played by Rewant and Prashant Ruia in the Essar Group but
eventually after being shown a publication from Essar’s website
conceded that Mr. Rewant Ruia’s role was to oversee the North
American operations of the Essar Group including Algoma.
Mr. Saraf of Essar Services India Ltd who assisted Mr. Seifert
with the recapitalization of Algoma acknowledged on his examination that the views of Rewant Ruia and the other members of
the Ruia family as to the cash equity that could be invested were
extremely influential to the recapitalization team.
 Prashant Ruia, a director of Essar Capital and clearly
involved in the affairs of Essar Global and its affiliates, although
quite evasive on his cross-examination about this, admitted that
Essar Capital had given the responsibility for managing the
investment in Algoma to Mr. Seifert and it was Mr. Seifert that
was given responsibility for running Algoma, the refinancing by
the port transaction and the discussions on the recapitalization.
 The Portco transaction documents (the master purchase
and sale agreement, the lease, the cargo handling agreement
and the shared services agreement) were negotiated with GIP
primarily by Mr. Seifert, along with Messrs. Harrold and
Anshumali Dwivedi. Mr. Dwivedi was an Essar Global employee
during the relevant period and is the current CEO of Portco.
Algoma personnel provided operational information as necessary. I am satisfied that Mr. Seifert had primary carriage over
the negotiations, as stated by Mr. Ghosh. The evidence of
Mr. Sreckovic of GIP supports this conclusion. Mr. Sreckovic
was clear that the primary negotiators on behalf of Algoma were
Mr. Seifert and Mr. Harrold of Essar Capital who reported to
Mr. Seifert. It was those negotiated terms that became the reason for the port transaction.
 I am satisfied that representatives of Essar Global including Essar Capital carried out the recapitalization and port transaction negotiations and made the critical decisions. Algoma
management were handed the economic terms of the recapitalization and port transaction and implemented them from an
operational perspective. Algoma management did not negotiate
the terms. Their role was to support the negotiations with
regard to non-economic, primarily operational, issues.
 It is clear from the authorities that an action under s. 241
of the CBCA requires a two-step process. The first is to consider
whether the evidence supports the reasonable expectation
asserted by a claimant, and the second is to consider whether
the evidence establishes that the reasonable expectation was