JBRO HOLDINGS INC v DYNASTY POWER INC, 2026 ABKB 505

The parties filed a Correction Application under Rules 9.13 and 9.14 seeking to correct, clarify, or revise the Court’s April 2026 decision (“April 2026 Decision”) arising from an Application heard in March 2026. After receiving written submissions and hearing oral argument on the Correction Application in June 2026, the Court released this decision.

In the Correction Application, the parties raised four issues: whether the term “JBRO” should be replaced; whether the valuation date should be changed; what governing parameters should apply at the next hearing; and which report the expert witnesses should use.

Justice Simard explained that Rule 9.12 is confined to correcting errors in a Judgement or Order. Rule 9.13, by contrast, is broader and allows the Court to vary or modify a Judgment, Order, or its reasoning for a decision at any time before it is entered. In deciding whether to exercise its authority under Rule 9.13, the Court emphasized that the power should be used sparingly and should not allow parties to reargue the case, raise new arguments, or revisit a judgment call. The Court must also balance the purposes of the Rules, the avoidance of unnecessary appeals, the need for a complete record on appeal, and the importance of finality and certainty, particularly where the alleged error was already addressed and is not plain and manifest. Simard J. held that Rule 9.14 would not be applicable here as no Judgement or Order had been entered.

The Court clarified that its use of “JBRO” in the April 2026 Decision was imprecise because it referred to two different Plaintiff entities. However, the Court found that the intended entity was clear from the context of each passage and that the clarification resolved any resulting ambiguity.

Simard J. rejected the Plaintiffs’ request to change the valuation date from December 31, 2021 to December 31, 2022. Although the Court acknowledged an arithmetical error in describing the length of the delay, it held that the valuation date was a discretionary, multi-factorial decision rather than a mathematical calculation, and the error did not affect the outcome.

Justice Simard found that the structure and characterization of damages and pay entitlement were already clearly described in the April 2026 Decision and required no further clarification. The Court clarified that the Judge later determining the remaining issues would decide the outstanding matters.

The Court changed its earlier direction that the experts use only “estimate valuation reports” after recognizing that direction was based on a factual misunderstanding. Given the value and complexity of the companies, Simard J. held that the parties could obtain valuation reports on whatever standard they considered appropriate, including “comprehensive valuation reports.”