Law360 Canada ( October 22, 2026, 9:42 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the appellants from the decision dismissing their originating application for the balance allegedly payable under a Services Agreement, and cross-appeal by the respondents from the judge’s failure to decide their procedural dismissal application. Under an asset purchase arrangement, the appellants agreed to provide post-sale management and aircraft maintenance services for Precision West AG Corp. (Precision West). The Services Agreement calculated compensation per acre sprayed over 10 years, required no minimum acreage, defined the Maximum Contract Amount as $2 million, allowed an increased cap if compensation approached that amount and required payment of any shortfall upon Lloyd Good’s death. Precision West paid $1,475,505, and the Appellants claimed the difference as a guaranteed minimum payment. The judge interpreted the amount as an aggregate ceiling and dismissed the application. The appellants submitted that the judge failed to consider the complete factual matrix and misinterpreted the annual-payment, final-year adjustment and life-insurance clauses. They argued that negotiation and financing documents and those clauses established a $2 million floor as well as a ceiling. The respondents pointed to the appellants’ admission that a minimum annual payment was rejected during negotiations and submitted that the life insurance clause merely secured monies owed. The issues were whether the judge made an extricable legal error or a palpable and overriding error in interpreting the agreement. The respondents acknowledged that their cross-appeal would be moot if the appeal failed....