Donald Rasmussen

The applicant sought declarations regarding the interpretation of a limited partnership agreement governing a large residential land development project.

The dispute concerned whether partnership decisions required consensus between the two limited partners or could be determined by weighted voting based on ownership interests, and whether a subsequent agreement requiring equal allocation of residential building lots was enforceable.

The court held that the partnership agreement clearly permitted ordinary resolutions to be decided by a majority of votes weighted by ownership shares, giving the majority partner decision‑making authority.

However, the court also found that the later agreement requiring a 50‑50 division of residential building lots between the partners was valid and binding.

The court concluded that both agreements could operate together: decision‑making authority followed the ownership weighting while lot allocation remained equal under the later agreement.

The defendant, a construction company, was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act with failing to ensure that a temporary wooden brace used in a winch system was designed and constructed to support or resist all loads and forces to which it was likely to be subjected.

The charge arose from a fatal construction accident in which a worker died when the wooden brace failed.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the wooden brace was inadequately designed and constructed for the likely forces it would encounter, given its intended use for achieving alignment rather than applying maximum force.

The court also found that the defendant exercised due diligence by relying on manufacturer instructions and industry standards.

The defendant was acquitted.