A ruling which found the Yukon government partially responsible for the blast which showered the Lobird Trailer Park with rocks four years ago has been set aside in Yukon Supreme Court.

On May 6, 2008, a blaster for P.S. Sidhu Trucking Ltd. set off an explosive charge as part of the Hamilton Boulevard extension to the Alaska Highway and Robert Service Way.

Rocks from the blast travelled nearly 150 metres from the site, hitting homes in the trailer park.

One rock broke through a trailer's roof and ended up in the living room. Others hit vehicles, fences, sheds and other trailers. No one was injured.

At a 2010 trial, Judge John Faulkner convicted P.S. Sidhu Trucking Ltd., William Cratty, the supervisor, and the Yukon government of various offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The government was charged as a constructor, Sidhu Trucking as a employer and Cratty as a supervisor.

Cratty was fined $2,500, the trucking company $21,000, and the government $30,000.

All the fines were ordered to be paid to the Northern Safety Network Yukon for safety courses and projects.

The blaster, Peter Hildebrand, pleaded guilty to one charge related to the blast prior to the trial.

The government, the trucking company and Cratty all appealed the decision.

In his 40-page ruling released this week, Justice Ron Veale denied Cratty's and Sidhu's appeals but found that the original judge erred in convicting the government as a constructor.

Veale agreed with government lawyers, who argued that although the government was the owner, it was not the constructor of the project.

In September 2007, the government and Sidhu Trucking signed a $9-million contract for the company to construct the sub-grade and base construction of the extension, including rock blasting.

"I respectfully disagree with the trial judge that the Yukon government was the constructor on this project,” Veale said.

"In my view, the contract (between Sidhu and the government) stipulated that Sidhu Trucking was the constructor and it was an error of law to ignore this term of the contract entirely.”

In this case, the government was both an owner of the project and an employer of four employees but not a constructor — a role defined in part as a person who undertakes a project for an owner, Veale said.

"Unfortunately, it was not charged, in the alternative, as an owner or employer,” he said.

Veale concluded that the government did not act as a constructor on the project but instead "exercised its rights under the contract to ensure compliance with quality and safety. These rights are consistent with an owner's rights.”

The judge said he disagreed with the lawyer for the director of occupational health and safety, who argued that the role of each party should be determined after the fact.

"That appears to me to be a recipe for confusion on a construction site, there the protection and safety of the workers and the public require everyone on the site to know their obligations ... at the outset of the project,” Veale said.

In June 2011, Yukon Supreme Court Justice Leigh Gower rejected the government's plea for a new trial in the case.