the investment business over many years,5 and as Michael
acknowledged, the advisor code under which a particular
commission was paid did not necessarily reflect whose client was
the source of the commission. It is also of note that Michael had
access to Frank’s client records. In these circumstances, it is
appropriate that the commissions be equalized up until the
Sharing of Michael’s ACP salary
 Michael shared his ACP CFO’s salary with Frank from
June 2012 to September 2014, and it is Frank’s position
that the sharing should continue up until the valuation date.
Michael opposes any further sharing, and on this issue, I agree
 Frank’s argument with respect to the sharing of Michael’s
salary seems to be no more than that for a period of time, the
salary was part of the overall revenue stream shared by the
parties. However, unlike the ACP commissions, Michael’s salary
entitlement was not a business that the parties had built up
over the years, or to which Frank contributed anything. The fact
that Michael did share his salary for a period of time is not,
alone, a reason for requiring that he continue to do so.
Value of the respondent corporations
 F+M valued the businesses, with the professional corporations, at $691, 717. MCT valued the businesses, without the
professional corporations, at $407,000.
 In comparing these results, F+M attributes the difference
of $284, 717 to the exclusion by MCT of the value related to
Scugog PC and Kawartha PC. Based upon an estimated value
for Scugog PC and Kawartha PC of $250,000, F+M notes that
this would explain all but $34, 717 of the difference.6 Using this
analysis, in valuing the joint enterprise without the professional
corporations, it would be fair to split the unexplained difference,
and set the value at $424,359.
5 When Frank sold Money Managers to ACP, he kept his clients — so the
ACP commissions were a continuation of the business that had been built
up over the 20 years the parties had worked together.
6 This may be an oversimplification since F+M uses a capitalized earnings
approach (except in relation to KG Investments), based upon consolidated
revenues of $1,942,435, of which $613,487 consisted of ACP commissions,
which were not included in the MCT valuation. It is also of note that KG
Investments (a real estate holding company) was valued by F+M at
$252,758 and by MCT at $105,000.