintiffs’ accounting experts was excluded mid-trial following objections by the defence. Another “expert” provided what was simply arithmetic calculations based on unsubstantiated data that had been provided by the plaintiffs — and this evidence was similarly rejected.

In contrast, the defence experts were found to be credible, qualified, and impartial. Their evidence was ultimately accepted by the court.

Final Reflections

This trial was a significant undertaking. It involved sustained effort and coordination among the defence team which was a cooperative effort between counsel who represented different defending parties. The preparation and presentation of the defence case — particularly in a long, technically complex matter — required division of responsibilities, targeted use of qualified experts, overall strategic decisions and rigorous cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses.

Importantly, this case proceeded to trial because of the unwavering backing from the insurers involved, who each supported the decision not to settle despite the mounting costs. It so often happens that cases that should be taken to trial are not tried for one business reason or another and the unfortunate result is a perception that insurers will shy away from a trial and eventually collapse into a settlement. but in this instance, the insurers recognized the importance of a principled defence and remained committed throughout.

This saga is over for now over, except for dealing with costs…unless, in keeping with history, there is another appeal.

Avedian v. Enbridge Reasons for Judgment PBS Oct 7 2025

By James G. Norton