A recent British Columbia Supreme Court decision provides important guidance on one of the most common and consequential issues under the Builders Lien Act (the “BLA”): When does the 45-day period for filing a builder’s lien actually begin? In 1110486 B.C. Limited v. Cancon Construction Ltd., 2026 BCSC 1532 (“Cancon”), the Court considered three potential triggers for the lien filing period under section 20 of the BLA: issuance of a certificate of completion accompanied by the required statutory notice, completion of a head contract, and completion of the improvement itself. The decision serves as an important reminder that seemingly minor procedural missteps can have significant consequences for owners, contractors, subcontractors, and consultants alike.
For construction industry stakeholders, the decision in Cancon offers practical guidance on how courts will assess notice requirements, determine whether a contract qualifies as a “head contract,” and identify when a project is sufficiently complete to trigger the lien filing clock.
Background: What was the lien dispute in Cancon Construction about?
The dispute arose from the construction of a 13-unit townhouse development in Richmond, B.C. known as “Reverie Kingdom.” The owner engaged KPI Construction (Reverie) Ltd. (“KPI”) as general contractor for the project, while Cancon Construction Ltd. (“Cancon Construction”) performed civil works both as a subcontractor to KPI and under a separate contract directly with the owner.
Cancon Construction filed two builder’s liens on June 14, 2024, against the project lands. The owner sought cancellation of the liens, arguing they had been filed outside the 45-day limitation period prescribed by section 20 of the BLA. Specifically, the owner argued:
- a certificate of completion issued on February 6, 2024, triggered the lien period under section 20(1);
- alternatively, KPI’s contract was a “head contract” that had been completed more than 45 days before the liens were filed; or
- alternatively, the improvement itself had been completed more than 45 days before the liens were filed.
The Court rejected all three arguments and dismissed the petition.
Was the notice of certification of completion posted in a “prominent” place?
The owner’s primary argument relied on a certificate of completion issued for the KPI contract on February 6, 2024. Under the BLA, a notice of certification of completion must be posted “in a prominent place on the improvement” in order to trigger the 45-day lien filing period under section 20(1).
The notice in question was posted on the door of a mechanical closet located inside a site office situated within the garage of one of the townhouse units. The Court found that this location was not sufficiently prominent to satisfy the requirement under the BLA.
In reaching that conclusion, the Court observed that:
- the term “prominent” means “particularly noticeable;”
- two Cancon Construction witnesses testified that they attended the site repeatedly during the relevant period and never saw the notice;
- there was no evidence that any other contractor saw the notice; and
- the site office functioned primarily as a private workspace for the contractor rather than a common gathering area for trades.
The Court also accepted evidence that notices of certification of completion are commonly posted on outdoor notice boards, muster stations, or other conspicuous locations where site personnel are likely to see them. Posting the notice on an interior closet door did not satisfy the statutory requirement. The Court further found that exterior copies of the notice were not posted until after May 8, 2024, at the earliest, and that photographs of them provided by the owner were likely taken after the liens were filed. It treated the later posting as further circumstantial evidence that the original posting was not prominent.
As a result, the Court held that the notice requirements under section 7(4)(c) of the BLA had not been met and the lien filing period under section 20(1) had never been triggered.
Was the general contractor a “head contractor”?
The owner further argued that, even if the certificate of completion was ineffective, KPI was a “head contractor” and its contract had been completed more than 45 days before the liens were filed. If correct, the lien filing period would have been triggered under section 20(2)(a) of the BLA.
This required the Court to determine two issues:
- what constituted the relevant “improvement;” and
- whether KPI had been engaged to perform “substantially all” of the work respecting that improvement.
The Court held that the relevant improvement was the townhouse development as a whole, not merely the work performed under a particular contract.
The Court found that the owner had failed to establish that KPI was engaged to perform substantially all of the work respecting the improvement. In particular, the owner had not adequately identified or quantified the work contracted directly outside the KPI contract, despite being best positioned to provide that evidence. The evidence nevertheless established that significant work had been contracted directly by the owner, including BC Hydro infrastructure, municipal servicing, sewer connections, and other utility work. The Court found that work valued at more than $400,000 had likely been contracted outside the KPI contract.
