PART I: STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. Overview 1. Background Facts 1. The Decision of the Queen s Bench Judge 3

Transcription

1 BETWEEN: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE MANITOBA COURT OF APPEAL) STUART OLSON DOMINION CONSTRUCTION LTD., FORMERLY KNOWN AS DOMINION CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC. - AND - STRUCTAL HEAVY STEEL, A DIVISION OF CANAM GROUP INC. FILE NO APPELLANT (Respondent) RESPONDENT (Appellant) FACTUM OF THE APPELLANT (Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) Solicitor for the Appellant: Dave Hill/Derek Olson/Michael Weinstein Hill Sokalski Walsh Trippier LLP Main Street Winnipeg, MB R3C 3Z3 Tel: (204) ext. 222 Fax: (204) dhill@hillco.mb.ca Solicitor for the Respondent: Kevin Williams Taylor, McCaffrey LLP 9th Floor St. Mary Avenue Winnipeg, MB R3C 4K5 Tel: (204) Fax: (204) kwilliams@tmlawyers.com Ottawa Agent for the Appellant: Moira Dillon Supreme Law Group Slater Street Ottawa, ON K1P 5H9 Tel: (613) Fax: (613) mdillon@supremelawgroup.ca Ottawa Agent for the Respondent: Eugene Meehan QC Marie-France Major Supreme Advocacy LLP Gilmour Street Ottawa, ON K2P 0R3 Tel: (613) Fax: (613) emeehan@supremeadvocacy.ca

2 i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PART I: STATEMENT OF FACTS 1 Overview 1 Background Facts 1 The Decision of the Queen s Bench Judge 3 The Decision of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba 5 PART II: POINTS IN ISSUES 8 A. Whether by Paying All of the Money into Court by way of a Lien Bond, Including Money to Cover the Trust Claim, has SODCL Satisfied the Trust Provisions of Section 4(3) of The Builders Liens Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. B91? 8 PART III: ARGUMENT 8 A. The Filing of the Lien Bond Protects Structal for all the Claims on Which its Lien was Based and Therefore Satisfied the Trust Provisions of Section 4(3) of The Builders Liens Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. B91 8 PART IV: COSTS 12 PART V: ORDER REQUESTED 13 PART VI: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 14 PART VII: STATUTORY PROVISIONS 15

3 1 PART I: STATEMENT OF FACTS Overview 1. A sub-trade on the Winnipeg Blue Bomber Stadium project registered a builders lien against the property for $15,570,974.53, which covered its claim against the general contractor for a) trust funds under The Builders Liens Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. B91 (the Act ), b) its lien claim, and c) damages for alleged delay. 2. The general contractor, in order to keep its project going, filed a lien bond, with the consent of the sub-trade, in the Court of Queen s Bench of Manitoba for the full amount of the lien, including the trust claim. 3. The lien was vacated. The project proceeded to completion. 4. The sub-trade continues to claim that the general contractor must pay over the trust funds. 5. The general contractor refuses to do so, having already having secured that trust claim with the filing of the lien bond. 6. In the first instance the Court determined that the trust claim had been extinguished by the filing of the lien bond; the Manitoba Court of Appeal reversed that decision. 7. If the Manitoba Court of Appeal s decision stands, a contractor may be required to pay monies twice, first, into court pursuant to the provisions in the Act to vacate a lien claim, and secondly, to the sub-trade who filed a lien claim to satisfy an independent trust claim. Background Facts 8. Stuart Olson Dominion Construction Ltd. ( SODCL ) was the general contractor for the construction of the new stadium at the University of Manitoba known as Investors Group Field (the Stadium ). In April 2011 Structal Heavy Steel, A Division of Canam Group Inc. ( Structal ) entered into a subcontract with SODCL for the supply and installation of structural steel, a roof with a bow truss scheme, and for the installation of precast bleachers and a vomitory wall at a price of $44,435,383.

