Decor Interior Systems v. 421210 Alta. (1996), 183 A.R. 133 (QBM)
MLB headnote and full text
Decor Interior Systems Inc. (plaintiff) v. 421210 Alberta Ltd. and 421210 Alberta Ltd. carrying on business under the name and style of GE’O Developments (defendants)
(Action No. 9503-23559)
Indexed As: Decor Interior Systems Inc. v. 421210 Alberta Ltd. et al.
Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench
Judicial District of Edmonton
Funduk, Master in Chambers
February 21, 1996.
Summary:
A builder filed a builder’s lien for the unpaid balance. By agreement the lien was discharged with the funds being held in trust pending determination of the claim. The owner defended the claim on the ground that there were a number of deficiencies that the builder had failed to correct. The owner also counterclaimed for damages on the ground of slander of title. There was a pretrial application under s. 39 of the Builders’ Lien Act for a determination of, inter alia, the validity of the owner’s defence.
A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench gave judgment for the builder and dismissed the owner’s counterclaim.
Mechanics’ Liens – Topic 8059
Practice – Pleadings – Defence – General – [See
Mechanics’ Liens – Topic 8081
].
Mechanics’ Liens – Topic 8081
Practice – Pretrial application – General – A builder contracted to work on a condominium project for $308,027.32 – The builder registered a builder’s lien for the balance of $39,877.32 – The owner defended the claim on the basis that there were deficiencies – However, the owner failed to provide a list of deficiencies – There was a pretrial application to determine, inter alia, the validity of the defence – The owner was represented by Schellenberg, its assistant general manager – Schellenberg had not inspected the builder’s work – Her knowledge came from two letters and from what she was told by the owner’s two principals – The builder objected because the defence was based on hearsay – A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that there was no triable issue of either fact or law and gave judgment for the builder.
Cases Noticed:
Warren v. Camrose (City) (1989), 92 A.R. 388 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1989), 102 N.R. 399; 100 A.R. 395 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 18].
St. Denis v. Trumbley (1977), 4 A.R. 212; 3 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].
Statutes Noticed:
Builders’ Lien Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. B-12, sect. 39 [para. 1].
Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 305 [para. 20].
Counsel:
D.C.P. Stachnik (Cook Duke Cox), for the plaintiff;
H.J.D. Henderson, for the defendant.
This pretrial application was heard before Funduk, Master in Chambers, of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on February 21, 1996.
