Not on those terms. The enterprise must be at least 50 percent owned by Canadian nationals and the investor must develop and direct it, so a 40 percent minority stake under a U.S. majority owner fails the ownership and control requirement before anything else is examined.
Fix the ownership structure first; nothing else matters until it works
Treaty investor classification treats the enterprise as Canadian only if at least half of it is owned by Canadian nationals. Renata alone at 40 percent does not get there, and her American partner's 60 percent cannot be counted toward the Canadian share. The develop-and-direct requirement is closely related: an investor ordinarily satisfies it through majority ownership, a 50-50 split in which each party has negative control, or an operating agreement giving her operational control.
Each option changes the deal. A 50-50 split means the partner gives up sole control of a business he built; a majority stake means Renata pays more; a control agreement means lawyers on both sides. Renata should raise this with the partner at the outset, because a purchase agreement signed at 40 percent and later amended looks like an arrangement built for the visa.
Hypothetical example: Tenzin, a Canadian citizen, proposes to buy 55 percent of a specialty orthotics laboratory while a non-treaty-national investor keeps the balance. Before signing, the parties should compare the share ledger, voting rights and operating agreement to confirm both enterprise nationality and Tenzin's actual control. Cash must be committed without a revocation right and exposed to business loss, not left safely available in a personal account.
The laboratory must be real and operating and cannot be marginal; the business plan and payroll forecast are the records that test those points.