Pay Now, Argue Later: Adjudication Orders Must Be Complied With

The ruling in Integricon Construction Inc. v. Stevens et al. is a stark reminder of the serious consequences of ignoring an adjudicator’s determination. In that case, a contractor brought an application to enforce an adjudicator's order for payment of a project draw against the project owner. When the contractor sought to enforce the determination in Court by garnishing the owners' bank accounts, the owners attempted to resist enforcement by arguing that the adjudicator’s determination would result in unfairness and could lead to double recovery by the contractor via a parallel lien action.

The Court flatly rejected the owners' arguments and, in the process, made important findings regarding the enforceability of an adjudicator’s order and the proper way to formally challenge a determination. Here’s what you need to know.

Adjudication Orders Have Real Power

Adjudication under the Act is designed for speed and to keep money flowing on a project. If a contractor and an owner have a dispute during an ongoing project, an adjudicator can make a quick interim determination. The Court in Integricon emphasizes, however, that an adjudicator’s decision is not just a suggestion – it is binding on the parties unless and until a final determination is made by a court, an arbitrator, or by written agreement by the parties.^[1]

An adjudicator’s determination is enforceable as if it were an order of the court.^[2] If prompt payment of an adjudicator’s award is not made within 10 days of receiving the determination, a party may enforce that determination by filing a copy of it with the court.^[3] With one exception, which we discuss below, the Court has no jurisdiction to pause, or “stay,” an adjudication order. To the extent that a party wishes to challenge an adjudication order, it may only do so through an application for judicial review to the Divisional Court of Ontario.

No Risk of Double Payment

The Court in Integricon also dismissed the owner’s concerns regarding the prospect of “double recovery.” It confirmed that, under the Construction Act, parties are entitled to pursue adjudication and lien remedies in parallel.^[4] The Act contains safeguards to prevent double recovery. Any money paid to satisfy the adjudicator's order would be accounted for and deducted in the final lien action, ensuring the owner would not have to pay twice.^[5]

You Cannot Use a Side-Door to Appeal

If a construction adjudicator makes a decision you disagree with – which orders you to pay – you cannot simply ignore it or appeal it like a regular court ruling. The only way to challenge it is through a specific process called judicial review in the Divisional Court of Ontario. Achieving success on a judicial review application is a high bar. You must first get permission, or “leave,” from the court. To do so, you must act quickly and meet several conditions.

First, you typically have 30 days to ask for permission to challenge the decision.^[6] To be granted permission, you must show that the adjudicator’s decision was probably unreasonable, or that the adjudication process was unfair in a way that probably affected the outcome. Additionally, you must show that either the unreasonableness or unfairness cannot be remedied through other legal proceedings (e.g. litigation or arbitration), or your case raises a significant legal principle under the Construction Act that is of broad importance and requires a definitive court ruling by the Divisional Court.

Second, if the adjudicator ordered you to pay money, you must pay it within 10 days, even while seeking to challenge it, unless the court orders a pause, or “stay,” of the payment.^[7] Even where you seek a stay, you may be required to make payment into court as a pre-condition to the Court permitting a stay motion or a leave motion to be brought. In any event, if you want to challenge the decision and avoid payment right away, you need to act fast, within 10 days, to ask for a stay.

Once leave has been granted, there are only limited circumstances, under s. 13.18(5), in which a court may set aside a decision of an adjudicator under the Act on judicial review, including proof of legal incapacity, lack of jurisdiction, procedural unfairness, bias, or fraud.^[8]

The Bottom Line

If you're involved in a construction project in Ontario, whether as a contractor, owner, or legal advisor, understand this: an adjudicator’s order is not a starting point for negotiation. It’s a legal obligation. The adjudication process established by the Construction Act was designed to keep projects moving and money flowing. Trying to sidestep or delay an adjudication order only invites harsher consequences.

How We Can Help

Need help navigating adjudication or enforcing an adjudication award? Contact RAR Litigation Lawyers.

[1] Integricon Construction Inc. v. Stevens et al. 2025 ONSC 4688 at para 36.
[2] Ibid at para 40.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid at 67.
[5] Ibid at 66.
[6] Ibid at para 37.
[7] Ibid at para 40.
[8] Anatolia Tile & Stone Inc. v. Flow-Rite Inc. 2023 ONSC 1291 at para 6.