The Saskatchewan Queen’s Bench recently considered the definition of the word “improvement” in the Builders’ Lien Act of Saskatchewan. In Propak Systems Ltd. v. Grey Owl Engineering Ltd., that court held that the lien statutes of some provinces, like British Columbia, contain “inclusive” definitions and others, like Saskatchewan’s, contain an “exclusive” definition that also requires a determination of the parties’ intention to make a permanent improvement. Applying this approach, the court held that storage tanks resting on a pad were not an improvement.
This decision was over-ruled by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal: see Grey Owl Engineering v Propak Systems Ltd., 2015 SKCA 108, 2015 CarswellSask 612; and my article about this Court of Appeal decision dated November 1, 2015.
Grey Owl was hired by a lessee of land to provide engineering services relating to the lands. Grey Owl hired Propak to install three storage tanks on the land. The tanks rested upon a pad. Propak was not paid and filed a lien. The question in the lawsuit was whether the tanks and pad were an “improvement” to the lands which could give rise to a builders’ lien.
The court held that the tanks and pad were not an improvement. However, it is the logic by which that result was reached that is interesting. The application judge held:
- The application judge held that at the “heart” of the issue was the following question: Is the statutory definition of “improvement” expansive in its meaning or exhaustive and restrictive?
The judge reviewed the lien statutes across Canada and concluded as follows:
“Courts have previously drawn a distinction between legislation that is “broad and inclusive” in its definition, and legislation that is “exhaustive and restrictive”. The British Columbia legislation, which the respondent seeks to rely on, has been characterized as inclusive, and thus, courts are more inclined to rule that the structures are improvements. In contrast, the legislation in Alberta, Ontario and New Brunswick has been characterized as exhaustive.”
The judge then concluded that the definition of “improvement” in the Saskatchewan Act is a restrictive and exclusive definition:
“British Columbia is the only province whose legislation does not include a specific exception to the definition. In this sense, it is much more broad and inclusive than other provinces, and the courts have accordingly held that broader instances of claims fall within the section. The Saskatchewan legislation does not share this feature. Although it may be more inclusive in terms of listing certain features that should be considered improvements, it also does contain an express exception for things that are “not affixed to the land or intended to become part of the land”. This feature is very similar to the legislative definitions found in the other proposed provinces which have been defined as exhaustive and restrictive….. It therefore appears to me that the inclusion of this exception in the Saskatchewan legislation strongly suggests that the definition is not broad and inclusive as suggested by the respondent.”
- The application judge also held that some lien statutes introduce an element of intention into the definition of “improvement”, particularly if the statute is of the “exclusive” type, while other provincial statutes do not. He said:
“Another distinction between the jurisdictions is the level of analysis devoted to the intention of the parties when determining whether something is an improvement. As the British Columbia legislation makes no provision for this in the wording of the statute, the courts have tended to base determinations of whether something in (sic) an improvement on the extent of affixation and duration of the object…Therefore, having determined that the Saskatchewan legislation is exhaustive, it must be determined whether the parties intended for the tanks to become affixed to the land or become part of the land.”
The judge then addressed the nature of the evidence relating to intention:
“[R]esort to prior case law seems to indicate that the threshold regarding ability to relocate the object is low. The threshold seems to be that as long as the object is capable of being moved, it indicates intention not to be affixed…..It is my view that based on the foregoing evidence in the matter at hand and in consideration of the related case law, the tanks were not intended to be permanently affixed and become an improvement, and I so find.”
The application judge then concluded as follows:
“The Saskatchewan legislation can most likely be characterized as “exhaustive” within the meaning of the case law. It expressly contains an exception to the definition of “improvement” and directs the Court to examine the intention of the parties in determining each matter. In order to determine whether the tanks in the matter at hand are improvements and, thus, be a thing capable of maintaining a builders’ lien, the Court must examine the intentions of the parties, including the degree of affixation and the ability of the tanks to be moved. Upon considering all of the material before me in this context, I have concluded that the tanks are not improvements within the meaning of the Act.” (underlining added)
The application judge has drawn a distinction between provincial lien statutes which are “inclusive” and those which are “exclusive”, and between lien statutes which are intention-based and those which are not. However, one has to question whether these distinctions are real or helpful. Virtually all of the definitions in the provincial lien statutes use the words “included” or “including”; certainly the B.C., Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Ontario statutes quoted by the judge do so, albeit in different locations in the definition. Only the Alberta statute does not. All of these provincial statutes also use the word “intended”. In the absence of a clear indication that each province intended to adopt a different definition, one wonders whether it would be better to approach the definition of “improvement” from a consistent standpoint across Canada.
See Heintzman and Goldsmith on Canadian Building Contracts (5th ed.), chapter 16, part 4(a)(ii)
Propak Systems Ltd. v. Grey Owl Engineering Ltd. 2015 CarswellSask 91, 2015 SKQB 43
Building Contracts –Construction and Builders’ Liens – Definitions – Improvement
Thomas G. Heintzman O.C., Q.C., FCIArb April 28, 2015