4 2 9. Structal asserted that it experienced delays throughout the performance of its work, and in August 2012, provided SODCL with a claim for delay in the amount of $8,067, On September 7, 2012, Structal filed a builders lien against the Stadium in the amount of $15,570, made up as follows: a. Past due invoices $3,538, b. Invoices due October 1, 2012 $633, c. Statutory holdback $3,331, d. Delay claim $8,067, e. Total lien $15,570, On October 22, 2012, SODCL deposited a lien bond in the Court of Queen s Bench for the full amount of Structal s lien claim. Structal approved the exact wording of the bond and filed a discharge of its lien in the Land Titles Office. The lien bond provided that IN THE EVENT that [SODCL] shall fail to satisfy any judgment for lien in favour of [Structal], the Surety [under the bond] shall forthwith pay... the amount of any such judgment not exceeding the amount of this bond. 12. Despite approving of the bond and discharging the lien, Structal continued to demand payment from SODCL of its progress payment, asserted that SODCL was required to comply with the trust provisions of the Act, and threatened to enforce the trust provisions. SODCL took the position that the lien bond fully secured Structal s claim and thus extinguished SODCL s obligations under the trust provisions of the Act, such that it was entitled to use the contract monies otherwise payable to Structal to pay other of its sub-trades. 13. Structal s work under the subcontract has been completed and certified for payment. The subcontractors of Structal have been paid in full for their work and there are no deficiencies or lien claims advanced by any of them in respect of the work required and performed under Structal s subcontract.

5 3 14. The Stadium owner continues to hold the outstanding progress payments and statutory holdback monies. 15. SODCL applied to the court for an order declaring that the filing of the lien bond satisfied its trust obligations to Structal under the Act and that, upon receipt from the Stadium owner of the outstanding progress payments on account of Structal s work, SODCL could pay such funds to others than Structal without being in breach of the trust provisions of the Act. The Decision of the Queen s Bench Judge 16. The Application Judge considered whether SODCL s liability under section 4(3)(a) of the Act has been extinguished by virtue of its having deposited in the Manitoba Court of Queen s Bench a lien bond in the exact amount of the lien filed by Structal. 17. His Lordship considered the following sections of the Act to be relevant to the issue before the court: Receipts of contractor constitute trust fund. 4(1) All sums, including any interest on the holdback, received by a contractor on account of a contract price constitute a trust fund for the benefit of (a) sub-contractors who have sub-contracted with the contractor and other persons who have supplied materials or provided services to the contractor for the purpose of performing the contract; (b) the Workers' Compensation Board; (c) workers who have been employed by the contractor for the purpose of performing the contract; and (d) the owner for any set-off or counterclaim relating to the performance of the contract. Duties of contractor respecting trust fund. 4(3) A contractor receiving a sum mentioned in subsection (1) is the trustee of the trust fund and he shall not appropriate or convert any part of the trust fund to or for his own use or to or for any use not authorized by the trust until (a) all sub-contractors who have entered into a sub-contract with him and all persons who have supplied materials or provided services to him for the purpose of performing the contract have been paid all amounts then owing to them out of the sum received;...

6 4 Vacating lien on payment into court, etc. 55(2) Upon application, a judge may order security or payment into court in an amount equal to the holdback required under this Act as it applies to a particular contract and any additional money payable with respect to that contract but not yet paid but not exceeding the total amount of the claims for liens then registered against a parcel of land and may then order that the registration of those liens be vacated. Money paid into court, etc., in place of land. 56(1) Any money paid into court or any security given under subsection 55(2) stands in place of the land against which the lien was registered and is subject to the claims of (a) the persons whose liens have been vacated; and (b) every person who (i) both at the time of filing the application under subsection 55(2) and at the time of filing application for payment out under subsection (3), has a subsisting claim for lien, and (ii) has registered a claim for lien prior to the time of filing the application for payment out under subsection (3); but the persons whose liens have been ordered vacated have a first charge on the money or security to the extent of any amount, including costs, found by the judge to be owing to them. 18. The Application Judge noted that the Act provides Structal with several means of asserting a claim, apart from the statutory holdback, where there is money owing to it under the sub-contract: first the Act creates a statutory trust in its favour for progress payments made to SODCL (section 4(3)); secondly, the right to file a lien against title to the stadium (section 37); thirdly, the right of action to enforce its lien (section 60); fourthly, the right of action to enforce the trust either in the lien action or in a separate action (sections 8, 9, 10, 66); fifthly, the right to initiate a prosecution in the event of breach of trust (section 7). His Lordship goes on to note that the Act gives SODCL the right to apply to have the lien vacated on payment into court a sum of money equal to the amount claimed in the lien or on filing a letter of credit or a lien bond (sections 55(2) and 56(1)). He further notes that the amounts secured by the lien bond are actually more than the dollars than those subject to the trust (para 17).

