a balance of probabilities, which is fundamental to the success of
 That said, I am not persuaded on the evidence that the
Company should not be valued on a going-concern basis, although
that conclusion is tempered in some respects later in these reasons for judgment.
 As indicated, Aquam was in straightened circumstances,
no doubt occasioned by its seemingly aggressive corporate acquisition program. Indeed, by its own acknowledgment in its then
recently published annual consolidated statements, the Company
made clear that it was compelled to obtain financing through debt
or equity to continue its operations. I would observe parenthetically that appropriate financing could only have been achieved
through some form of equity deal since its debt obligations as of
the valuation date were extensive if not oppressive.
 As a consequence, in the year preceding April 2017, it had
undertaken a concerted and planned program to refinance the
Company, which, from all indications, generated more than passing interest from private equity firms and financial institutions.
 While no doubt the solvency ratios upon which Mr. Low relied
painted a “difficult” picture, the other financial indicia described
by Mr. Rudson and the underlying proprietary technology which
underpinned some of the activity of the Company supports my conclusion that there was sufficient interest in Aquam as a viable but
debt-laden enterprise, sufficient to attract the interest of more than
mere tire-kickers. I would also observe that its accountants had not
at the time of the preparation of its last annual consolidated statement issued any cautionary note that its continuation as a going
concern was not possible, but for the note set out above.
 Furthermore, while there is some debate that this notion
might offend the Synergy Rule,10 I am of the view, as a fall-back
position, that I am entitled to consider the mere fact that an
agreement had been entered into in respect of the transaction,
although not closed, as some evidence as to the ongoing nature of
the Company, at least in the estimation of a consortium that was
prepared to invest in Aquam. I hasten to add, however, that this
9 “While each party who asserts a proposition must prove it by a preponderance of evidence on the balance of probabilities, there is no burden on
either side to establish value, as this is a judgment for the court to make”:
Deer Creek Energy Ltd. v. Paulson & Co. Inc.,  A.J. No. 643, 2008
ABQB 326, 49 B.L.R. (4th) 1, at para. 485. See, also, Silber v. BGR Precious
Metals Inc. (1998), 41 O.R. (3d) 147,  O.J. No. 2931 (Gen. Div.).
10 See the analysis in RFG Private Equity Limited Partnership No. 1B v. Value
Creation Inc., supra (C.A.), at para. 31.