The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring that their claims for work done in assembling and installing a massive truck frame assembly line at the respondent's plant were not lienable under the Construction Lien Act.
The trial judge found that the assembly line was manufacturing equipment and not an 'improvement' to the land or building.
The Divisional Court majority upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in his application of the law to the facts.
A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal, finding the assembly line was an improvement given its size, cost, and degree of attachment to the premises.