7 19. At paragraph 18 of his decision, the Application Judge writes that: 5 Case law has held that the jigsaw puzzle of remedies in the Act are incomplete, offer no panacea or coherent and complete solution to builder s liens issues. In order to determine whether filing of the lien bond satisfies [SODCL s] obligation under the trust provisions, one should look at the purpose and intent of the legislation. It has not been suggested in a court judgment before, insofar as I am aware, that a general contractor in the position of [SODCL] should pay the amount in issue twice, once in vacating the lien and another time in securing the trust (emphasis added). His Lordship relies on L.W. Bennett Co. v. University of Western Ontario (1961), 31 D.L.R. (2) 246 (Ont. C.A.) for this principle. 20. It is significant to note that the Application Judge found that it would be commercially unreasonable and contrary to the intention of the legislation to require SODCL to in effect to pay $8,000,000 to secure payment of Structal s claim for $4,000, At paragraph 18, the Application Judge stated that:... it should be kept in mind, as stated in the case of Ram Construction Inc., that the legislation does not create an ordinary trust for which Structal has an unrestricted beneficial interest. The Act creates a trust to which Structal may eventually become entitled. 22. Finally, His Lordship cites the judgment of Schwartz J. in PCL Constructors Westcoast Inc. v. Norex Civil Contractors Inc. (2009), 76 C.L.R. (3d) 184 (B.C.S.C) as solid authority for his finding that finding the lien bond exhausts SODCL s trust obligation in the circumstances of this case. The Decision of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba 23. The question relevant to this appeal that was before the Manitoba Court of Appeal was whether, by filing a lien bond in court in the full amount of a subcontractor s lien claim, a contractor has thereby extinguished its obligations to that subcontractor under the trust provisions of the Act (para. 1)

8 6 24. The Manitoba Court of Appeal indicated that the issues on appeal require a consideration and application of the Act as it relates to questions of liens and trust money. In particular, it cited the following sections: Receipts of contractor constitute trust fund 4(1) All sums... received by a contractor on account of a contract price constitute a trust fund for the benefit of (a) sub-contractors who have sub-contracted with the contractor (d) the owner for any set-off or counterclaim relating to the performance of the contract. Receipts of sub-contractor constitute trust fund 4(2) All sums... received by a sub-contractor on account of a contract price in the sub-contract, constitute a trust fund for the benefit of (a) sub-contractors who have sub-contract with the sub-contractor (d) the contractor or any sub-contractor for any set-off or counterclaim relating to the performance of the sub-contract. Duties of contractor respecting trust fund 4(3) A contractor receiving a sum mentioned in subsection (1) is the trustee of the trust fund and he shall not appropriate or convert any part of the trust fund to or for his own use or to or for any use not authorized by the trust until (a) all sub-contractors who have entered into a sub-contract with him... have been paid all amounts then owing to them out of the sum received;... Receipts and moneys of owner constitute trust fund 5(1) Where, under a contract, sums become payable to the contractor by the owner on the basis of a certificate of a payment certifier, any amount, up to the aggregate of the sums so certified, that is in the hands of the owner or received by him at any time thereafter for payment under the contract constitutes, until paid to the contractor, a trust fund for the benefit of (a) the contractor and all sub-contractors... under the contract;... Duties of owner as to trust fund 5(3) The owner is the trustee of the trust funds created under [subsection] (1)... and he shall not appropriate or convert any part of the trust fund to or for his own use or to or for any use not authorized by the trust until

9 7 (a) the contractor has been paid all sums justly owed to him in respect of the performance of the contract; and (b) provision for the payment of other affected beneficiaries of the trust has been made. Waivers, etc., against public policy 11 Every agreement, oral or written, express or implied, on the part of any person... (b) that provides or purports to provide that remedies available under this Act are not to be available for his benefit; is against public policy and void. Creation of lien 13 Any person who (a) does any work; or (b) provides any services; or (c) supplies any materials to be used; in performance of a contract or sub-contract for any owner, contractor or subcontractor has, by virtue thereof, a lien for the value of the work, services or materials which... attaches upon the estate or interest of the owner in the land or structure upon or in respect of which the work was done or the services were provided or the materials were supplied, and the land occupied thereby or enjoyed therewith. Vacating lien on payment into court, etc. 55(2) Upon application, a judge may order security or payment into court in an amount equal to the holdback required under this Act as it applies to a particular contract and any additional money payable with respect to that contract but not yet paid but not exceeding the total amount of the claims for liens then registered against a parcel of land and may then order that the registration of those liens be vacated. Money paid into court, etc., in place of land 56(1) Any money paid into court or any security given under subsection 55(2) stands in place of the land against which the lien was registered and is subject to the claims of (a) the persons whose liens have been vacated;......

