The appellant architects were retained to design a building and obtained site plan approval, but the project was abandoned and their retainer terminated.
The architects registered a claim for lien for unpaid invoices, which the owner successfully moved to vacate under s. 47(1) of the Construction Lien Act on the basis that the services did not enhance the value of the land.
On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge misapprehended the evidence and improperly resolved genuine issues of fact that should have been left for trial.
The Court also clarified that where a planned improvement does not proceed, only the preparation of designs, plans, drawings, or specifications that in themselves enhance the value of the land are lienable, and this enhancement must be assessed at the precise time the services are rendered.
