What are the assumptions in a reply from the respondent in a reasonable expectation of profit case?

Many of the assumptions are factually correct. Some are merely argumentative window-dressing. I find assumptions (i), (j), (k) and (l) particularly unacceptable. Precisely the words in those paragraphs appear in virtually every reasonable expectation of profit case that I have heard. They represent a mindless recitation of hackneyed and stereotypical language that has nothing to do with the case. They could not conceivably have formed a factual basis for the assessments. It is obvious that whoever drafted the reply indiscriminately plucked phrases from other cases (likely Moldowan v. The Queen, 1977 CanLII 5 (SCC), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 480) that looked nice and sprinkled them into the reply as assumptions. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that in pleading assumptions in a reply that have the effect of defining the burden that lies on the appellant the respondent has a serious responsibility to set out honestly the true basis of the assessment and not concoct fanciful boilerplate.