3 total
Subcontractor cannot register a general lien if the main contract restricts liens to a lot-by-lot basis.
The appellant, a plumbing subcontractor, registered general liens against two home development projects after the general contractor went bankrupt.
The general contractor's contracts with the owners stipulated that liens would arise and expire on a lot-by-lot basis.
The motion judge and Divisional Court discharged the general liens, holding that section 20(2) of the Construction Lien Act precludes a subcontractor from claiming a general lien when the main contract contains a lot-by-lot restriction.
The Court of Appeal affirmed this interpretation, finding that a subcontractor's right to a general lien flows from the main contract.
The Court also declined to apply the curative provisions of section 6 or treat the liens as excessive under section 35.
Costs awarded to successful respondents on appeal; appellant's statutory interpretation argument was not a novel issue.
Following the dismissal of two appeals heard together, the successful respondents sought costs.
One respondent sought substantial indemnity costs based on a Rule 49 offer to settle, while the other sought partial indemnity costs.
The appellant argued that no costs should be awarded because the appeal raised a novel issue of law regarding the interpretation of the Construction Lien Act.
The Divisional Court rejected the appellant's argument, finding the issue was not novel and the appellant's interpretation would have rendered section 20(2) of the Act meaningless.
The court awarded costs of $7,500 to each of the successful respondents.
Subcontractor cannot claim a general lien if the owner-contractor agreement specifies lot-by-lot lien rights.
The appellant, a plumbing subcontractor, registered a general lien against all lots in two subdivisions after the general contractor made an assignment in bankruptcy.
The owners had written contracts with the general contractor specifying that liens would arise and expire on a lot-by-lot basis.
The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's decision to discharge the general liens, finding that section 20(2) of the Construction Lien Act extinguishes general lien rights for both contractors and subcontractors when the primary contract contains a lot-by-lot provision.
The court also dismissed the appellant's attempt to continue the action for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, and refused leave to appeal costs.
