The appellant subcontractor appealed a decision removing its construction lien and dismissing the action against the property owner.
The motions judge found the lien was not filed within the time required under the Construction Lien Act, as the late delivery of screens was deemed a trivial act intended solely to extend the lien period.
The Divisional Court found no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact, concluding the motions judge properly applied the law regarding whether remaining work was trivial or done in good faith.
The appeal was dismissed.