10 8 No reduction of holdback 56(2) Money paid into court or security given under subsection 55(2) does not reduce the amount required to be retained by the owner under section The Court, relying on section 56(1), found that the lien bond stands in place of the land, not in place of the lien. Consequentially, the Court held that the Application Judge erred in his conclusion that the lien bond stood in place of the lien (para. 36). 26. The Court also found that the Application Judge erred in his conclusion that the filing of the lien bond exhausted SODCL s obligations under the trust provisions under the Act (para. 36). The Court held that the Act and the jurisprudence interpreting it make clear that rights given to a subcontractor, pursuant to the trust provisions found in sections 4 9, and the right to claim a lien upon the property in respect of which the contract work was done, provide two potential remedies separate and distinct from one another and beyond the mere common law right to sue for breach of contract (paras. 38 and 45.). 27. This appeal raises the following issue: PART II: POINTS IN ISSUES A. Whether by paying all of the money into court by way of a lien bond, including money to cover the trust claim, has SODCL satisfied the trust provisions of section 4(3) of The Builders Liens Act? PART III: STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT A. The Filing of the Lien Bond Protects Structal for all the Claims on Which its Lien was Based and Therefore Satisfied the Trust Provisions of Section 4(3) of the Act. 28. Structal takes the untenable position that the lien bond concerns payment of a judgment obtained in a lien action but not one obtained in a trust action. It ignores the fact that this will require the contractor, in this case SODCL, to pay a sum of money a second time which he has paid once under the sanction of the court.

11 29. As the Application Judge found in his Reasons for Decision: 9... [t]here is nothing to suggest that the lien is inadequate and the very dollars claimed in the lien are the same, actually more than the dollars that are subject to the trust, which [SODCL] concedes would have come into play but for the filing of the bond and the alleged right of set-off (para 17). 30. The Application Judge noted at para. 13:... [t]he law will never compel a person to pay a sum of money a second time which he has paid once under the sanction of the court having competent jurisdiction. (citing L.W. Bennet Co. v. University of Western Ontario (1961), 31 D.L.R. (2d) 246 (Ont. CA)) 31. This position is clearly set out in the case of PCL Constructors Western Inc. v. Uni-Struct Fabrications Ltd CarswellMan 211 (Q.B.) ( PCL ) (B.A., Tab 2). In PCL, the Court was asked to order that a lien be discharged upon the provision of security in the form of a lien bond. 32. This case is cited in Macklem and Bristow, Construction Builders and Mechanics Liens in Canada, 6th Edition, for the proposition that a defendant can make payment into Court in full satisfaction of the plaintiff s claim if the relevant Rules of Court provide for this procedure. (B.A., Tab 5, 11-85, s. 161) 33. In Provincial Drywall Supply Ltd. v. Gateway Construction Co CarswellMan 106 (MBCA) ( Provincial Drywall ) (B.A., Tab 4, para. 23), the Court commented on the complexities of this area of the law and noted that no panacea has been found in Manitoba or elsewhere. This statement was echoed by the Application Judge in the present case in his Reasons for Decision at paragraph The thrust of this statement is that the various provisions of the Act cannot be read in isolation. Section 55(2) of the Act provides for the discharge of a lien where security is furnished or paid into Court. As noted in Provincial Drywall: Because registration of a builder's lien stops the flow of construction money down the contractual chain, builders' lien legislation has long recognized the need for a procedure whereby liens can be removed from property in exchange for alternative security (B.A., Tab 4, para. 32)

12 In PCL, the Court recognized that under the language of section 4(3)(d) of the Act, the contractor is discharged from its duty to hold the money in trust once provision has been made for the payment of other affected beneficiaries of the trust to whom amounts are then owing out of the sum received. 36. The Court ordered, inter alia, that on payment into Court, the liability of PCL under the trust provisions of the Act was extinguished. (Order of Schwartz J., October 2, 1989, PCL Constructors Western Inc. v. Uni-Struct Fabrications Ltd. et al, QB File No. CI , B.A., Tab 3) 37. In the matter at hand, SODCL has provided security for the full amount claimed by Structal, yet Structal is still threatening to bring an action for breach of trust if any monies are paid out to other trades or to SODCL. 38. Structal has argued that the Lien Bond is not sufficient to secure its claim and that only the trust provisions of the Act adequately provide that security, in case its claim for lien should be found to be invalid. 39. SODCL has never taken the position that the lien is somehow defective or that it was not registered within the time proscribed by the Act. Therefore, the Lien Bond stands as sufficient security for any potential claim held by Structal to which it would otherwise have by operation of a lien. 40. The purpose behind the trust provisions of the Act is to provide security to sub-contractors whose claims might not be protected by lien. In the present case, Structal s claim has been secured by the posting of the Lien Bond and the registration of the Lien Bond in the Court of Queen s Bench. 41. The rationale and the policy behind the statutory trust is satisfied by the Lien Bond. The sanctity of the trust has been preserved. 42. The Lien Bond covers not just the statutory trust but also an additional damage claim made out by Structal. This claim is in excess of $15,000, and therefore the Lien Bond stands as more than sufficient security for the statutory trust claim.

