Improvement vs. Premises: The Divisional Court Reaffirms the Boundary
Your construction lien is not on a project. It is on a property. A recent Divisional Court decision clarified the distinction and highlighted the consequences for any subcontractor who assumes that another lien claimant's timely procedural steps will protect its own claim.
One Improvement or Two?
Large infrastructure projects often involve multiple parcels, multiple general contractors, and dozens of subcontractors, all working toward a single end-use. A wind farm needs both turbines and transmission lines. A pipeline needs compressor stations, easements, and access roads. A subdivision needs houses, services, and shared infrastructure. From the perspectives of an owner or project manager, it is one job. However, from a lien perspective, it may not be.
That distinction was at the heart of 1499545 Ontario Inc. (Northern Bulk Logistics) v. Pattern Development, 2026 ONSC 1652. On a wind energy project, a subcontractor brought on to contribute to the turbine work (“NBL”), registered its lien on the lands on which the turbines were built. NBL subsequently failed to meet the two-year deadline under the Construction Act (the “Act”) to set its action down for trial.
Around the same time, another subcontractor that contributed to the installation of the transmission lines on the same project had set its lien claim action down for trial on time. Notably, this subcontractor had registered its lien against entirely different parcels (the transmission line lands) than NBL had.
NBL attempted to save its expired lien claim by arguing that it could rely on the other subcontractor’s timely action. This is not uncommon. Lien claimants are expressly permitted under s. 37(1) of the Act to piggyback on another lien claim that has been properly set down for trial, provided the action is one where the first claimant’s lien “may be enforced.” In this case, NBL argued that, because both liens related to the same integrated project, both were liens on the same “improvement”, and the timely action by the second subcontractor was enough to keep the first subcontractor's lien alive.
The Court rejected that argument. For anyone that works on complex multi-parcel projects, understanding the reasoning behind this decision is important.
What Your Lien Actually Attaches To
A construction lien attaches to the specific land described in a claimant’s registered claim for lien, not to the project as a whole or to nearby parcels owned by the same owner or worked on by the same contractors.
That is the essential point of the decision, and it follows from how the Construction Act defines its core terms.
A lien under the Act attaches to the owner's interest in the specific premises improved, meaning the land described in the registered claim for lien. The Court confirmed that, in the context of construction liens, the definition of "improvement" is always married to land. Therefore, the lands a claimant describes in its lien define the outer boundary of what can be enforced. It is exhaustive.
A claimant may choose to register against all affected parcels or only some, for strategic or financial reasons, but that choice has consequences. A lien registered against one parcel cannot be enforced in an action perfecting a separate lien registered against a different parcel; this is the case, even if the work on both parcels formed part of the same overall project.
The Court also addressed the practical implications. Landowners, mortgagees, and lenders require certainty about what encumbrances affect a given parcel. Each parcel is an island. Project financing and holdback administration depend on that certainty. Allowing a lien to extend beyond the lands described in the claim simply because another subcontractor on the same project had registered liens against nearby parcels would undermine the registration-based notice scheme the Act creates.
The tension is embedded in the Act itself. The right to a lien under s. 14 arises from supplying services or materials to an “improvement,” which connects all participants in the contractual pyramid – owner, general contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers. That shared connection can reasonably be read as giving lien claimants on the same improvement a common procedural footing. The Court's answer, however, is that the connection matters for establishing who has a lien, but not for determining what land the lien encumbers.
The Bottom Line
On any project spanning multiple parcels, your lien must describe all of the land you intend to enforce against. You should also ensure that your own preservation, perfection, and set-down deadlines are met, regardless of what other lien claimants have done.
This is not only a trap for the careless. A claimant who deliberately registers against only some of the affected parcels, whether for cost-saving or strategic reasons, is equally bound by that choice. The Act does not always allow that decision to be revisited by relying on another contractor's timely action.
HOW WE CAN HELP
Whether you need help registering, enforcing, or defending against a construction lien, RAR Litigation provides the strategic guidance required to ensure your lien rights are protected from registration through to trial.
Contact us to ensure your lien rights are protected.