Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CV-25-0067-00 Date: 2025-10-27
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
0865894 C.C. LTD. O/A Agritech North Applicant
- and -
Syncor Contracting Limited Respondent
Counsel:
- B. Feagin, for the Applicant
- R. Larson and J. Di Giuseppe, for the Respondent
Heard: October 23, 2025, at Thunder Bay, Ontario
Justice: W.D. Newton R.S.J.
Decision On Motion
Overview
[1] This is an application brought by 0865894 C.C. LTD. operating as Agritech North ("Agritech") to discharge a claim for lien registered by Syncor Contracting Limited ("Syncor") on September 11, 2025.
[2] For the reasons that follow, the claim for lien is discharged.
Preliminary Matters
Representation of Agritech
[3] Mr. Feagin is not a lawyer and was not aware that he required leave of the court to represent the corporate applicant.
[4] An adjournment was granted to allow Mr. Feagin to make that application and file the necessary affidavit. The affidavit was delivered and addressed the list of factors to be considered by the court in permitting a non-lawyer to represent the corporation[1].
[5] The affidavit discloses that Mr. Feagin is the Chief Executive Officer, sole director, and sole shareholder of the applicant. He is personally bound for the corporation's obligations. The material prepared by Mr. Feagin for this application, particularly his affidavits sworn October 20, 2025 (seeking leave to represent the corporation) and sworn October 14, 2025 (in response to the affidavit submitted by Syncor), demonstrates that Mr. Feagin is very capable of comprehending the issues raised and advocating on behalf of the corporation. Evidence establishes that it would be a significant financial hardship to retain counsel. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant leave to the corporation to have Mr. Feagin represent the corporation and I so order.
Perfection of the Lien
[6] The property subject to the claim for lien is in the District of Kenora and the action was commenced in the District of Thunder Bay. O. Reg 302/18 under the Construction Act[2] (the "Act") required that the statement of claim be commenced in the district in which the premises were situated. Although the action could still be commenced in the correct district, Mr. Feagin, on behalf of the applicant, consented at the appearance on October 16, 2025, to an order that the action be transferred to the District of Kenora and I so ordered.
The Application
The Facts
[7] On September 11, 2025, Syncor registered a claim for lien against the property on the basis of the supply of services or materials up to August 16, 2025, asserting a value of $63,740.
[8] At issue is the characterization and or the value of the supply of services and materials on that date.
[9] In 2024 Syncor was engaged by Agritech to complete roofing work on the property.
[10] On June 14, 2024, Syncor delivered an invoice "for completing the new roof" for the contract price of $198,000 plus HST of $25,740.00 for a total of $223,740.
[11] Following this invoice, Agritech withheld a portion of payment due to unresolved deficiencies and pending confirmation of the warranty of the roofing manufacturer. A report from DGH Engineering dated July 11, 2024, identified deficiencies some of which were eventually remedied by the roofing subcontractor, Flawless Roofing. This work was not invoiced as it was correction of prior poor workmanship.
[12] Syncor was in control of the inspection schedule of the roofing manufacturer, Lexsuco, for final warranty inspection and that inspection did not occur until May 27, 2025. That inspection identified "1 single scupper deficiency to be fixed."
[13] On Saturday, August 16, 2025, Flawless Roofing attended, without notice to or authorization of Agritech, and addressed the deficiency. Syncor asserts that this work was to complete the project and secure the 20-year manufacturer guarantee required under the contract with Agritech.
[14] Syncor also asserts that the cost of the work performed by Flawless Roofing on August 16, 2025, was at least $2,510 (1.2% of the contract price) calculated as follows:
- Material: 2 corner patches, $35 x 2 = $70 plus 1 tube of sealant, $30, plus 1 gallon primer
- Total material: $170
- Labour: 1.5 hours on site, 8 hours travel @ $110/hour, double time for work on Saturday
- $220 x 9.5 hours = $2,090
- Transportation charges: $250
[15] As Mr. Feagin now claims that another scupper has the same deficiency, Syncor claims the cost to attend to this would be the same or another $2,500.
The Law
[16] The right of a contractor to lien expires 60 days after the contract is completed[3] where there is no certification or declaration of substantial performance.
[17] The Act provides as follows in subsection 2(3):
When contract deemed completed
(3) For the purposes of this Act, a contract shall be deemed to be completed, and services or materials shall be deemed to be last supplied to the improvement when the price of completion, correction of a known defect or last supply is not more than the lesser of,
(a) 1 per cent of the contract price; and
(b) $5,000.
[18] The work performed was not part of the contract but rectification of a deficiency to allow for certification of the warranty.
[19] One percent of the contract price is $1,980.
Disposition
[20] The price of correction of the known defects – the one addressed on August 16 and the one to be addressed - is $340 for materials ($170 x 2) and three hours labour 1.5 x 2 x $80[4] for a total of $580 to correct the deficiencies. I do not allow any claim for transportation costs or travel time as the additional travel would not have been occurred had the work been completed correctly in the first place. That the repairs were done on the weekend is not the owner's issue.
[21] Accordingly, these corrections are not significant enough to extend the time for deemed completion of the contract.
[22] The claim for lien is out of time and is hereby vacated.
Costs
[23] Although not represented by counsel, the applicant is entitled to its costs of the application and may submit written submissions on costs within 15 days of the release of this decision limited to three pages. Reply submissions shall be delivered within 10 days thereafter limited to three pages also.
The Hon. Justice W.D. Newton R.S.J.
Released: October 27, 2025
Footnotes
[1] See for example Leisure Farm Construction Limited v. Dalew Farms Inc. et al., 2021 ONSC 105 at para. 9.
[2] R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30.
[4] Syncor's foreman rates according to the Affidavit of Mr. Feagin dated October 14, 2025 at Exhibit O.