Construction Lien's Law: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[29] The difficulty with 1372708’s argument is that the definition of owner under s. 1(1) of the CLA requires that an owner have “an interest in a premises” to which the improvement is made, not just an interest in the improvement. An interest in personalty or an interest in an improvement by itself, without an attached interest in land, cannot constitute a lienable interest: Graham Mining Ltd. v. Rapid-Eau Technologies Inc. (2001), 7 C.L.R. (3d) 291 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 27, aff’d [2001] O.J. 4183 (Div. Ct.), at paras. 1 to 3. While Ravenda Homes had an interest in the improvement, it had no interest in 1372708’s land, which was owned solely by 1372708. As a result, the motion judge did not err in finding that Ravenda Homes was not an “owner” for the purposes of the CLA. | [29] The difficulty with 1372708’s argument is that the definition of owner under s. 1(1) of the CLA requires that an owner have “an interest in a premises” to which the improvement is made, not just an interest in the improvement. An interest in personalty or an interest in an improvement by itself, without an attached interest in land, cannot constitute a lienable interest: Graham Mining Ltd. v. Rapid-Eau Technologies Inc. (2001), 7 C.L.R. (3d) 291 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 27, aff’d [2001] O.J. 4183 (Div. Ct.), at paras. 1 to 3. While Ravenda Homes had an interest in the improvement, it had no interest in 1372708’s land, which was owned solely by 1372708. As a result, the motion judge did not err in finding that Ravenda Homes was not an “owner” for the purposes of the CLA. | ||
==Contractors & Sub Contractors Trust== | |||
Revision as of 16:20, 30 January 2020
Ravenda Homes Ltd. v. 1372708, 2017 ONCA 834 (CanLII)
[29] The difficulty with 1372708’s argument is that the definition of owner under s. 1(1) of the CLA requires that an owner have “an interest in a premises” to which the improvement is made, not just an interest in the improvement. An interest in personalty or an interest in an improvement by itself, without an attached interest in land, cannot constitute a lienable interest: Graham Mining Ltd. v. Rapid-Eau Technologies Inc. (2001), 7 C.L.R. (3d) 291 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 27, aff’d [2001] O.J. 4183 (Div. Ct.), at paras. 1 to 3. While Ravenda Homes had an interest in the improvement, it had no interest in 1372708’s land, which was owned solely by 1372708. As a result, the motion judge did not err in finding that Ravenda Homes was not an “owner” for the purposes of the CLA.
