The defendants brought a motion arguing that the plaintiff failed to perfect a construction lien under the Construction Lien Act because its Statement of Claim did not explicitly plead enforcement of the lien and instead referenced trust provisions.
The court considered whether the issued Statement of Claim, read together with the mandatory Information for Court Use form and the surrounding procedural context, sufficiently demonstrated an intention to enforce the lien within the statutory 45‑day period.
Applying a liberal interpretation of lien pleadings and considering the earlier registration of the lien and payment of security into court, the court found the plaintiff intended to enforce the lien despite deficient drafting.
The court concluded that the lien had been effectively perfected and preserved.
The plaintiff was permitted to amend its pleading to clarify the claim.