13 The Lien Bond was clearly approved by counsel for Structal and it is respectfully submitted that when such approval was given, it was contemplated by all parties that this Lien Bond was placed to stand as security for the entire claim. Only after the Lien Bond was posted was the breach of statutory trust claim raised and therefore SODCL did not have an opportunity to specifically spell out that such security would extinguish its obligations under the trust provisions of the Act. 44. At paragraphs 47 and 48 of the Appellate Decision, the Court states that: It is important to remember that it is the owner or contractor, not the party claiming the lien, who chooses to act in such a way as to vacate a lien. It need not do so. It is true that the vacating of a lien will permit the continuation of the flow of money and is thus in the interests of those doing work on the project whereas the nonvacating of the lien will stop the flow of such money. Nevertheless, it is the decision of the party responsible for payment under a contract, whether owner, contractor or subcontractor, who determines what, if anything, to do in respect of a lien filed against the property upon which the contract work is being performed. However, the security provided, in this case, the lien bond, does not secure the claim any more than did the land. The claim must still be proved before steps may be taken by the claimant to realize upon the underlying asset. In my view, it would be unheard of for a contractor to say to a subcontractor that, because he had filed a lien claim, the contractor was no longer obligated to comply with the trust obligations under the Act. Indeed, it is almost inevitably the case that lien claims are advanced because of late payment and a concern as to the possibility of non-payment. It is difficult to understand how, in such a circumstance, a subcontractor, by reason of filing a lien claim, should then be deprived of the benefits of the trust provisions of the Act. And, if that is so with respect to the lien claim filed against the land, it must be so with respect to a lien bond which, as the Act clearly provides, stands in the place of the land. 45. The Court of Appeal is correct that the security provided by the lien bond does not secure the claim any more than the land did and that the claim must still be proved before steps may be taken by the claimant to realize upon the underlying asset. That, it is submitted, is the purpose of the lien provisions in the Act to give the contractor an additional form of security beyond the common law right to sue, with which to protect its interest. 46. With respect, however, the Court, in stating that it would be unheard of for a contractor to say to a sub-contractor that, because he had filed a lien claim, the contractor was no longer obligated to comply with the trust obligations under the Act, misses the point of paying monies

14 12 into court to vacate the lien and at the same time satisfy the trust provisions in the Act so that monies may continue to flow. If this were not the case, the sub-contractor could simply advance its independent trust claim and effectively be entitled to a form of prejudgment garnishment before the right to the monies is ever actually established. 47. The Court of Appeal s finding also violates the principle enunciated in L.W. Bennett Co. v. University of Western Ontario (1961), 31 D.L.R. (2d) 246 (Ont. C.A.) (B.A. Tab 1, para. 11) that the law will never compel a person to pay a sum of money a second time which he has paid once under the sanction of the court having competing jurisdiction. 48. The ramifications of the Court of Appeal s decision are expressed in the Affidavit of John M. Beck, sworn March 13, 2014, wherein he states that the decision... will result in the possibility that a contractor will be required to furnish double security for the unproven claim. (A.R., Vol. 2, Tab 3F, p. 304, para. 3). He goes on to state that: The result of having to post double security will have serious implications on the construction industry in those jurisdictions that have similar trust provisions to Manitoba. Effectively, where contractors cannot afford to post double security, construction will be delayed and subcontractors will be unable to continue working or possibly meet their financial obligations. For those contractors that can afford to do so, the extra costs will be passed along to owners and developers, thereby needlessly creating costs and inefficiencies in the industry. (para. 4). 49. Indeed, the purpose of a lien is to provide security for a debt that is not otherwise protected under common law. The Lien Bond stands as full security for that debt. 50. As stated in the Affidavit of Betty A. Johnstone, sworn March 7, 2014,: It is my understanding that the Manitoba case subject to this Leave application deals with the proper inter-play, if any, between remedial objectives, rights and procedures for lien and trust provisions in industry specific legislation. The result of the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision in the matter subject to the Leave application has been to stack these two special legislative remedies to allow a prejudgment monetary claimant security for double the value of its unproven claim. (A.R., Vol. 2, Tab 3E, p.297, para. 7) PART IV: COSTS 51. The Appellants seeks its costs throughout, in this Court and in the courts below.

