Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Both liens filed by Rad Dad Transport Ltd. were found invalid and/or unenforceable under the Commercial Liens Act, S.B.C. 2022, c. 9 (the CLA), because the written authorization — the August Written Agreement — contained an entirely inadequate description of the goods.
   
• Central to the dispute was whether the description "one (1) crushing spread" in the August Written Agreement met the CLA's requirement that a written authorization include a description of the goods sufficient to support lien enforcement.
   
• Rad Dad's purported seizure on December 17, 2025 was found to be unlawful, as it included goods not listed in the First Lien or the Direction of Seizure, with the Second Lien filed approximately three hours after the seizure had already been completed.
   
• Loss of possession of the goods by Rad Dad by the end of August 2025, without filing a financing statement within 15 days as required under s. 14(1) of the CLA, extinguished any perfected lien Rad Dad may have held.
   
• Rock Ranger Inc. was also entitled to a pecuniary loss award of $8,000 under s. 44(3) of the CLA, representing fees paid to obtain third-party financing to pay the $116,834.51 into court.
   
• The court declined to award special costs, finding that while Rad Dad's conduct was concerning, it did not reach the threshold of reprehensible conduct warranting such an order; ordinary costs at Scale B were awarded instead.
   

Facts of the case

Rock Ranger Inc. ("Rock Ranger") is a Yukon-incorporated company, extra-provincially registered in British Columbia, that operates an aggregate gravel crushing business. Rad Dad Transport Ltd. ("Rad Dad") is a British Columbia transportation company based in Fort St. John, B.C. The parties had an earlier business relationship: between April 1–11, 2025, Rad Dad provided hauling services to Rock Ranger pursuant to a verbal agreement (the "April Oral Agreement"), invoicing Rock Ranger a total of $171,247.31, which Rock Ranger did not pay in full when due.

In early August 2025, Rock Ranger's principal, Damon Werrun, contacted Rad Dad's principal, Colter Burch, to arrange hauling of a gravel crushing spread from Hinton, Alberta to Prince Rupert, B.C., for ultimate delivery by ferry to Rock Ranger's worksite at Hartley Bay, B.C. — a remote First Nations community accessible only by air or water. Rock Ranger had secured a contract to produce and stockpile aggregate for the Gitga'at First Nation projects at Hartley Bay and needed the equipment transported in order to complete its contract obligations by the end of February 2026. Rad Dad agreed to provide the hauling services on the condition that Rock Ranger enter into a written agreement and make a substantial payment toward the outstanding April Oral Agreement invoices. On August 8, 2025, the parties signed a one-page written agreement drafted by Mr. Burch (the "August Written Agreement"), which described the scope of work as: "The Hauler agrees to transport one (1) crushing spread from Hinton, Alberta to the following location(s): Directed By Customer." Paragraph 6 of the agreement contained an entire agreement clause requiring any amendments to be made in writing and signed by both parties; no written amendments were ever signed.

Rad Dad hauled eight pieces of equipment (collectively the "Hartley Bay Equipment") from Hinton, Alberta to Prince Rupert, B.C. between August 9–14, 2025. On August 13, 2025, Rock Ranger paid Rad Dad $70,000 by bank wire transfer on account of the April Oral Agreement. Separately, Rad Dad verbally agreed to transport two additional pieces of equipment to other B.C. locations under an August Oral Agreement. Rad Dad also picked up a Kenworth Winch Tractor belonging to Rock Ranger from Inland Kenworth in Fort St. John on August 1, 2025, with the understanding that Rad Dad would undertake insurance-covered repairs at its shop. By the end of August 2025, all equipment transported under the written and oral agreements had been delivered and was in Rock Ranger's possession, with the exception of the Winch Tractor, which remained in Rad Dad's possession. On September 20, 2025, Rad Dad transported a 1999 Doepker Lead Flatbed Trailer from Fort St. John to Upper Halfway, B.C., after which Rad Dad no longer held possession of any Rock Ranger equipment except the Winch Tractor.

Between September 10 and December 1, 2025, the parties communicated about payment of the outstanding April Oral Agreement invoices and the August Written Agreement invoice. Rock Ranger paid Rad Dad a further $10,000 by bank wire on October 6, 2025. In November 2025, discussions broke down over a proposed loan agreement, and on November 28, 2025, Rad Dad filed a Notice of Civil Claim in the Fort St. John registry (the "Debt Action") claiming $195,070.76 against Rock Ranger. Rock Ranger was not served with the Notice of Civil Claim in accordance with the Supreme Court Civil Rules ("SCCRs"), but a copy was sent by email to Rock Ranger principal Lorena Funnell on December 12, 2025.

