Ivor Gottschalk

The plaintiffs sought over $16 million in consequential economic losses following a natural gas explosion and fire in the laundry room of their apartment building.

They claimed the explosion caused high vacancy rates, prevented rent increases, and diminished the building's value upon its sale five years later.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove the hypothetical losses were caused by the explosion rather than their own business decisions, such as a disruptive elevator modernization project.

The court assessed the actual diminution in value and economic loss at $156,631, which was fully offset by $162,457.81 already paid by the plaintiffs' insurer.

This is a trial ruling excluding proposed expert opinion evidence from a forensic accountant (Ivor Gottschalk) on quantification of lost rental revenue after a 2010 explosion and fire.

The court held the evidence failed the necessity requirement and the expert lacked independence and an investigative mindset; the gatekeeping cost-benefit analysis also favoured exclusion.

The ruling was made after a voir dire held Feb 19–20, 2025, and reasons were issued Feb 27, 2025.

The appellant abattoir owner sued the provincial government for negligence, trespass, and conversion after Ministry officials occupied its plant for 19 months following an investigation into illegal meat processing.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding no duty of care and no breach of the standard of care.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Ministry owed a duty of care to the targeted suspect, breached the standard of care by unreasonably prolonging its occupation of the plant and allowing meat to spoil, and caused the appellant's inability to sell the plant.

Damages of $3,520,000 were awarded for loss of enterprise value.

Multiple appeals arose from a complex family estate dispute following the death of a spouse whose estate passed to the surviving spouse under mirror wills.

Two sons alleged that a handwritten document and surrounding circumstances created both a mutual wills agreement and a secret trust requiring equal distribution of the estate among the three sons after the surviving spouse’s death.

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence did not establish a binding mutual wills agreement or the elements of a secret trust, emphasizing the absence of a transfer of property and clear contractual intent.

The court also upheld the trial judge’s treatment of certain inter vivos transfers and confirmed that a joint tenancy in a condominium had been severed through the parties’ course of dealings.

All appeals were dismissed.

The plaintiff abattoir sued the provincial government for negligence, trespass, and conversion arising from the 19-month suspension of its licence and detention of meat products following an investigation into the processing of uninspected and dead animals.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the provincial regulator did not owe a private law duty of care to the plaintiff, as its statutory mandate was to protect public health.

Even if a duty existed, the regulator did not breach the standard of care given the extraordinary circumstances of concurrent criminal investigations, nor did its actions cause the plaintiff's business losses.

The plaintiff estate trustee brought an action regarding the proceeds from the sale of a property jointly developed by the deceased and the defendant, her former common-law partner.

The defendant relied on a cohabitation agreement that provided property division would be determined solely by legal ownership.

The plaintiff relied on a subsequent oral property development agreement, confirmed in writing by the defendant, that provided for the return of investments and equal sharing of profits.

The court found that neither party understood the cohabitation agreement to apply to their property development activities and set it aside in part under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The court awarded the plaintiff $3,145,682.88 based on the property development agreement.

The defendant investment firm brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs, who were victims of their former investment advisor's Ponzi scheme, argued they did not discover their claims against the firm until the advisor's fraud was exposed.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the plaintiffs, as allegedly unsophisticated investors, knew or ought to have known of their claims earlier through the exercise of reasonable diligence.

Following multiple attendances in a family law proceeding concerning support and property division after a long marriage, the court addressed costs arising from motions primarily related to financial disclosure.

The applicant spouse had brought motions seeking disclosure, spousal support, and advances on equalization, arguing that the respondent had delayed providing necessary financial information, including business valuations and income analysis relating to corporate interests.

The court found the respondent had failed to provide timely and adequate disclosure, causing unnecessary delay and requiring the applicant to bring motions to compel compliance.

Although the applicant did not obtain the exact relief requested in earlier motions, the court concluded the motions were necessary and that the applicant was more successful overall.

Costs of $20,000 were awarded to the applicant payable forthwith.