15 13 PART V: ORDER REQUESTED 52. The Appellant requests an order allowing the Appeal, setting aside the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, and reinstating the decision of the Application Judge, with costs throughout. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this day of September, 2014 HILL SOKALSKI WALSH TRIPPIER LLP Per: Dave Hill Derek M. Olson Michael Weinstein Solicitors for the Appellant

16 14 PART VI: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES TAB CASES PARAGRAPH 1. L.W. Bennet Co. v. University of Western Ontario (1961), 31 D.L.R. (2d) 246 (Ont. CA) 2. PCL Constructors Western Inc. v. Uni-Struct Fabrications Ltd CarswellMan 211 (Q.B.) 3. PCL Constructors Western Inc. v. Uni-Struct Fabrications Ltd. et al, QB File No. CI Provincial Drywall Supply Ltd. v. Gateway Construction Co CarswellMan 106 (MBCA) 19, 47 31, , 34 TAB ARTICLES AND TEXTS PARAGRAPH 5. Macklem and Bristow, Construction Builders and Mechanics Liens in Canada, 6 th Edition (Toronto: Carswell, 1998 Rel. 1), p ,

17 15 PART VII: STATUTORY PROVISIONS Receipts of contractor constitute trust fund 4(1) All sums, including any interest on the holdback, received by a contractor on account of a contract price constitute a trust fund for the benefit of: (a) sub-contractors who have subcontracted with the contractor and other persons who have supplied materials or provided services to the contractor for the purpose of performing the contract; (b) the Workers' Compensation Board; (c) workers who have been employed by the contractor for the purpose of performing the contract; and (d) the owner for any set-off or counterclaim relating to the performance of the contract. Receipts of sub-contractor constitute trust fund 4(2) All sums, including any interest on the holdback, received by a sub-contractor on account of a contract price in the sub-contract, constitute a trust fund for the benefit of: (a) sub-contractors who have sub-contract with the sub-contractor and other persons who have supplied materials or provided services to the sub-contractor for the purpose of performing the sub-contract; (b) the Workers' Compensation Board; (c) workers who have been employed by the sub-contractor for the purpose of performing the sub-contract; and (d) the contractor or any sub-contractor for any set-off or counterclaim relating to the performance of the sub-contract. Fonds détenu en fiducie par l'entrepreneur 4(1) Toutes les sommes d'argent, y compris les intérêts sur la retenue, reçues par un entrepreneur, à valoir sur un prix contractuel, constituent un fonds détenu en fiducie au bénéfice : a) des sous-traitants qui ont conclu un contrat de sous-traitance avec l'entrepreneur et des autres personnes qui lui ont fourni des matériaux ou des services pour l'exécution du contrat; b) de la Commission des accidents du travail; c) des ouvriers qui ont été employés par l'entrepreneur pour l'exécution du contrat; d) du propriétaire qui a droit à une compensation ou à une demande reconventionnelle reliée à l'exécution du contrat. Fonds détenu en fiducie par le sous-traitant 4(2) Toutes les sommes d'argent, y compris les intérêts sur la retenue, reçues par un sous-traitant, à valoir sur un prix contractuel, constituent un fonds détenu en fiducie au bénéfice : a) des sous-traitants qui ont conclu un contrat de sous-traitance avec le soustraitant et des autres personnes qui lui ont fourni des matériaux ou des services pour l'exécution de ce contrat; b) de la Commission des accidents du travail; c) des ouvriers qui ont été employés par le sous-traitant pour l'exécution du contrat de sous-traitance; d) de l'entrepreneur ou de tout sous-traitant qui a droit à une compensation ou à une demande reconventionnelle reliée à l'exécution du contrat de sous-traitance. Duties of contractor respecting trust fund 4(3) A contractor receiving a sum mentioned in subsection (1) is the trustee of the trust fund and he shall not appropriate or convert any part of Obligations de l'entrepreneur à l'égard du fonds 4(3) Un entrepreneur qui reçoit une somme d'argent aux termes du paragraphe (1) devient le fiduciaire du fonds détenu en fiducie et il ne peut

