The appellant appealed a motion decision finding its claim for lien had expired for failing to set the action down for trial within two years as required by s. 37 of the Construction Act.
The appellant argued its lien was saved because another lien claimant on the same project had set its action down in time, asserting they were part of the same 'improvement'.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an 'improvement' is tied to the specific lands described in the claim for lien.
Because the appellant and the other claimant registered liens against different lands, the appellant could not enforce its lien in the other claimant's action.