The Alberta Court of King’s Bench recently considered whether post-completion meetings could extend the deadline to register a construction lien and confirmed that lien rights are tied to the completion of physical work, not follow-up discussions or explanations. This decision clarifies that post-completion meetings which do not relate to actual construction, performance of work, or improvement of the premises do not constitute “work on or in respect of an improvement” for the purposes of creating a lien under Section 6(1) of the Prompt Payment and Construction Lien Act.
1924613 Alberta Ltd. retained Phoenix Treatment Systems to perform plumbing work on 192’s lands. The parties did not enter into a written contract. The plumbing work was completed on May 22, 2024.
On June 2, 2024, at 192’s request, Phoenix returned to the property to meet with 192’s insurance adjuster and explain the work that had been performed. No additional physical work was carried out during this visit. On August 1, 2024, Phoenix registered a lien against the property, 70 days after the plumbing work was completed and 59 days after the meeting with the adjuster.
Under section 6(1) of the Prompt Payment and Construction Lien Act ("PPCLA"), a person who performs work “on or in respect of an improvement” may register a lien against the owner’s interest in the land. However, section 41(2)(c) of the PPLCA imposes a strict limitation period, requiring a lien to be registered within 60 days from the date the performance of services is completed or the contract to provide services is abandoned.
The Court therefore needed to determine whether the June 2, 2024 meeting constituted “work on or in respect of an improvement,” such that the lien was registered within the statutory deadline.
What the Court Said
The Court began its analysis by reviewing the case law on how the PPLCA should be interpreted. There is a bifurcated approach to interpretation:
The legislation must be strictly construed when determining whether a claimant’s lien rights have been established; and
Once those rights are established, the legislation is to be interpreted liberally to protect the lien claimant.
As a result, whether the lien was registered within the 60-day limitation period under section 41(2)(c) of the PPLCA depended on whether the June meeting constituted “work on or in respect of an improvement.”
In addressing this issue, the Court relied on a similar Ontario decision, Hugomark Inc. v Ontario. In Hugomark, the lien claimant argued that its lien was valid because it had continued to provide services by attending meetings with the owner and contractor to resolve outstanding disputes. The claimant maintained that these meetings extended the time for lien registration. In rejecting that argument, the court in Hugomark held at paragraph 20:
The attendance at the resolution meetings does not constitute a direct supply of services to the site or towards an improvement of the site. The attendance at these meetings has nothing to do with the actual construction, performance of work, or the improvement of the premises that were the subject of the contract. The work of the plaintiff, namely attending dispute resolution meetings, does not extend the timeline in which to place a lien on the project.
In this case, the Court found the reasoning in Hugomark to be persuasive. It concluded that Phoenix’s meeting with the insurance adjuster, nearly two weeks after the plumbing work had been completed, did not constitute “work on or in respect of an improvement.” No work was performed during the meeting, and there was no evidence that the meeting formed part of Phoenix’s scope of work under its original plumbing contract with 192.
As a result, the Court held that the lien was not registered within the statutory deadline and ordered that it be struck.
Takeaways
The Court’s decision clarifies the limits of what may be considered “work on or in respect of an improvement” for lien entitlement purposes under the PPLCA. Post-completion meetings or explanatory activities that do not involve actual construction, performance of work, or improvement of the premises do not establish a later date of completion from which the 60-day lien registration period runs. What matters is the completion of physical work under the contract, not subsequent discussions or efforts to explain or justify that work.
To mitigate risk, lien claimants should track the date on which physical work is completed and prioritize early lien registration, particularly where there is no written contract or where post-completion communications continue. Reliance on informal meetings to preserve lien rights may result in the loss of those rights entirely.
Given the strict timelines and framework governing liens, obtaining legal advice promptly when payment disputes arise is recommended. Contact Anthony Burden in Calgary, Ryan Krushelnitzky in Edmonton, or any member of Field Law’s Construction Group for advice.
