R. Spinks

The owner of leased commercial premises moved under the Construction Lien Act to declare three construction liens invalid and to discharge security posted to vacate them, arguing the lien claimants failed to correctly identify the owner in their claims for lien.

The court considered whether the naming errors constituted non‑compliance with s. 34(5) of the Act or merely a failure to strictly comply curable under s. 6.

The evidence showed the tenant owner had used multiple corporate and unregistered names and had not registered certain business names, contributing to confusion about the proper legal entity.

The court held that the errors—misplacing the owner’s name in the electronic form or naming related Equinox entities—were failures to strictly comply but not fatal defects, and no prejudice was established.

Motions to discharge the liens were dismissed and the lien claimants were permitted to amend pleadings to correctly name the tenant owner.

A contractor performing underground garage restoration severed an underground hydro cable while chipping concrete at the entrance to a parking garage.

The property owner withheld payment of certified progress invoices and claimed backcharges for repair costs arising from the incident.

The court held that the contractor was contractually responsible for locating underground utilities and was liable for the repair costs because it failed to obtain a hydro locate that would have prevented the damage.

However, the owner was not entitled to withhold certified payments while awaiting potential claims and was required to pay contractual interest on the delayed invoices.

The contractor’s damages and the owner’s backcharges offset each other, leaving only interest payable.

The plaintiff contractor brought a construction lien action for unpaid invoices totaling $30,716.09 for home renovations.

The defendant homeowner counterclaimed for deficiencies, accommodation expenses, and a full refund, arguing the unwritten contract was unenforceable under the Consumer Protection Act.

The court found the defendant deliberately deceived the plaintiff by promising payment to ensure completion.

Applying section 93(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, the court held it would be inequitable not to enforce the contract.

The plaintiff was awarded the balance owing, less set-offs for minor deficiencies and cleaning.