Lance Spitzig

The court considered whether a construction lien action was properly set down for trial within the two-year period required by section 37(1) of the Construction Act, despite the use of the wrong court file number and style of cause in the trial record.

The defendant, MP Lundy Construction Inc., sought a declaration that the lien had expired and the return of security.

The plaintiff, KE Electrical Ltd., cross-moved to amend the court file number nunc pro tunc.

The court found the error to be an irregularity curable under Rule 2.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, relying on the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Foran.

The defendant’s motion was dismissed and the plaintiff’s cross-motion was granted.

The court considered whether the plaintiff’s construction lien, not set down for trial within two years as required by the Construction Lien Act, could be enforced in another lien action relating to a different portion of the same wind energy project.

The court held that because the plaintiff’s lien and the other lien (Corbiere) were registered against different lands, they did not relate to the same “premises” under the Act.

As a result, the plaintiff’s lien expired and was ordered discharged.