The defendants brought a motion to discharge a construction lien registered by the plaintiff roofing company, arguing the lien was not preserved and perfected within the timelines required by the Construction Lien Act.
The defendants claimed the work was completed earlier than the plaintiff asserted, relying on an inspection report and emails.
The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the actual completion date of the work, noting the defendants' evidence was contradictory and lacked sworn affidavits, and that the timeliness issue was not specifically pleaded in their Statement of Defence.
