In a reference under the Construction Lien Act, multiple contractors sought to enforce their claims for lien against the owner and mortgagees of a townhouse development.
The owner had defaulted, and a subsequent mortgagee posted security under s. 44(1) to vacate the liens and facilitate the sale of the remaining units.
The court determined the timeliness and quantum of the various lien claims.
The court held that because the mortgagee chose to post security under s. 44(1) rather than s. 78(10), the liens ceased to attach to the premises and instead became a charge on the posted security in full, rather than being limited to the holdback deficiency.
Alternatively, the court found the mortgagee had acted as an 'owner' under the Act by taking over the completion and sale of the project.