In the context of the approximately $5 million KPI contract, the Court found that this separately contracted work was substantial and supported the conclusion that KPI had not been engaged to perform substantially all of the work respecting the improvement. Accordingly, the owner failed to establish that KPI was a head contractor for the purposes of section 20(2)(a).
When was the improvement completed?
Having rejected the owner’s first two arguments, the Court turned to section 20(2)(b) of the BLA, which ties the lien filing period to completion of the improvement itself.
The owner argued that the project was effectively complete by mid-March 2024, when purchaser walkthroughs took place. The Court disagreed.
The Court noted several factors demonstrating that the project remained under active construction, including:
- BC Hydro had not yet energized the project;
- significant civil and exterior works remained ongoing;
- occupancy permits had not yet been issued; and
- purchasers attending walkthroughs were required to wear hard hats, safety vests, and other protective equipment.
The Court concluded that the townhouse development was ready for its intended residential use when the units were ready to be conveyed to purchasers. In the absence of evidence establishing when occupancy permits were issued, the Court determined that the lien filing period commenced on May 23, 2024, when the first units were actually conveyed. The same completion date governed both liens, including the lien arising from Cancon Construction’s separate sewer services contract with the owner, for which no certificate of completion had been issued.
As the liens were filed on June 14, 2024, they fell well within the 45-day period and were therefore not extinguished.
Practical takeaways for construction stakeholders
1. Posting a notice is not enough: it must be posted in a prominent place where trades are likely to see it
The most significant aspect of the decision is the Court’s analysis of what constitutes a “prominent” location for a notice of certification of completion. Owners, contractors, architects, and payment certifiers should ensure notices are posted in genuinely conspicuous locations, such as site notice boards or other areas regularly accessed by trade contractors. Importantly, the Court also observed that section 7(4)(c) places the obligation to post the notice on the payment certifier, rather than the owner or contractor, although that issue was not determinative in this case.
2. Carved-out scopes may affect head contract status
Many construction projects involve owners separately contracting for utility works, municipal servicing, BC Hydro infrastructure, or other specialized scopes. Cancon suggests that these carve-outs may be relevant when determining whether a contractor has been engaged to perform “substantially all” of the work respecting an improvement. Owners and contractors should be mindful of this issue when assessing lien deadlines.
3. Completion of an improvement depends on readiness for intended use
The decision reinforces that completion of an improvement is distinct from substantial completion of a contract. For the former, courts will focus on whether the improvement or a substantial part of it is actually ready to be used for its intended purpose. Occupancy, utility servicing, access, and the ability to transfer units to purchasers may all be relevant considerations.
4. Contemporaneous and reliable evidence matters
The decision contains several credibility findings driven by inconsistencies in the evidence. The Court scrutinized photographs, site records, and affidavit evidence concerning the posting of notices and the status of the project. Stakeholders seeking to rely on certificates of completion or completion dates should carefully preserve project records and contemporaneous documentation.
Looking ahead: Upcoming amendments to the Builders Lien Act
Although British Columbia’s forthcoming Construction Prompt Payment Act will introduce significant changes to the province’s construction payment regime and amend certain provisions of the Builders Lien Act, the amendments do not alter the 45-day lien filing deadlines under section 20 or the notice requirements for certificates of completion under section 7. Accordingly, the principles confirmed in Cancon will remain relevant under the new legislative framework. For a discussion of the upcoming changes, see our previous article, BC introduces prompt payment legislation and Builders Lien Act amendments: Is your construction business ready?.
Conclusion
The decision in Cancon provides valuable guidance on three important aspects of lien timing under the Builders Lien Act. It indicates that courts will closely examine whether notices of certification of completion were posted in truly prominent locations, whether a contractor qualifies as a head contractor, and whether an improvement was genuinely ready for its intended use before concluding that the lien filing clock has started running.
For owners, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and payment certifiers, the message is straightforward: careful attention to statutory notice requirements, contract structuring, and project documentation remains essential to protecting lien rights and avoiding unnecessary disputes.
For more guidance on how this decision may impact your projects, reach out to our Construction Litigation lawyers for advice tailored to your needs.
