When a tenant requests work from a contractor, there are two ways in
which the registered owner of the lands in question can be called upon
for payment, even though the registered owner was not the person making
the direct request for the work done: the lien claimant can provide
notice pursuant to s. 15(1) of the Builders’ Lien Act, RSA 2000, c B-7 (“BLA”) or the lien claimant can show that the registered owner is an owner as defined in s. 1(j) of the BLA.
Section 15(1) Notice
Section 15(1) of the BLA states as follows:
15(1)
When the estate on which a lien attaches is a freehold estate for a
life or lives or a leasehold estate then, if the person doing the work
or furnishing the material gives to the person holding the fee simple,
or that person’s agent, notice in writing of the work to be done or
materials to be furnished, the lien also attaches to the estate in fee
simple unless the person holding the estate, or that person’s agent,
within 5 days after the receipt of the notice, gives notice that the
person holding that estate will not be responsible for the doing of the
work or the furnishing of the materials.
K & Fung Canada Ltd v NV Reykdal & Associates Ltd, [1997] AJ 741, aff’d 1998 ABCA 178 (“NV Rykdal”) is the leading case on the meaning of notice in writing for the purposes of s. 15(1). In NV Rykdal, a
tenant entered into a contract with a contractor, who agreed to
provide all work, labour, services and materials necessary for
leasehold improvements and exterior renovations. All invoices were
directed to the tenant. The tenant subsequently ceased carrying on
business, leaving over $250,000 in invoices unpaid. The landlord
terminated the lease and took possession of the premises. The
contractor filed a lien against the premises without giving any written
notice to the landlord under the BLA. It argued, however, that
correspondence collectively received and sent by the contractor and its
agent to and from the landlord and the tenant could be construed as
requisite notice for the purposes of s. 15(1).
The court observed
that while the notice requirement under s. 15(1) must be in writing,
it is not necessary that the notice be in a specific form. As such, the
statutory requirement may be satisfied by the delivery of certain
documents, the cumulative effect of which is to put the landlord on
notice. The court cited the Alberta Court of Appeal in Beyersbergen Construction Ltd v Edmonton Centre Ltd (1977), 78
DLR (3d) 122) as authority for the proposition that even the
submission of detailed plans and specifications to the landlord will
not constitute notice unless the necessary implication of giving such
information is to give written notice that the landlord would be liable
pursuant to s. 15(1). Courts will consider whether the notice in
writing expressly or by necessary implication informs the landlord or
its agent that the lienholder will claim a lien against the fee simple
estate.
Landlord as Owner
The test for whether a landlord constitutes an owner for the purposes of s. 1(j) of the BLA was summarized by the court in Royal Trust Corporation of Canada v Bengert Construction Ltd, Coyes and Coyes (1988), 85 AR 210 (CA) (“Royal Trust Corp”) as follows:
To
bring the person sought to be charged within the definition of owner,
the lien claimant must establish three elements. First it must be shown
that the person has “an estate or interest” in the land, and secondly
that he has requested, expressly or impliedly, that the materials be
furnished or the work done and finally at least one of the remaining
elements must be present: the work must have been done or the materials
furnished on his credit, on his behalf, with his privity and consent or
for his direct benefit.
Whether the conduct of a landlord
constitutes an implied request to have the work done has been canvassed
extensively by Alberta courts. In Royal Trust Corp, the court
observed that whether a request has occurred must be decided on the
facts of each individual case. The court noted that a request does not
necessarily involve direct communication by the owner to the contractor.
It does, however, involve something more than mere knowledge or
consent. The court observed that in ordinary language the word ‘request’
indicates the idea of an active or positive proposal, as contrasted
with mere passivity or acquiescence.
In Lighting World Ltd v Help-U-Build (Edmonton) Inc, 1998
ABQB 930 the court observed that in order for there to be an implied
request for the purposes of s. 1(j), there must be some active
participation by the owner in the construction. In that case, the court
noted that the parties to the agreement to lease had come to an
understanding that the tenant would be responsible for the improvements
that it required in order to utilize the premises in the intended
manner. While the landlord was aware that the construction was ongoing
and a representative of the landlord occasionally visited the premises
to observe the state of construction, the representative did not provide
any direction to any contractor or the tenant as to how the
construction should be done. Neither the landlord nor its representative
participated in in the drawing of any plans or the approval of any
work. Though the landlord loaned money to the tenant for the purposes of
the renovations, there were no terms or conditions attached to those
loans dictating who was to perform the renovations or how they were to
be done. The court concluded that the landlord was not an owner within
the meaning of the BLA, observing at para 22 that
the
mere fact of knowledge that construction will ensue when a landlord
leases premises does not constitute an implied request that the
construction be done by any particular trade, sub-trade or contractor.
Conversely, the Alberta Court of Appeal observed in Acera Developments Inc v Sterling Homes Ltd, 2010 ABCA 198 (“Acera Developments”)
that active participation by a liened party in the work being done can
operate to bring that liened party within the definition of “owner”
through demonstrating an implied request to do work. In Acera Developments,
the court found that there was sufficient interaction between the
builder and the developer to support the conclusion that the
construction proceeded at the owner’s implied request. The court found
that the landowner was actively involved in the supervision of the
construction and that the lien claimant was contractually bound to
construct improvements to a specific standard and scope contractually
determined by the landowner. Based on this involvement of the landowner,
the court concluded that the work in question could be implied to have
been performed at the request of the liened party.
Based on the foregoing, the determination of whether a landlord will constitute an “owner” for the purposes of the BLA will
turn on whether it can be demonstrated that the landlord actively
participated in the work performed by the lien claimant. The court can
be expected to examine the extent to which the landlord approved plans,
selected contractors and subcontractors, controlled funding, and
provided supervision or inspection.
Conclusion
The
contractor or supplier working for a tenant should consider its lien
rights against the landlord as a routine matter of due diligence. There
are lots of situations where the right to lien a lease (the tenant’s
interest) provides inadequate security for payment. Since the right to
lien the landlord’s interest is not automatic (unless the landlord is
very actively engaged in the construction), the contractor or supplier
should use a s. 15(1) notice when appropriate.
On the other hand,
the landlord should be cautious regarding the extent of its involvement
with contractors hired to perform work for their tenants. The landlord
can unwittingly expose itself to lien liability, even though the
landlord usually has no control over the risk (i.e. no control over the
lien holdback).
