Lien Claimants: Get Those Lands Right!

Section 25(2)(a) of BC’s Builders Lien Act (“BLA”) allows a court to cancel a lien where the claim does not relate to the land against which it was registered. Will a court validate a lien filed on one parcel of land in respect of work completed on another parcel? To what extent do parcels of land need to be connected for a lien on one parcel to apply to another?

Anthem and Mainland entered into four separate contracts under which Mainland would complete civil works on residential developments owned by Anthem. Each contract covered a distinct land parcel: Site 1, Site 2, Site 3, and Offsite.

Anthem applied to cancel two liens registered by Mainland based on section 25 of the BLA. Both liens were filed against Site 1 only. One lien was for just over $1.1 million and was the subject of this lawsuit because the parties agreed that the second lien was subsumed within this larger lien.

What the Court Said

First, the Court determined that the lien was filed out of time because the requisite Certificate of Completion was not posted on site on time. (This requirement does not exist in Alberta.)

Second, the Court went on to assess Mainland’s argument that their work on Site 2, Site 3, and Offsite was connected with and necessary to the improvements on Site 1. Essentially, Mainland wanted to claim that the lien, registered only against Site 1, also included the full amount of unpaid work they completed on Site 2, Site 3, and Offsite.

The Court found two problems with Mainland’s position. The first problem was that Mainland’s lien against Site 1 was filed outside of the 45-day period of when Mainland finished its work on Site 2, Site 3, and Offsite. This would be the case even if Site 1 was sufficiently connected to the other sites.

The second problem was that the lien did not properly relate to the land against which it was registered. The Court held that to properly register a lien on one parcel for work performed on another, there must be a “very strong connection” between the two lands. The work on the other property must be an “integral and necessary part” of the improvement on the land on which the lien is registered.

Mainland’s evidence on the connectivity of the lands was weak. Specifically, Mainland provided four pieces of evidence that the Court found insufficient.

1. Mainland argued that Site 1 contained an amenity building that serviced Site 2 and Site 3. The Court found that Mainland failed to show any meaningful link between the amenity building on Site 1 and the servicing work on Site 2 and Site 3. There was no evidence that the unpaid work on those sites was necessary or integral to constructing the amenity building.
2. Mainland argued that materials were shared among sites, but the Court determined that Mainland failed to show that sharing materials constituted a “necessary and integral relationship.”
3. Mainland argued that the development was originally seen as a single project, which the Court found irrelevant because the developments did not proceed as one project and each of the four developments involved a separate contract.
4. Mainland argued that its work on Site 2 included a road that connected it to Site 1. The Court found that Mainland’s argument lacked detail and supporting evidence. Mainland did not specify which road or what work was involved, whether that work was part of the lien claim, or how the road related to Site 3. Mainland also failed to show that the road was integral and necessary to Site 1.

As such, the Court found that the integration among the sites was insufficient and ordered that the lien be cancelled. The Court also cited the BC Court of Appeal in JVD Installations Inc v Skookum Creek Power Partnership to highlight that mutual interdependence among land parcels is insufficient for a lien to be registered on one parcel in respect of work on another. Rather, the standard is a “much higher level of interconnectedness.”

Takeaways

Lien claimants must register liens against the correct lands. A lien registered on one parcel of land for work done on another is likely invalid unless there is a “very strong connection” between the two parcels. The work done on the other property must be an “integral and necessary part” of the improvement on the land on which the lien is registered. The standard is much higher than mutual interdependence.

Thus, a lien claimant should only register a lien against all parcels if they are confident that the work on one parcel meets the above criteria.

Overall, this matter is an excellent case study of what is considered insufficient evidence, as the Court also found many areas where Mainland did not provide enough detail. This highlights the importance of providing evidence that is as detailed as possible to prove that work done on one parcel is an “integral and necessary part” of the improvement on the parcel on which the lien is registered.

Determining which lands to lien is often more difficult than it appears, as this case demonstrates. It is advisable to consult a lawyer prior to lien registration so that potential lien rights can be discussed in conjunction with the risks of improper registration. Contact Anthony Burden or Grant Szelewicki in Calgary, Ryan Krushelnitzky in Edmonton, or any member of Field Law’s Construction Group for advice.

Link to Decision: Mainland Civil Site Services Inc v Anthem Coyote Creek One Holdings Limited Partnership, 2025 BCSC 2009