Valuation — Positions of the Parties
 The FMV ultimately ascribed to the Company by the two
experts ranged from a low of “nil” based on the liquidation
approach first adopted by the applicant’s valuator, Robert Low, to
a high of $.94 per share, or an en bloc value of $19.3 million,
offered up by the respondents’ valuation expert, Wayne Rudson.
 Both experts agree that, in the circumstances of this case,
there are two generally accepted valuation methods applicable to
a business entity such as Aquam, namely treating the Company
as one that must undergo a liquidation or one that is to be considered a going concern.
 The former, which was the first method presented by the
applicant, assumes that the Company cannot obtain financing of
which it was then in need and can no longer carry on business in
the short term, if not in the foreseeable future. Under that scenario, the Company must undertake a voluntary liquidation and
attempt to realize on the disposition of its assets or books of business in an orderly fashion or, alternatively, is forced into receivership by its creditors and its assets are disposed of on a distressed
basis. The end result on this hypothesis is that, in either event,
after the retirement of debt, the Company will have a nil FMV
and there will be no residual value to shareholders.
 I am not prepared to accept the applicant’s position that
the liquidation approach must obtain in the circumstances of this
case. While no doubt the Company on valuation date was in
straightened financial circumstances, was debt-laden and had to
endure high and increasing interest and royalty expenses, and
was having difficulty in retaining senior management, the best
opinion Mr. Low could provide on this issue was that there was an
“equal likelihood of Aquam being a going concern on valuation
date as not”.8 Respectfully, that assertion, which dots his
report in several instances, does not establish this proposition on
(6th) 1. In the first place, the facts of that case are markedly different from
those of the instant case and the valuation exercise which played out before
a very experienced commercial trial judge was of marginal relevance to the
issues with which I was faced. Second, and more importantly, I am not persuad-
ed, as the applicant argued, that the decision of the Court of Appeal of Alberta
flies in the face of the previously cited Ontario jurisprudence. That said, it is my
intention to apply the principles articulated in the decisions referenced above.
8 Robert Low, Aquam Corporation Valuation Report (February 9, 2018),
appellant’s application record, Volume II of II, Tab 4.