the trial judge erred by valuing the various assets in accordance
with the respondent’s position without any explanation.
 I do not agree.
1. Using a similar multiple
 The appellant’s complaint that it was unreasonable for
the trial judge to have used a similar multiple for HCM as for
Matcon is simply not borne out.
 The trial judge rejected Mr. Ross’ choice of a multiple
because it could not be justified on the evidence before the court.
The trial judge found that Mr. Ross had not provided a reasonable explanation for the multiple that he chose. He noted that
Mr. Ross chose a multiple based on companies which the trial
judge resoundingly rejected as being comparable to Matcon and
HCM. I will not repeat the reasons given by the trial judge on
that matter. Suffice to say, the so-called comparables were public
companies, substantially larger than HCM and Matcon, and
that they perform different work than HCM and Matcon, which
are very specialized excavating shoring operations.
 Further, as the trial judge explained at paras. 52-53 of his
reasons, it was not reasonable to use “very different” multiples
for HCM and Matcon, as Mr. Ross did in his valuation. Matcon
and HCM were in the same business, had the same management team and expertise, and used the same engineers. Matcon
developed the experience, expertise and infrastructure and
transferred all of that to the benefit of HCM, with the result that
there was no start-up period for HCM. This is borne out, as the
trial judge noted, by the fact that in its first year, HCM had
sales of over $15 million.
 Far from being unreasonable, the trial judge’s reasons for
using a similar multiple for HCM as for Matcon are compelling.
2. Valuing assets
 The appellant also complains that the trial judge erred by
valuing various assets based on the respondent’s position without explanation.
 Again, this complaint is unfounded. It is essentially an
attack on the trial judge’s acceptance of the respondent’s expert
valuation and his rejection of the valuation prepared by the
appellant’s expert. This was not, as the appellant contends,
a situation in which the trial judge faced conflicting evidence
and merely adopted the position of the respondent without
explanation. The trial judge gave compelling reasons for preferring Mr. Sciannella’s valuation of the assets and for rejecting
that of Mr. Ross.