City
House Explodes near St. Clair and Mount Pleasant
Citynews is reporting that an Enbridge Gas worker has been seriously injured when a house exploded earlier today on Harper Avenue. He'd been working on the house's gas system for the past two days. Emergency crews are saying it looks like a natural gas explosion and that two more houses have been damaged by the blast and subsequent smoke.
Not the best way to start Valentine's Day. Stay tuned for more news later on today as it comes. News and new pictures after the jump.
2nd Update: Citynews is now reporting that police are looking for the missing owner of the house, believed to have been killed in the explosion.
--
It seems that unlike some people speculated, nothing too seedy was going on. An accident happened while a gas technician was, well, working with gas. By the time I got there, the fire fighters from most of the at least 15 trucks were starting pack up. It seems things were brought under control pretty quickly.
Neighbors are being thanked for saving the life of the Enbridge Gas technician. While unconfirmed, It seems that there may have been a resident inside the house at the time. Firefighters have yet to find a body, if there is one to be found. More on that at The Star.
Discussion
9 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
-a st-clair-ite.
They put in the streetcar right of way and the neighbourhood is being destroyed!
What did the 30 year old worker do?
Think twice before trusting your house to an unknown dude.
Gas company spokesperson Lisa McCarney confirmed yesterday that a contractor had been scheduled to remove the indoor stand pipe, which connected the main gas supply from the street to a gas meter inside the house at 2 Harper Gardens.
An industry insider explained that this is part of a routine procedure when gas meters are relocated from inside a home to outside. While he wouldn't speculate on the cause of the explosion, the expert explained that the pipe is disconnected by hand and doesn't require any welding equipment. The stand pipe is "live," until gas from the main service is cut off, usually with a rubber stopper, he said. The outside supply line is then capped.
"To level a house like that you'd have to have a lot of gas in the house," said the insider who asked not to be identified. He said ignition sources could have been a spark from a light switch, the furnace coming on, a water heater or even static from nylon.
As helpless citizens, something must be done to protect us.
In the news in previous years:
Nov. 27, 2003. 12:56 PM
LUCAS POLONIUM/TORONTO STAR
Firefighters at work on the site of the Etobicoke explosion April 24, 2003.
Enbridge charged in gas explosion
Seven killed in blast that levelled Etobicoke strip mall
CURTIS RUSH
STAFF REPORTER THESTAR.COM
In what could be a landmark case in this country, Enbridge Gas and two other
companies have been charged in connection with a gas explosion that killed
seven people at a west-end strip mall in April.
The April 24 explosion on Popular Ave. at Bloor St. W. demolished a mall
housing four retail businesses and five apartments across the street.
The blast also tore a hole in the side of a two-storey home beside the
complex. Windows were also blown out across the street.
Dora Carambelas, 60; Tina Kirkimtzis, 32; Robert Fairley, 50; Irene Miyama,
52; Adele Brown, 73; Elizabeth Roy, 74 and Lillian Guglietti, 73, were
killed in the explosion. Four people were injured.
The Technical Standards and Safety Authority, Ontario's fuels safety
watchdog, announced four charges today against Enbridge Gas Distribution
Inc., Precision Utility Ltd., its sub-contractor, and construction company
Warren Bitulithic Limited of Toronto.
Enbridge and Warren face charges on two counts while PUL faces one count.
Each count carries a maximum fine of $1 million for corporations and $50,000
per count for individuals, according to officials with the Safety Authority.
The case goes to Ontario Court at Old City Hall on Jan. 14. when lawyers for
both sides start to put their cases forward.
Said Enbridge spokesperson Debbie Boukydis: "It would be inappropriate for
us to comment out of respect for the investigation and the inquest process."
None of the other companies could be reached for comment.
The Safety Authority's spokesperson Tom Zach said, "we're alleging (the
companies) damaged the pipelines and the rest will come out in court."
He said this could be a landmark case that will be closely watched across
the country because "Ontario is looked at as a leader in terms of public
safety."
Police, the coroner's office, fire officials and the labour ministry are
conducting their own investigations.
"We're doing our job to ensure safety in Ontario," Zach said. "When there
are serious violations against the law, we prosecute."
