Skip to main content

In This Volume

  • 16 (1) If an owner enters into a single contract for improvements on more than one parcel of land, a lien claimant providing work or material under that contract, or under a subcontract under that contract, may choose to have the lien follow the form of the contract and be a lien against each parcel for the price of all work and material provided to all of the parcels of land.
  • (2) If a lien is claimed under subsection (1) against several parcels of land, on application to the court by any person with an interest in or charge on the land, the court may apportion the lien among the parcels for the purpose of determining the lien claimant’s rights as against persons having rights in particular parcels.

1997-45-16, effective February 1, 1998 (B.C. Reg. 1/98).


Limitation for Phased Strata Plan Lots

See s. 87 of the Strata Property Act in chapter 57 (Strata Property Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. 43), which provides:

Builders liens against strata lots in phased strata plans

  • 87 Despite any other enactment, in a phased strata plan a claim of lien under the Builders Lien Act may be filed against only the strata lots in the phase in which the materials were supplied or the work was done.


The plaintiff filed claims of builders lien against two properties, identifying the name of the lien claimant and lien claimant’s address in the preamble but not again in the first numbered paragraph of the claim. The defendants applied to strike the liens, alleging two flaws: first, that one claim of lien should have been completed rather than two forms, and second, that the requirements of the Builders Lien Act had not been complied with because the name of the lien claimant and the lien claimant’s address did not appear in the first numbered paragraph of the claim of lien, and the person engaged by the lien claimant to file the lien was not properly identified. The chambers judge dismissed the application. Addressing the first argument, he said (at para. 13) that “it may be that a single lien registered against multiple parcels is one alternative”. As to the second argument, the court said invoking the Interpretation Act, s. 28(1), which provides that deviations from a prescribed form that do not affect the substance or are not calculated to mislead do not invalidate the form. Finding no error in that approach, the Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants’ appeal. The requirement for strict compliance with the Act and Regulations does not impose a standard of perfection (A.W. Kennedy Construction Inc. v. Wan, 2020 BCSC 2233 (Chambers), affirmed 2021 BCCA 175).