The admissions made by the defendant in the pleadings and the Agreed Statement of Facts,
as well as Thompson’s evidence that the PDF Excel spreadsheet was an invoice, do support the
argument that each Utility Agreement was a contract. Annually, the plaintiff agreed to pay the
amount indicated for its consumption of electricity. Based on the evidence at trial, the amount
owed to the defendant would be reconciled with any amounts that the defendant owed the plaintiff,
but that does not take away from the fact that it was an invoice which was expected to be paid. I
accept counsel for the defendant’s argument that each Utility Agreement was established each year
and the parties would move forward to the next year.
 There is no evidence before the court that, apart from the request to correct the errors after
the retrofit, there had been any “negotiations” by the parties about the numbers in the spreadsheets.
Indeed, Horwood himself admitted that the defendant condominium inputted the data from the
invoices at the top, and the bottom of the spreadsheet has remained the same, aside from a variation
for the average cost per kWh arrived at annually.
 However, given the unique process adopted by the parties in billing the plaintiff for
electricity consumption, it is not surprising that the error that existed in the excel spreadsheet, for
an unknown period of time, was replicated year after year until Segal pointed it out in 2017. I find
that the defendant only discovered the error as a result of Segal’s report. There being no evidence
before the court on the origin of the errors, I cannot find that the defendant is in breach of contract.
 I do find however that, on the evidence, the elements of unjust enrichment are established.
The three elements necessary to establish a claim for unjust enrichment are an enrichment, a
corresponding deprivation, and the absence of any juristic reason for the enrichment: Pettkus v.
Becker,  2 S.C.R. 834.
 With respect to the first two elements, the plaintiff has demonstrated the existence of an
enrichment or benefit in the defendant’s hands, and a corresponding deprivation or expense on the
part of the plaintiff. The comptroller for the plaintiff, Mr. Younis, testified he inputted the correct
wattage into the spreadsheets for the period 2005 to 2015 (tab 16 of Exhibit 1), which were
provided to him from the defendant condominium. The parties tendered the spreadsheet as
evidence at the trial and agreed on the truth of the content. I accept that the amount that was
supposed to have been paid by the plaintiff between 2006 to 2015 is as represented in in the revised
spreadsheets and summarized in the plaintiff’s chart, below.v The parties also agree on amounts as
calculated, using the corrected information provided by Segal in the spreadsheets revised by the
plaintiff.vi I find that the plaintiff overpaid the defendant for the period 2006 to 2015. Horwood
testified that the defendant did not make the corrections for 2015 because they understood the
limitation to be two years and they corrected it two years. He admitted that that was the only reason
why they did not correct beyond two years.
 The parties do not dispute that by virtue of the Utility Agreement, between 2006 and 2015,
the plaintiff paid a total of $967,085.27 towards the shared expenses for hydroelectricity. On the
evidence, including the revised calculations in the Excel spreadsheets included in the Joint
Document Brief, for the same period of time, the plaintiff should only have paid 237,026.28. The
plaintiff therefore overpaid $730,058 for its share of the electricity costs.