The appellant appealed the dismissal of its counterclaim, arguing the trial judge erred in her factual findings.
The respondents cross-appealed, arguing the trial judge misinterpreted the phrase 'direct commission income' in a business purchase agreement's price adjustment formula.
The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the trial judge's factual findings were entitled to deference and her interpretation of the agreement was consistent with its language and the parties' reasonable expectations.
