Page: 19
A transcript of the decision was provided. An application to strike a lien had been
brought in morning chambers. She had reserved and given oral reasons. The
statement of lien clearly stated that the lien was against “the fee simple
interest of Imperial Oil Resources Limited”. She noted that any interest
Imperial had was either in a leasehold interest or an interest in the mineral
rights. Following Electric Furnace Products and Canadian Helicopters she
determined that the lien was registered against the wrong estate in lands and
the error cannot be cured by section 37... [paras 94 and 95 of IBEW, Local
424] [emphasis added]
[107] I would also add, as “compare and contrast” decisions finding “substantial compliance”,
Wil-ton Construction Ltd v Amerada Minerals Corporation of Canada, 1989 ABCA 213 (lien
registered against lease in question, albeit not describing the specific interests created under it –
paras 3 and 10-12); Norson Construction Ltd v Clear Skies Heating & Air Conditioning, 2017
ABQB 544 (Bast J.) (lien registered against right land and interest in land but misnaming owner
– paras 23-29); and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 424 v Imperial Oil
Resources Ventures Limited (cited above) (Master Robertson) (unpatented lands (not registered
at Land Titles Office); as a result, lien claimant uncertain of precise interest to claim against;
claimant “[doing] best he can by claiming a lien against the unregistered interest of the owner –
whatever it is” – paras 79-120).
[108] In each of the “compare and contrast” cases, there was partial or at least attempted
compliance at tagging the right owner and interest in question, unlike here.
Outlier case (favouring curability here) not endorsed
[109] The only case cited by Smart Grow in support of its “substantial compliance” position is
Empire Drywall Ltd v Kim (1982) 21 Alta LR (2d) 399, where Master Quinn found “substantial
compliance” where a lien, sought to be registered against a subtenant, was registered against the
landlord’s fee-simple interest. He held:
For a lien to be validly filed, it must be filed within the time allowed and
against the right land. Counsel opposing the validity of the lien submitted that
the filing against the fee simple title was tantamount to filing on the wrong
property. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the lien was, in fact, filed
on the very property to which the material and services had been supplied,
and that the lien was in substantial compliance with s. 25 of the Builders’ Lien
Act. No authority directly on point was cited by either counsel.
In my opinion, the lien should be treated as being filed against the right
property and should be found to be in substantial compliance with s. 25
[predecessor of s. 34 BLA] aforesaid. There was no evidence of prejudice to any
party and, in my opinion, the lien should be found valid, pursuant to s. 27 of the
Builders’ Lien Act. I note that s. 35 of the Land Titles Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. L-5,
which permits the issuance of a leasehold title, is permissive and not mandatory.
The owner of a leasehold interest is not obligated to take a leasehold title. [paras 3
and 4] [emphasis added]
[110] As far as I can tell, Empire Drywall stands alone on this point. The weight of Alberta
case law goes the other way, per the “no substantial compliance” cases identified above, the