{"id":36769,"date":"2025-08-07T14:11:15","date_gmt":"2025-08-07T18:11:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/?p=36769"},"modified":"2025-08-08T10:51:12","modified_gmt":"2025-08-08T14:51:12","slug":"bc-court-of-appeal-confirms-subcontractors-still-have-a-right-to-the-holdback-even-after-posting-security","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/construction-and-infrastructure-law\/bc-court-of-appeal-confirms-subcontractors-still-have-a-right-to-the-holdback-even-after-posting-security\/","title":{"rendered":"BC Court of Appeal confirms: Subcontractors still have a right to the holdback, even after posting security"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently delivered a significant decision in Kingdom Langley Project Limited Partnership v. WQC Mechanical Ltd., <\/em>2025 BCCA 169<\/a> (\u201cKingdom Langley<\/strong>\u201d)<\/em>, which has important implications for how builders liens are managed in the province. This ruling reaffirms the long-standing “dual lien” theory under British Columbia’s Builders Lien Act<\/em> (\u201cBLA<\/strong>\u201d), particularly regarding the interplay between liens against land and liens against holdback funds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case: A dispute over holdback release<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The appeal in Kingdom Langley <\/em>arose from a dispute between Kingdom Langley Project Limited Partnership (\u201cKingdom<\/strong>\u201d), the project owner, and WQC Mechanical Ltd. (\u201cWQC<\/strong>\u201d), a subcontractor. WQC had a proven claim for a builders lien and sought the release of its proportionate share of the holdback retained by Kingdom under section 4 of the BLA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The general contractor, Metro-Can Construction (TC) Ltd. (\u201cMetro-Can<\/strong>\u201d), had previously obtained a consent order under section 24 of the BLA to cancel WQC\u2019s lien against the land by posting a lien bond. This bond was intended to serve as security for both the land lien and any claim by WQC for a lien against any holdback claims. Kingdom argued that the posting of this security cancelled WQC\u2019s right to claim against the holdback, asserting that payment should instead be made from the lien bond. The chambers judge, however, granted WQC\u2019s application, finding that WQC had a right to payment from the holdback funds, notwithstanding the consent order providing for alternate security. Kingdom appealed this decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key findings and reaffirmation of the Shimco lien<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Appeal dismissed Kingdom’s appeal, upholding the chambers judge’s decision. The core of the Court’s reasoning centered on reaffirming the “dual lien” theory, as established in Shimco Metal Erectors Ltd. v. North Vancouver (District)<\/em>, 2003 BCCA 193<\/a> (\u201cShimco<\/em><\/strong>\u201d). The Court specifically addressed and rejected Kingdom’s argument that Shimco<\/em> was wrongly decided and should be overruled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The key findings from the decision include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n