precision is virtually impossible to achieve, “. . . the final figure is
as much a matter of judgment on the part of the experts as it is
on the part of the trial judge”.3
Summary of Facts
 Aquam is an integrated pipe infrastructure solutions com-
pany, with its head office in Toronto and operations in the U.K.
and the U.S. It manufactures and installs various technologies
designed to rehabilitate deteriorated, failing or contaminated
pipes, principally for water and natural gas pipe installations.
 It operates through five divisions, two of which were originally corporations owned and managed by each of the respondents Coffey and Christopher, before each sold his interest in their
respective companies to Aquam in 2015 in exchange for the common shares of the Company.
 It would appear from a reading of the material with which
I was provided, including the agreed statement of facts that counsel provided me at my insistence after the first attendance on the
application that the Company sought to “exponentially”
expand its revenue and earnings before interests, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) through the acquisition of
synergistic mid-size companies. It further appears that the endgame was to take the Company public. With that object in mind,
it retained the services of the investment banker, Raymond
James Ltd., to act as the lead underwriter.
 In addition, in order to fund its corporate acquisition program, if not its continuing operations, the Company issued
a series of high interest debentures in each of years 2014-2016
(the “debentures”), in addition to obtaining a working capital
loan (the “Wellington loan”) and the conclusion of a revenue
sharing agreement (the “Grenville agreement”). Putting the matter simply, the Company was debt laden, with heavy interest and
periodic debt retirement obligations.
 Although its assets increased markedly on a consolidated
basis, as did its adjusted EBITDA, the impact of the sudden
growth and the concomitant increase in its debt had a significant
impact on the Company’s bottom line such that its shareholders
equity plummeted to unparalleled depths at year end 2016.
 In the meantime, the Company had a parting of the ways
with its then CEO, decided to shelve its attempts at an IPO, and
redirected Raymond James Ltd. to assist in the procurement of
3 Brant Investments Ltd. v. KeepRite Inc. (1991), 3 O.R. (3d) 289,  O.J.
No. 683 (C.A.), at para. 127.