- 11 -
Centrum. There is also no prior relationship between Infinite and Chen, or between Infinite and
Will Zhang or Clark Cai. As already noted, there is no evidence supporting that the alleged
assignment of the renovation contract from 103 Canada to Infinite was every discussed with or
known to Will Zhang, Clark Cai, or Chen before the claims for lien were registered.
 Nothing in the Construction Act prevents a general contractor, who has been contracted by
the owner, from subcontracting with a second general contractor to perform the full scope of the
first general contractor’s work. Practically, the first general contractor would cease to have any
“boots on the ground” role on the project, since the second general contractor would be doing all
of the work. That functional role of the second general contractor would demonstrate all the indicia
of a typical general contractor, and it could even be the “constructor” with the Ministry of Labour
for the purposes of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, RSO 1990, c O.1. Legally, though,
absent a contract with the owner (or an agent of the owner), the second general contractor would
still fall within the definition of a “subcontractor” under the Construction Act. Its services and
materials would be supplied under an agreement with the first general contractor.
 As acknowledged by Infinite in its submissions, a contract with the owner (or an agent of
the owner) is required to meet the definition of “contractor”. Apart from the assignment, Infinite
has not pleaded and does not allege any direct contract with Chen or any agent on behalf of Chen.
Since I have found that the alleged assignment is not valid, Infinite accordingly does not meet the
definition of “contractor”. Infinite’s lien rights were thereby subject to s. 31(3)(b) of the
 Infinite’s two claims for lien were registered on August 4 and September 13, 2021. The
only evidence of work performed by Infinite within the 60 days prior to registration of either claim
for lien is window work and removal of raccoons in July 2021 and an attendance on September 18,
2021 “to verify the purported ‘deficiencies’ alleged in Chen’s notice” (as stated in Ma’s affidavit).
Infinite also argues that evidence supports doors being installed in September 2021.
 With respect to the work in July 2021, I have been provided with no authority or cogent
argument supporting that pest control is a lienable service. Ma himself describes the other July
2021 work as “inspected and fixed a new window, and some other issues.” During cross-
examination, Ma confirmed that the window being discussed had been previously installed by
Infinite and that work was required to fix and reinstall that window due to a problem. Ma
specifically confirmed that it was remedial work. Deficiency remediation does not extend lien
rights: Demasi Contracting Inc. and AMT Group Inc., 2013 ONSC 5555 (Master) at para 23.
 I have been directed to Ma’s handwritten notes dated July 19, 2021, said to be from a site
meeting. It indicates that new window installation is finished. However, this entry is not explained
in Ma’s evidence and no date for completion of the windows is noted. Infinite argues that windows
are not mentioned in Ma’s notes on June 25, 2021 and a packing slip dated July 7, 2021 for a single
window was produced in answer to undertakings, supporting an inference that window installation
work was completed between July 7, 2021 and July 19, 2021. I do not find that appropriate to
infer. Ma has given no direct evidence on the argued timing of window installation and the
inference is thereby based solely on a hearsay use of documents. That is not sufficient to support
a triable issue.