18 16 the trust fund to or for his own use or to or for any use not authorized by the trust until (a) all sub-contractors who have entered into a sub-contract with him and all persons who have supplied materials or provided services to him for the purpose of performing the contract have been paid all amounts then owing to them out of the sum received; (b) the Workers' Compensation Board has been paid all assessments which the contractor could reasonably anticipate as arising out of work done by workers employed by him in performing the contract to the extent for which the sum was received; (c) all workers who have been employed by him for the purpose of performing the contract have been paid all amounts then owing to them out of the sum received for work done in performing the contract; and (d) provision has been made for the payment of other affected beneficiaries of the trust to whom amounts are then owing out of the sum received. Receipts and moneys of owner constitute trust fund 5(1) Where, under a contract, sums become payable to the contractor by the owner on the basis of a certificate of a payment certifier, any amount, up to the aggregate of the sums so certified, that is in the hands of the owner or received by him at any time thereafter for payment under the contract constitutes, until paid to the contractor, a trust fund for the benefit of (a) the contractor and all sub-contractors and other persons who have supplied materials or provided services for the purposes of performing the contract or any sub-contract under the contract; (b) The Workers Compensation Board; and (c) workers who have been employed for the purpose of performing the contract or any sub-contract under the contract. Duties of owner as to trust fund affecter ni détourner aucune partie de ce fonds à son usage personnel ou à un usage non autorisé par la fiducie tant qu'il n'a pas : a) sur la somme reçue, payé à tous les soustraitants qui ont conclu un contrat de soustraitance avec lui et à toutes les personnes qui lui ont fourni des matériaux ou des services pour l'exécution du contrat, tous les montants qui leur sont dus; b) en proportion de la somme reçue, payé à la Commission des accidents du travail, toutes les cotisations qu'il pouvait raisonnablement prévoir relativement aux travaux effectués par des ouvriers qu'il a employés dans l'exécution du contrat; c) sur la somme reçue, payé à tous les ouvriers qu'il a employés pour l'exécution du contrat, tous les montants qui leur sont dus pour des travaux effectués dans l'exécution de ce contrat; d) pris des dispositions pour assurer aux autres bénéficiaires de la fiducie, le paiement, sur la somme reçue, des montants qui leur sont dus. Fonds détenu en fiducie par le propriétaire 5(1) Lorsque, en vertu d'un contrat, le propriétaire devient redevable envers l'entrepreneur de sommes établies par un certificat d'un certificateur, tout montant, jusqu'à concurrence du total des sommes visées par les certificats, que le propriétaire a alors entre les mains ou reçoit subséquemment pour effectuer un paiement en vertu du contrat, constitue, tant qu'il n'a pas été payé à l'entrepreneur, un fonds détenu en fiducie au bénéfice : a) de l'entrepreneur et de tous les sous-traitants et autres personnes qui ont fourni des matériaux ou des services pour l'exécution du contrat ou de tout contrat de sous-traitance accessoire au contrat principal; b) de la Commission des accidents du travail; c) des ouvriers qui ont été employés pour l'exécution du contrat ou d'un contrat de soustraitance accessoire au contrat principal. Obligation du propriétaire à titre de fiduciaire

