This case involved two brothers who fished together in Newfoundland for a period of 17 years. Initially they fished for groundfish and borrowed money together to purchase a vessel that they jointly owned. When government policy would not allow a partnership to hold a fishing licence, a valuable crab licence was put solely in the name of one brother. Upon dissolution of the partnership, the brother holding the crab licence took the position that the licence did not form part of the jointly held property.
The court examined fourteen factors set in VanDuzer, "The Law of Partnerships and Corporations" and concluded that that a partnership existed that included the crab licence. In doing so, the court relied upon the folowing factors:
(1) The parties shared the profits of the venture equally;
(2) The Paties shared responsibilty for the debts;
(3) The parties jointly owned the boats up to the time when DFO would not put a crab licence into a boat owned by a partnership;
(4) Prior the the falling out, the brother holding the crab licence described the business as a partnership in a TAGS application; and
(5) the parties paid all costs equally.
After finding that the business, including the crab licence, was a partnership, the court made an order for the surplus assets to be divided between the partners and also made an order that a share of the profits made since the dissolution be paid to the partner who did not hold the crab licence.