The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding it $1.7 million in damages for the respondent's breach of an amalgamation agreement involving a reverse take-over.
The appellant argued damages should have been assessed at a later date using a share value approach or by applying a multiplier to the respondent's asset value, which would have yielded over $8 million.
The respondent cross-appealed the 10% contingency discount and the 10% pre-judgment interest rate.
The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the trial judge correctly assessed damages at the date of breach using the best available evidence (an asset valuation) because no market existed for the shares at that time, and properly exercised his discretion regarding contingencies and interest.
