— pay Raymond James Ltd. $1.2 million in fees; and
— earmark $7.8 million as working capital.
 The parties are in agreement that I am obliged to set a fair
value for each of the respondents’ ratable portion of the “en bloc”
fair market value (“FMV”) of the Company as of the valuation
date. In arriving at this number, I am to apply the oft-repeated
principle, if not valuation mantra, that FMV is “the highest price
available in an open and unrestricted market between informed,
prudent parties acting at arm’s length and under no compulsion
to act, expressed in money or money’s worth”.4
 Regrettably, the repetition of this principle does very little
to lead me to a just and proper conclusion.
 The parties are also in agreement that Ontario law, at least,
is clear that dissenting shareholders, the respondents, are not entitled to benefit from the synergies of or payments called for or made
under the transaction as they were offered, and declined, a continuing interest in the Company (the “Synergy Rule”).5 In addition, as
the applicant correctly states in its initial factum, evidence based on
hindsight is not admissible to inform the analysis on the valuation
date, except, in so far as it is necessary, hindsight may be applied as
a “reality check” when assessing the proposed valuation.6
 The respondents do not take issue with the concepts set
out above. What is in issue, among other things, is whether or not
its expert, Wayne Rudson, actually did factor the synergies of the
transaction into his analysis or merely paid lip service to the
4 See Terranet Inc. v. Canarab Marketing Corp.,  O.J. No. 4036,
54 B.L.R. (4th) 138 (S.C.J.), at para. 27; Brant Investments Ltd. v. KeepRite
Inc. (1987), 60 O.R. (2d) 737,  O.J. No. 574 (H.C.J.), at p. 26; Lydia
Diamond Exploration of Canada Ltd. v. von Anhalt,  O.J. No. 21,
2011 ONSC 3862, 78 B.L.R. (4th) 214 (S.C.J.), at para. 54.
5 Smeenk v. Dexleigh Corp. (1990), 74 O.R. (2d) 385,  O.J. No. 1500
(H.C.J.), at para. 51.
6 See Smeenk v. Dexleigh Corp., supra, at para. 50; Lydia Diamond Exploration of Canada Ltd. v. von Anhalt, supra, at para. 60; Terranet v. Canarab
Marketing Corp., supra, at para. 92. See, also, Ford Motor Co. of Canada
Ltd. v. Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board (1997), 36 O.R. (3d)
384,  O.J. No. 4298 (C.A.), at paras. 5-11.
7 I have, for purposes of my analysis, not taken into consideration the
recent Alberta trial and appeal decisions in RFG Private Equity Limited Partnership No. 1B v. Value Creation Inc.,  A.J. No. 738, 2016 ABQB 391,
40 Alta. L.R. (6th) 23, affd  A.J. No. 261, 2018 ABCA 85, 69 Alta. L.R.