Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A subcontractor filed a $16,855.00 builders lien against lands owned by Victor Projects Ltd., claiming the general contractor owed him unpaid amounts for painting services.
   
• Central to the dispute was a notice of interest filed by Victor Projects Ltd. on November 19, 2018, under the Builders Lien Act, S.B.C. 1994, c. 45 (BLA), which shielded the landowner's fee simple interest from the lien.
   
• Because the tenant, Skechers USA Canada Inc., had no registered leasehold interest on title, the lien could not validly attach to any registered interest in the Lands.
   
• Under s. 3 of the BLA, an improvement done with an owner's knowledge but not at their express request is deemed requested — however, this deemed-request provision does not apply where a notice of interest has already been filed.
   
• Sections 22 and 25 of the BLA provide the statutory basis for extinguishing and cancelling a lien not filed in conformity with the Act's requirements.
   
• Despite granting cancellation of the lien, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs, finding no evidence that the lien was vexatious or filed for an improper purpose.

Facts of the case

GAMA Construction Company Inc., a general contractor, was engaged by Skechers USA Canada Inc. to complete tenant improvements at a new retail store located at 1835 Dilworth Drive, Kelowna, British Columbia. Victor Projects Ltd. is the registered owner in fee simple of the Lands and is described as a large commercial land owner and developer in the Okanagan Valley region. Skechers USA Canada Inc. entered into a retail lease with Victor Projects Ltd., dated October 21, 2025; however, Skechers did not have a registered leasehold interest on title to the Lands.

GAMA engaged Tyron Williams — a sole proprietor doing business as Okanagan Pro Painters — as a subcontractor to provide painting and painting-related services on the project. Their contract was dated November 20, 2025. A dispute arose between GAMA and Williams over payment, with Williams asserting that GAMA owed him $16,855.00. On March 23, 2026, Williams filed a Claim of Lien in the Kamloops Land Title Office under registration number WX5013077, in the amount of $16,855.00, against the Lands. The court noted the Claim of Lien contained a few minor errors, but found that nothing in the circumstances turned on those errors.

Williams had pulled a copy of the title search before registering the lien and was aware that a notice of interest appeared on title, but did not appreciate its legal significance. He was also confused by the presence of another, older claim of lien on title — one that had not been discharged due to an administrative error, which had been resolved by the time of the hearing. Victor Projects was in the final stages of financing a 71-unit residential rental building in Kelowna, and removal of any claims of lien was a contractual requirement prior to that financing being released. Williams' Claim of Lien was the sole remaining impediment to that financing, which is why the matter was heard urgently on June 1, 2026, before Justice Hardwick in Kelowna. Written reasons for judgment were issued on June 18, 2026.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The key statutory framework was the Builders Lien Act, S.B.C. 1994, c. 45 (BLA). Section 1 defines a "notice of interest" as a notice in prescribed form warning other persons that the owner's interest in the land described in the notice is not bound by a lien claimed under the Act in respect of an improvement on the land unless that improvement is undertaken at the express request of the owner. Section 1 also defines "owner" as a person who, at the time a claim of lien is filed, has an estate or interest in the land on which the improvement is located, at whose request and on whose credit, on whose behalf, with whose knowledge or consent, or for whose direct benefit the work is done or material supplied.

Victor Projects filed its notice of interest on November 19, 2018, under registration number CA7195587. The notice stated that Victor Projects Ltd. is an owner as defined in the BLA of the land in question, that its nature of interest is fee simple, and that its interest in the land is not bound by a lien claimed under the BLA in respect of an improvement on the land unless that improvement is undertaken at the express request of the owner.

Section 3 of the BLA provides that an improvement done with the prior knowledge, but not at the request, of an owner is deemed to have been done at the request of the owner — but this deemed-request provision does not apply to an improvement made after the owner has filed a notice of interest in the land title office. Section 22 provides that a lien in respect of which a claim of lien is not filed in the manner and within the time provided in the BLA is extinguished. Section 25 provides that a contractor may apply to the court to cancel a claim of lien if a lien is extinguished under s. 22, or alternatively, if the claim of lien is vexatious, frivolous, or an abuse of process.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Hardwick applied these provisions and determined that, for the purposes of the subject improvement to the Lands, the "owner" under the BLA was Skechers USA Canada Inc. — not Victor Projects Ltd. By virtue of its filing of the Notice of Interest, Victor Projects was not deemed to have requested the work under s. 3 of the BLA. The court further found that Williams' Claim of Lien could only attach to Skechers' interest in the Lands; since Skechers' leasehold interest was not registered on title, no lien could be filed, relying on Percon Const. Mgmt. Ltd. v. B.C. Reg., New Westminster Land Title Office, 1986 CanLII 871 (BCSC) at paras. 9–10. Accordingly, the Claim of Lien was not filed in the manner contemplated by the BLA and was extinguished.

The court also distinguished this matter from Libero Canada Corporation v. Kwee, 2013 BCSC 1297, the only reported case identified where an application was made to cancel a claim of lien under s. 25 of the BLA due to the lien being filed after a notice of interest. In Libero, Associate Judge Muir (now Associate Justice Muir) declined to cancel the lien on an interlocutory basis because the lien claimant argued there was an express request by the landlord for the work. Justice Hardwick found the Amended Petition distinguishable because it sought final orders — which, as a justice of the court, she could grant after an appropriate consideration of the evidentiary record.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Hardwick granted the primary relief sought by GAMA Construction Company Inc. The Claim of Lien filed by Tyron Williams on March 23, 2026, in the amount of $16,855.00, was cancelled pursuant to s. 22 of the BLA. The Registrar of the Land Titles at the Kamloops Land Title Office was directed to cause the Claim of Lien and any certificates of pending litigation filed in relation thereto to be wholly cancelled against the Lands upon production of a certified copy of the Order. However, exercising judicial discretion under R. 14-7 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs of the Amended Petition. The court found no evidence that the lien was vexatious or filed for an improper purpose — Williams had improperly filed it because he failed to understand the legal significance of the Notice of Interest. All other relief sought by GAMA in the Amended Petition was dismissed. No monetary award was made; the successful outcome for GAMA was the cancellation of the lien rather than any damages or costs order.