Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Alberta's Court of King's Bench addressed whether an adjudicator's order under the Prompt Payment and Construction Lien Act must be registered by the Clerk of the Court.
   
• Watkins retained Ken's Propane Ltd. under a fixed-price contract to build a luxury home, and a payment dispute followed.
   
• An adjudicator determined that the Watkins had overpaid and ordered Ken's Propane Ltd. to pay $53,718.00.
   
• Registration of the order was refused by the Clerk of the Court, prompting the Watkins to apply to the Court for enforcement.
   
• Ken's Propane Ltd. argued the order was filed late and asked the Court to use its inherent jurisdiction to block registration.
   
• Justice Oviatt found the statutory requirements were mandatory and that Ken's Propane Ltd.'s proper recourse was judicial review, which it never pursued.
   

Facts of the case

Tyson Watkins and Brittany Watkins retained Ken's Propane Ltd. ("KP Ltd") under a fixed-price building contract to construct their home. The relationship broke down, with the Watkins arguing they had overpaid for unfinished work and KP Ltd arguing that amounts remained outstanding. On August 15, 2025, KP Ltd issued its last invoice for $396,433.64, showing a balance owing of $196,668.60. The Watkins did not pay the balance and instead engaged the dispute resolution process under Part 5 of the Prompt Payment and Construction Lien Act, referring the dispute to an adjudicator. Neither party commenced a concurrent court action or arbitration under the Arbitration Act. The adjudicator issued her reasons and an accompanying order on January 19, 2026, finding that the Watkins had overpaid and directing KP Ltd to pay them $53,718.00. When the Watkins attempted to register the adjudicator's order with the Court, the Clerk of the Court refused, leading to this application to enforce it.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The application turned on the Prompt Payment and Construction Lien Act, RSA 2000, c P-26.4, formerly known as the Builders' Lien Act, and specifically the dispute adjudication process set out in Part 5. Section 33.6(5) makes an adjudicator's determination binding on the parties, subject to specific exceptions. Section 33.61(1) states that the Clerk of the Court "shall register an adjudicator's order…as an order of the court" once several conditions are met: the order is submitted not less than 30 days after the parties received it; no court order has been made affecting the binding nature of the adjudicator's determination; no arbitration has commenced or is in progress under the Arbitration Act; no award has been made under the Arbitration Act; the parties have not entered into a written agreement resolving the dispute; and any additional requirements set out in the regulations are met. The Court noted that no additional requirements currently exist under the Prompt Payment and Adjudication Regulation, Alta Reg 23/2022. Section 33.7(2) sets a 30-day limitation period for a party to bring a judicial review application challenging an adjudicator's order.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Oviatt held that the requirements in section 33.61(1) are administrative rather than judicial in nature, capable of confirmation through a checklist rather than court oversight, which she found consistent with the Legislature's choice to direct the provision at the Clerk of the Court rather than the Court itself. KP Ltd argued that the Watkins had submitted the order more than 30 days after it was issued and were therefore out of time. The Court rejected this, explaining that section 33.61(1)(a) sets a grace period during which an order cannot be filed, not a limitation period by which it must be filed. That grace period aligns with the 30-day window for judicial review under section 33.7(2): an order cannot be registered while the opportunity for judicial review remains open, but once that window closes, the Clerk must register it. Because all of the statutory conditions in section 33.61(1) were satisfied, the Court found the Clerk should have registered the order. KP Ltd separately asked the Court to rely on its inherent and legislated jurisdiction under the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2, to refuse registration, raising complaints about the adjudicator's process, jurisdiction, and alleged errors. Justice Oviatt characterized these as arguments properly belonging to a judicial review application, which KP Ltd had never brought and was now time-barred from bringing. She described KP Ltd's submissions as, in essence, an attempt to judicially review the adjudicator's order without having filed a judicial review application, and found they were not properly before the Court. She also noted, without deciding the point, that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Democracy Watch v Canada (Attorney General), 2026 SCC 28, could bear on any future question about limits on judicial review of adjudicator decisions, while observing that the Supreme Court did not preclude legislatures from setting judicial review procedures, including limitation periods such as the 30-day window in section 33.7(2).

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Oviatt allowed the application, granting the Watkins a fiat directing the Clerk of the Court to register the Adjudicator's Order as an order of the Court. The Watkins were the successful party, and the underlying adjudicator's order being enforced directed KP Ltd to pay them $53,718.00.