On December 14, 2025, Mr. Burch told Mr. Werrun by telephone that he was speaking with a bailiff and stated: "I could really hurt your business." Mr. Burch also contacted NRC Storm Contracting Ltd., the company contracted with Rock Ranger for the Hartley Bay project, threatened to garnish wages from Rock Ranger, and contacted the Gitga'at First Nation's project consultant in an effort to gain access to the Rock Ranger worksite. On December 16, 2025, counsel for Rad Dad provided Rock Ranger's counsel with a copy of the First Lien, filed on November 25, 2025, in which Rad Dad asserted a security interest over five trailers and a wheel loader. Rock Ranger's counsel immediately advised that the First Lien was unenforceable due to an insufficient description of goods.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The principal statute governing this dispute is the Commercial Liens Act, S.B.C. 2022, c. 9 (the CLA), which came into force on June 30, 2025. Section 4 of the CLA provides that the person requesting the services must be the owner of the goods, have an interest in them, or be in possession of or legally entitled to possess them. Under s. 5, a lien attaches to goods on commencement of services. Section 7 provides that a lien is enforceable only if the goods are in the possession of the lien holder, or if the person requesting the services has given the lien holder a written authorization for the services or a written acknowledgement of the obligation to pay — and any such authorization must be signed and include a description of the goods. Section 11 addresses perfection by possession and provides that a lien holder no longer has possession once the goods are in the apparent possession or control of the person who requested the services. Section 14(1) requires that where a lien holder gives up possession after perfection, a financing statement must be registered in the Personal Property Registry within 15 days; failure to do so means perfection is not continuous. Section 32(4) provides that a Direction of Seizure must include a description of the goods to be seized. Section 44(3) allows the court to order a lien holder to pay a petitioner's pecuniary loss incurred as a result of making a payment into court. Section 45 provides for the release of funds paid into court where liens are found invalid. Section 47 grants the court authority to enjoin a lien holder from further claiming a lien over seized goods. Section 50 requires all rights, duties, and obligations under the CLA to be exercised in good faith and in a commercially reasonable manner.

Reasoning and analysis

The central issue was whether the August Written Agreement constituted an adequate written authorization under s. 7 of the CLA. Justice Church found the description "one (1) crushing spread" entirely inadequate to support the creation or enforcement of a lien. While she accepted that both parties understood which equipment was to be transported, she rejected Rad Dad's submission that this mutual understanding rendered the description sufficient. The court noted that a crushing spread is a modular assembly that can include anywhere from three to twenty pieces of equipment, depending on the type of aggregate required, production volume, site logistics, and power availability. Because Rad Dad drafted the August Written Agreement and had in its possession prior to transportation various emails, photographs, GPS coordinates, and commercial transport permits that identified the individual pieces of equipment and their serial numbers, there was nothing preventing Mr. Burch from preparing a written amendment with adequate descriptions. The entire agreement clause in the August Written Agreement foreclosed reliance on external documents as supplements to the written authorization.

The inadequacy of the description was further illustrated by the events of the seizure itself: on December 17, 2025, between 11:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., Mr. Burch and the bailiff from Canada West Court Bailiffs Ltd. attended the Hartley Bay worksite and seized goods including items not listed in the First Lien or the Direction of Seizure — the "Unlisted Seized Goods" — with an estimated aggregate value exceeding $1,566,895. The court noted that more than $1,566,895 in goods were seized that were neither listed in the First Lien nor in the Warrant, and that the Second Lien was not registered until approximately 3:48 p.m. on December 17, 2025 — approximately three hours after the seizure was completed. Justice Church concluded that the Second Lien was an attempt to retrospectively justify the over-seizure. The Second Lien itself also included descriptions of two pieces of equipment that Rad Dad had not transported to Prince Rupert pursuant to the August Written Agreement, further confirming the ongoing confusion as to which goods were subject to any lien.

The court also found that Rad Dad had given up possession of the Hartley Bay Equipment by the end of August 2025, and had not filed a financing statement in the PPR within the 15-day window prescribed by s. 14(1) of the CLA. This meant any perfected lien did not continue after Rad Dad relinquished possession. On the good faith and commercial reasonableness requirement under s. 50, the court found that Rad Dad's conduct — including the threats made by Mr. Burch, his contact with Rock Ranger's business associates, the seizure of unlisted goods far exceeding the secured debt, and the filing of the Second Lien after the seizure — confirmed that Rad Dad was not exercising its rights in good faith or in a commercially reasonable manner. The court drew support from the Saskatchewan decision Lewko Electric (2002) Ltd. v. Mike's Hydraulic Sales & Service Ltd., 2006 SKQB 404, which held that failure to comply with the equivalent of s. 7 results in no entitlement to proceed to enforcement and renders seizure and sale unlawful.

On the question of special costs, Justice Church considered the principles set out in Westsea Construction Ltd. v. 0759553 BC Ltd., 2013 BCSC 1352, and Mayer v. Osborne Contracting Ltd., 2011 BCSC 914. While several of Rock Ranger's identified circumstances were concerning — including Mr. Burch's extrajudicial contacts, the over-seizure, and the filing of without-prejudice correspondence in Rad Dad's affidavit materials — the court concluded that the conduct, while close to the line, did not rise to the level of reprehensible conduct warranting special costs. The court attributed certain procedural deficiencies in Rad Dad's materials to inexperienced counsel rather than deliberate misconduct.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Church allowed Rock Ranger's petition in its entirety. The court declared both the First Lien and the Second Lien invalid and/or unenforceable under the CLA, and found that the December 17, 2025 seizure was unlawful. Rock Ranger was granted an order pursuant to s. 45 of the CLA releasing the charge on the $116,834.51 paid into court, with directions that those funds be paid out to Rock Ranger's counsel forthwith. Under s. 44(3) of the CLA, Rock Ranger was awarded judgment of $8,000 for the pecuniary loss it incurred in obtaining third-party financing to make the court payment. The court further ordered, pursuant to s. 44(2) of the CLA, that Rad Dad return the Kenworth Winch Tractor to Rock Ranger within 21 days, with Rock Ranger responsible for retrieval costs, and Rad Dad directed to provide an invoice for any services rendered in connection with the Winch Tractor, with provision for set-off. Under s. 47 of the CLA, Rad Dad was enjoined from further claiming or attempting to claim a lien over the seized goods. Rock Ranger did not succeed in obtaining special costs; instead, the court awarded ordinary costs at Scale B, to be assessed, in favour of Rock Ranger as the entirely successful party in this petition proceeding.