LESENKO v WILD ROSE READY MIX LTD, 2023 ABKB 148
APPLICATIONS JUDGE SCHLOSSER
13.5: Variation of time periods
A contractor filed liens against an owner for unpaid work and materials. The Parties entered into a Consent Order to have the sum of the liens paid into Court as security, using a template Order under the Prompt Payment and Construction Lien Act, RSA 2000, c P-26.4 (the “PPCLA”). The liens were discharged from title.
The Consent Order provided that the contractor had 180 days following the date of the registration of the liens to commence a Court Action regarding the liens. The contractor filed a claim outside the 180 day period, and sought an extension to the time specified in the Consent Order pursuant to Rule 13.5.
Applications Judge Schlosser acknowledged that he had a general power to vary the time specified in an Order, within limits. However, because the Consent Order was made pursuant to the PPCLA, and because the PPCLA has strict and explicit time limits, Applications Judge Schlosser determined he had no power to extend the time in the Consent Order. He stated that the Court only has authority to extend time periods fixed by statute where the statute grants the Court that power. The PPCLA did not grant him that authority. He further found that a Consent Order under the PPCLA could not allow the Parties to contract out of the PPCLA’s terms. He therefore denied the Application.View CanLII Details