Manjit Singh

The homeowners brought a motion to discharge a construction lien registered against their property, arguing the lien was no longer valid because the action had remained idle after being set down for trial, the lien claimant corporation had been dissolved, and the homeowners acquired rights during the period of dissolution.

The court held that the lien remained perfected under s. 37(1)2 of the Construction Lien Act because the action had been properly set down for trial within the statutory period, and strict compliance with the statute was sufficient.

The temporary dissolution of the lien claimant corporation did not render the lien a nullity because revival under the Business Corporations Act operates nunc pro tunc, subject only to substantive rights acquired during dissolution.

The court also rejected the homeowners’ claim that procedural rights arising under the Rules of Civil Procedure during dissolution superseded the lien.

The request for security for costs was denied due to lack of evidentiary support and delay.

Following a prior motion and costs ruling, the court issued an amended costs decision after receiving correspondence suggesting a mathematical error.

It was later discovered that the correspondence had been sent in error and that the parties had already reached a settlement before the amended decision was released.

The court held that the amended costs decision should not have been issued and rescinded it, restoring the original costs decision.

The self‑represented defendant sought to reopen the original costs ruling, but the court declined to do so.

However, the court awarded the defendant costs for the additional attendance required to address the issue.