On count one, Enbridge and PUL are charged with the failure to provide as
accurate information as possible regarding the location of underground
natural gas pipelines.
On count two, Enbridge is charged with failing to ensure that their agents,
PUL, complied with the act and regulation. PUL is sub-contracted by Enbridge
to provide the location of natural gas pipelines when requested to do so by
individuals and companies.
On count three, Warren Bitulithic Limited, the construction company, is
charged with digging without determining the exact location of underground
natural gas pipelines.
On count four, Warren is also charged with damaging an underground natural
gas pipeline without permission as prescribed under the act and its
regulations.
Details of how the accident occurred weren't revealed, Zach said, because
this will come out in court.
Enbridge rapped for usurious late-fee penalties
The Globe and Mail - April 23, 2004
by Kirk Makin
The Supreme Court of Canada has ordered a major gas distributor to pay up to $100-million in compensation to thousands of customers who were charged usurious late-payment fees.
The court said Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. was "unjustly enriched" and cannot hide behind the fact that a provincial regulator, the Ontario Energy Board, approved the late-fee penalty it began using in 1975.
"As a matter of public policy, criminals should not be permitted to keep the proceeds of their crime," Mr. Justice Frank Iacobucci wrote in a hard-hitting 7-0 ruling. "Since the respondent in this case was enriched by its own criminal misconduct, it should not be permitted to avail itself of the defence."
The ruling ends a class-action lawsuit launched in 1994. The class members alleged that a late-fee payment calculated at 5 per cent of the unpaid charges for that month was an enormous penalty.
"This is a huge victory for consumers and the public," said Gordon Garland, the lead plaintiff, who represented up to 500,000 members of the class. "The court rejected what I call 'the Adolf Eichmann defence,' that they were just following orders."
The gas company launched the late-payment penalty scheme to encourage customers to pay their bills promptly.
The energy board acknowledged at the time that customers who paid shortly after the penalty date would end up paying a very high rate of interest, but approved it nonetheless.
In annual terms, the 5-per-cent charge ends up being greater than 60 per cent. According to law, any charge greater than 60 per cent of a debt falls under the Criminal Code offence of usury.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Michael McGowan, said that until recent years, similar penalty payment schemes were common. He said that other class actions are possible in other provinces against companies -- usually monopolies -- who used them.
Mr. McGowan said Enbridge will be expected to provide rebates to existing customers and to send cheques to former customers. Taking interest payments into account, he said, the total will reach $75-million to $100-million.
He said the ruling is also likely to have a major impact on a similar lawsuit against Toronto Hydro, which charged its customers high penalty payments. The utility could be on the hook for at least $40-million in compensation to former customers, Mr. McGowan estimated.
A spokesman for Enbridge, Lisa McCarty, said yesterday that the company was "disappointed" by the ruling. She noted that in 2002, Enbridge reduced its late-payment penalty to 2 per cent. However, Mr. McGowan said this number, depending on how it is calculated, ends up soaring far higher than the 60-per-cent limit. "It still becomes astronomical," he said.
The Supreme Court originally dealt with the Enbridge case in 1998, ruling that the charges levied by Enbridge (previously known as Consumers Gas Co. Ltd.) were usurious.
A lower court judge who was supposed to determine the actual amount of compensation ended up accepting Enbridge's defence that it had been following orders from the energy board. The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed.
In overturning that decision yesterday, Judge Iacobucci said the repayments to customers will date back to 1994, when the commencement of the lawsuit ought to have served as a warning that it had been making a mistake. "After the action was commenced and the respondent was put on notice that there was a serious possibility its late-payment penalties violated the Criminal Code, it was no longer reasonable to rely on the OEB rate orders to authorize the late-payment penalties," Judge Iacobucci said.
He said there was superficial logic to Enbridge's argument that it ought to have been able to rely on the energy board to approve only legal fee structures, but that this point was overridden by the public-policy interest in preventing criminals from profiting from their crimes.
Enbridge gambled when it decided to continue levying the penalties after the litigation began, Judge Iacobucci said, and it lost.
That's like saying most women are only good at child care.
- John