Executive summary: key legal and evidentiary issues

• Victoria International Marina Ltd. claimed a lien over the vessel "Georgia Dawn" for unpaid moorage fees, shore power, survey costs, and legal expenses totaling $36,192.63.

• Bennington Financial Corp. challenged the validity of the lien, arguing the respondent failed to formally assert its warehouse lien before the Warehouse Lien Act was repealed on June 30, 2025.

• Whether the vessel was "deposited for storage" under the WLA was disputed, as no copy of the moorage agreement could be produced by the respondent.

• Transition provisions under the Commercial Liens Act (s. 66) were central to determining whether the respondent's lien survived the legislative changeover.

• Recoverability of ancillary costs — including a $1,497.30 marine survey and $7,134.40 in legal fees — was contested as potentially falling outside statutory categories of lienable expenses.

• The court reduced the legal fees from $7,134.40 to a lump sum of $5,000 and ultimately awarded $34,052.33 to the respondent out of the $44,264.65 paid into court.

The moorage arrangement and death of the vessel's sole director

The dispute in Bennington Financial Corp. v. Victoria International Marina Ltd., 2026 BCSC 423, arose from unpaid moorage and shore power fees for a vessel named the "Georgia Dawn." The vessel was owned by 1300197 B.C. Ltd., a British Columbia company whose sole director, Mr. Nils Ilkkala, had entered into successive moorage agreements with Victoria International Marina Ltd. ("VIM") beginning on February 1, 2023. VIM operates a marina at 1 Cooperage Place, Victoria, British Columbia, and provided moorage and shore power to the vessel in exchange for monthly fees. Tragically, Mr. Ilkkala was found deceased on the vessel on February 16, 2025, and the last payment from 1300197 to VIM was made on February 2, 2025. After Mr. Ilkkala's death, the vessel remained moored at the marina and continued to receive shore power — which VIM said was necessary for the operation of the vessel's emergency systems, including a bilge pump and alarm, which it says are required for marine safety — but no further payments were made for the period from March 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025.

The petitioner's security interest and the respondent's assertion of a lien

In June 2025, a bailiff attended the marina on behalf of Bennington Financial Corp. ("Bennington"), which alleged a security interest in the vessel. On July 29, 2025, VIM wrote to Bennington asserting a commercial lien over the vessel under both the Warehouse Lien Act (WLA) and the Commercial Liens Act (CLA), and further took the position that it had a security interest in the vessel pursuant to the Personal Property Security Act. VIM provided notice that it would dispose of the vessel by public auction in accordance with the CLA if Bennington was not agreeable to redeeming the lien. VIM subsequently obtained a survey report on October 31, 2025, which estimated the fair market value of the vessel at $151,500 at a cost of $1,497.30. On November 6, 2025, VIM demanded payment from 1300197 for the sum of $26,850.55 and did not receive a response. On December 3, 2025, VIM issued a notice of disposition in accordance with the CLA, stating that $44,246.65 was required to satisfy its lien over the vessel.

The petition and payment into court

On January 8, 2026, Bennington filed a petition and paid $44,264.65 into court, securing the release of the vessel. VIM then applied for a declaration that it had a charge over the funds paid into court and sought an order that $36,192.63 of those funds be released to it, along with costs of the application and petition. Bennington opposed on two grounds: first, that VIM had not demonstrated it had a valid and subsisting lien; and second, that if a valid lien existed, the sums claimed by VIM were not authorized under the CLA.

Validity of the lien under the WLA and the CLA transition

The court addressed whether VIM had perfected its warehouse lien prior to the CLA replacing the WLA on June 30, 2025. Bennington argued that VIM had failed to formally assert its lien, issue statutory notices, commence enforcement steps, or otherwise comply with statutory requirements necessary to establish and maintain a valid warehouse lien before that date. Justice LeBlanc found that because the vessel had been deposited by Mr. Ilkkala in his capacity as sole director of 1300197 — and accordingly was deposited by the owner — the notice provisions of s. 3 of the WLA did not apply. Even in the alternative scenario where notice was required, the court found that VIM had provided the requisite notice to Bennington on July 29, 2025, within the two-month window permitted under s. 3(3) of the WLA. The court further held that the CLA's transition provision (s. 66) preserved VIM's existing warehouse lien, and since VIM was in possession of the vessel when the CLA came into force on June 30, 2025, its lien was perfected under the new legislation as well.

Whether the vessel was deposited for storage

Bennington also argued that VIM had failed to demonstrate that it was a "warehouser" as contemplated by the WLA, as it was not "storing" the vessel. The court noted that the only evidence on the contractual relationship came from Steve Sinclair, VIM's director of operations, who attested in an affidavit that the vessel was deposited with the marina for storage by Mr. Ilkkala. This evidence was unchallenged, and Bennington had not sought to cross-examine Mr. Sinclair on this point. The court concluded that the vessel was deposited with VIM for storage, that VIM was a "warehouser," and that VIM held a valid warehouse lien on June 29, 2025, the day before the CLA came into force.

Recoverability of the amounts claimed

Turning to the amounts sought by VIM, the court examined four categories of expenses. VIM claimed $27,229.65 in moorage fees for March to December 2025. Although no written moorage agreement could be located, s. 6(2) of the CLA provides that if no amount is agreed on for the provision of the services, a lien secures the market value of the services provided. VIM provided evidence that its moorage charges were within market rates based on what it charges other vessels moored at the marina, and shore power charges of $325.38 were rates charged by the utility company and passed on without increase. The court found that VIM had established that the moorage and shore power charges were market value and recoverable. The marine survey cost of $1,497.30 was found to be a reasonable expense incurred in preparing the vessel for disposition, as it could provide prospective buyers with information on the condition of the vessel during the auction. With respect to legal fees, VIM claimed $7,134.40 but provided only a redacted copy of a legal invoice. While the court had no difficulty finding that legal fees are a customary and reasonable expense arising from seizing and preparing the goods for disposition, the redacted invoice did not allow the court to determine whether the legal fees related exclusively to seizing and preparation of the vessel for disposition, or to other matters. The court also noted that VIM, being substantially successful in the proceeding, ought not be put in a position where it could seek double recovery of its legal expenses.

The ruling and the award

Applying s. 43(3) of the CLA and the principles governing lump sum costs, Justice LeBlanc reduced VIM's legal fees to a lump sum of $5,000 and declared that VIM held a charge over the funds in the total amount of $34,052.33 — comprising $27,229.65 in moorage fees, $325.38 in shore power, $1,497.30 for the marine survey, and $5,000 in legal fees and disbursements. The court ordered that $34,052.33 be paid out to VIM. In accordance with s. 46(7) of the CLA, the surplus portion of the original $44,264.65 remaining after payment to VIM was directed to be paid to Bennington. VIM was the substantially successful party in the proceeding, though its legal fee claim was reduced by the court from the requested $7,134.40 to $5,000.