What is the alternative basis for a judge’s order to set aside the amalgamation of two separate companies?

This was the alternative basis for the application judge’s order. After reviewing the relevant evidence, he characterized the inclusion of a still debt-liable 846 in the amalgamation as “an inadvertent mistake” and, citing Bramco and this court’s decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Juliar (2000), 50 O.R. (30) 728, concluded that there was “no reason not to grant the relief to TCR under this equitable jurisdiction to relieve against mistake.” I see no basis for disagreeing with this analysis or with the application judge’s exercise of discretion in setting aside the amalgamation. The amalgamating companies agreed to the amalgamation based on the mistake that 846 was debt free.