19 17 5(3) The owner is the trustee of the trust funds created under subsections (1) and (2) and he shall not appropriate or convert any part of the trust fund to or for his own use or to or for any use not authorized by the trust until (a) the contractor has been paid all sums justly owed to him in respect of the performance of the contract; and (b) provision for the payment of other affected beneficiaries of the trust has been made. Waivers, etc., against public policy 11 Every agreement, oral or written, express or implied, on the part of any person (a) that provides or purports to provide that this Act does not apply to him; or (b) that provides or purports to provide that remedies available under this Act are not to be available for his benefit; or (c) that waives or purports to waive any lien or right of lien under this Act; is against public policy and void. Creation of lien 13 Any person who (a) does any work; or (b) provides any services; or (c) supplies any materials to be used; in performance of a contract or sub-contract for any owner, contractor or sub-contractor has, by virtue thereof, a lien for the value of the work, services or materials which, subject to section 16, attaches upon the estate or interest of the owner in the land or structure upon or in respect of which the work was done or the services were provided or the materials were supplied, and the land occupied thereby or enjoyed therewith. Vacating lien on payment into court, etc. 55(2) Upon application, a judge may order security or payment into court in an amount 5(3) Le propriétaire est le fiduciaire des fonds détenus en fiducie sous le régime des paragraphes (l) et (2) et il ne peut affecter ni détourner aucune partie de ces fonds à son usage personnel ou à un usage non autorisé par la fiducie tant : a) que l'entrepreneur n'a pas été payé de toutes les sommes qui lui sont légitimement dues pour l'exécution du contrat; b) que des dispositions n'ont pas été prises pour assurer le paiement des autres bénéficiaires de la fiducie. Renonciations contraires à l'ordre public 11 Est contraire à l'ordre public et nulle l'entente, verbale ou écrite, expresse ou implicite, à laquelle une personne est partie : a) qui prévoit ou donne à entendre que la présente loi ne s'applique pas à cette personne; b) qui prévoit ou donne à entendre que cette personne ne peut exercer les recours que la présente loi lui accorde; c) qui constitue, ou donne à entendre qu'elle constitue, une renonciation à un privilège ou à un droit à un privilège existant aux termes de la présente loi. Création du privilège 13 Quiconque, dans le cadre de l'exécution d'un contrat ou d'un contrat de sous-traitance : a) ou bien effectue des travaux pour un propriétaire, un entrepreneur ou un soustraitant; b) ou bien leur fournit des services; c) ou bien leur fournit des matériaux, acquiert, de ce fait, un privilège, pour la valeur de ces travaux, services ou matériaux lequel, sous réserve de l'article 16, grève le droit que possède le propriétaire sur le bien-fonds ou sur l'ouvrage sur lequel ou à l'égard duquel les travaux ont été effectués ou les services ou matériaux fournis, et sur les biens-fonds sur lesquels l'ouvrage est érigé ou avec lesquels s'exerce la jouissance de l'ouvrage. Annulation du privilège par le dépôt d'une somme d'argent

20 18 equal to the holdback required under this Act as it applies to a particular contract and any additional money payable with respect to that contract but not yet paid but not exceeding the total amount of the claims for liens then registered against a parcel of land and may then order that the registration of those liens be vacated. Money paid into court, etc., in place of land 56(1) Any money paid into court or any security given under subsection 55(2) stands in place of the land against which the lien was registered and is subject to the claims of (a) the persons whose liens have been vacated; and (b) every person who (i) both at the time of filing the application under subsection 55(2) and at the time of filing application for payment out under subsection (3), has a subsisting claim for lien, and (ii) has registered a claim for lien prior to the ime of filing the application for payment out under subsection (3); but the persons whose liens have been ordered vacated have a first charge on the money or security to the extent of any amount, including costs, found by the judge to be owing to them. No reduction of holdback 56(2) Money paid into court or security given under subsection 55(2) does not reduce the amount required to be retained by the owner under section (2) Un juge peut, sur demande, ordonner qu'une garantie soit fournie ou qu'une somme d'argent soit déposée au greffe du tribunal; le montant de la garantie ou du dépôt est égal à la retenue exigée aux termes de la présente loi telle qu'elle s'applique à un contrat déterminé et à toute somme d'argent supplémentaire, payable à l'égard de ce contrat, mais qui n'a pas encore été payée, sans toutefois excéder le montant total des réclamations de privilèges enregistrées sur une parcelle de bien-fonds; le juge peut ensuite ordonner que l'enregistrement de ces privilèges soit annulé. Dépôt ou garantie remplaçant le bien-fonds 56(1) Lorsque, dans le cadre du paragraphe 55(2) une somme d'argent est déposée au greffe ou qu'une garantie est fournie, la somme déposée ou la garantie tient lieu du bien-fonds sur lequel le privilège est enregistré, et elle est assujettie aux réclamations : a) des personnes dont les privilèges ont été annulés, b) de quiconque (i) d'une part, a une réclamation de privilège en vigueur au moment du dépôt de la requête aux termes du paragraphe 55(2) de même qu'au moment du dépôt de la requête aux termes du paragraphe (3) du présent article, (ii) d'autre part, a enregistré une réclamation de privilège avant le dépôt de la requête aux termes du paragraphe (3). Toutefois, les personnes dont les privilèges ont été annulés par l'ordonnance ont une charge prioritaire sur la somme déposée ou la garantie, jusqu'à concurrence des montants, y compris les frais, que le juge a declare être dus à ces personnes. Pas de réduction de la retenue 56(2) Le montant que doit retenir le propriétaire aux termes de l'article 24 n'est pas réduit par le fait qu'une somme est déposée ou une garantie fournie sous le régime du paragraphe 55(2).