Construction Litigation and Arbitration

We prepare and file builders lien claims with close attention to the statutory deadline and to the description of the land the claim is actually filed against. A lien secures a position against title that an unsecured claim cannot match. We confirm the claimable amount before filing, because a technical defect discovered later can defeat an otherwise valid claim.

We advise owners, contractors and lenders on the statutory holdback and the release of the fund, which is where a surprising number of construction disputes actually begin long before any lien is filed. Poor holdback administration creates exposure that outlasts the project. We structure holdback accounts and timing so payments keep flowing without creating new liability.

We commence and prosecute lien actions that convert a filed lien into an enforceable court judgment. Missing a deadline extinguishes the lien outright. We manage the litigation from the certificate of pending litigation through to recovery.

We remove improper, exaggerated or expired liens from title, often to clear a stalled sale or a financing deadline that will not wait. Posting security or proving a technical defect are the two routes off title. We move by court application quickly, because a lien holding up a closing is a problem measured in days, not weeks.

We resolve priority contests among lien claimants, mortgagees and the statutory holdback, where the order of claims determines who is actually paid. Rank often matters more than the size of the claim. We assess competing priorities early and protect our client's position before the ranking is contested.

We represent clients in construction arbitration and mediation across the province, including matters governed by a CCDC dispute resolution clause the parties chose long before any dispute existed. Our team includes arbitrators and mediators who have sat on both sides of the table before. We pursue efficient, binding outcomes that avoid the cost and delay of a full trial.

A single construction dispute regularly draws in an owner, a general contractor and a consultant under three separate contracts. An arbitral award binds only the parties who agreed to arbitrate. We raise consolidation early, having regard to the procedural posture of every related file and which parties genuinely belong in one proceeding.

We seek interim relief where a dispute cannot wait for a full hearing, and we carry every file through to a final award. An award becomes enforceable in the same manner as a judgment once the challenge period passes. We move on enforcement promptly, while the other side still holds assets worth recovering against.

We prepare and respond to notices of civil claim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, where the claim and the response fix what the trial will actually decide. Precision at this stage narrows what still has to be proven months later. We plead every construction claim with the eventual trial record already in mind.

We conduct and defend examinations for discovery on construction files built from years of project correspondence, site instructions and change orders exchanged long before any dispute was contemplated. An unprepared witness walks into that room at a real disadvantage. We prepare our own against the evidentiary record, and test the other side's account against the same evidentiary record.

We bring and defend summary trial applications under Rule 9-7, where a construction dispute can be resolved on affidavit evidence and the documents alone. Most construction claims never reach that point. Expert reports and cross-examination are what decide the ones that do.

We advance and resist claims for extended schedules, lost productivity and acceleration costs, using critical path analysis built from the project's own records. That foundation turns a delay narrative into a claim a decision maker can award. Delays are excusable, compensable or concurrent. Which category applies decides entitlement to a time extension, additional cost, or neither.

We prosecute and resist claims over deficient workmanship, design errors and non-compliant construction. Several of our litigators hold a professional engineering licence, so the same lawyer reads the technical cause of a defect and argues the claim built on that reading. That reading supports a clear assessment of responsibility and the quantum required to repair the work.

We resolve disputes over scope, payment, change orders and performance under CCDC and custom contracts. Whether the client is owed money or facing a claim, we read the contract and the governing law the same way, to establish where the client actually stands. Most files settle through negotiation, but we prepare each one with the discipline a hearing would demand.

We handle coverage disputes, tender of defence and indemnity claims arising from a construction loss. Wrap-up, builders risk and commercial general liability policies each answer a different kind of loss, and working out which one responds is often the first contested question. We press the allocation of defence obligations and liability among the parties and insurers involved.

We advance claims under labour and material payment bonds, and we respond to the calls a surety makes on a performance bond. A surety tests every claim against the underlying contract first. We press the valid claims, and we resist the rest.

We enforce arbitral awards and court judgments against the assets of the parties bound by them. An unenforced award recovers nothing. We move on enforcement as soon as the challenge period closes, before assets move somewhere harder to reach.

We bring and defend applications to set aside an arbitral award, and applications for leave to appeal a question of law. The grounds available to challenge an award are a closed list the court cannot expand. We read the award against that list early, given that the list settles whether a challenge is worth bringing at all.

We pursue costs, interest and security for costs alongside the underlying construction claim. Security for costs protects a defendant against a claimant who may not be able to satisfy an adverse costs award later. We treat these applications as part of the litigation strategy from the outset, not as an afterthought raised near trial.