The Acuity defendants moved for summary judgment and sought to exclude the plaintiff's expert evidence from Vincent Rochon regarding the origin and cause of a warehouse fire.
The defendants argued Rochon was not qualified to opine on electrical code/CSA standards, lacked independence and impartiality due to his prior involvement with the insurer's sister company (REI) and the initial site investigation, showed bias, and presented an unreliable "novel science" theory (ricocheting quartz fragments).
The court found Rochon qualified, willing, and able to fulfill his duty as an expert, and that his ricochet theory was not "novel science" but an application of existing scientific principles.
The motion to exclude Rochon's evidence was dismissed, with the court noting that concerns about the investigation's shortcomings or the plausibility of Rochon's theory could inform the weight of the evidence at the summary judgment motion or trial.
