Canada: Liens By Architects In Atlantic Canada

It is a commonly held misconception, or perhaps an often overlooked issue, that the provisions of mechanics' or builders' lien legislation do not apply to architects. There is some variance in the legislation across the country but in Atlantic Canada a review of the lien provisions makes it clear that architects have rights to lien in certain circumstances and in such cases, owners are required to maintain a holdback from payments in accordance with the provisions of the applicable provincial lien legislation.

While historically only an architect whose prepared plans were actually constructed generally had a right to a lien, the trend across Canada appeared to be shifting toward upholding an architect's lien under more circumstances. The redrafting of lien legislation in most provinces through the 1990s refocused the justification of a lien on the provision of services to the owner in respect of the land and the courts followed that example.

Recently, there is indication that both legislators and the courts may be shifting back towards a focus on the improvement of property as the justification supporting an architect's lien, although the definition of what constitutes an "improvement" still varies greatly.

The legislation

The general right to a lien in Nova Scotia is established under section 6(1) of the Builders' Lien Act:

6(1) Unless he signs an express agreement to the contrary and in that case subject to Section 4, any person who performs any work or service upon or in respect of, or places or furnishes any material to be used in the ... constructing, ..., improving, or repairing of any erection, building, ..., or the appurtenances to any of them, for any owner, contractor, or subcontractor, shall by virtue thereof have a lien for the price of such work, service or materials upon the erection, building, ..., and the land occupied thereby or enjoyed therewith or upon or in respect of which such work or service is performed, ... in amount to the sum justly due to the person entitled to the lien and to the sum justly owing, except as herein provided, by the owner.

The provisions of section 6(1) of the Mechanics' Lien Act of Newfoundland and Labrador are very similar. The Mechanics' Lien Act of New Brunswick (section 4(1)) and Prince Edward Island (section 2(1)) are nearly identical and more concise:

A person who

  1. does, or causes to be done any work upon or in respect of an improvement, or
  2. furnishes any material to be used in an improvement,

for an owner, contractor or sub-contractor has, subject as herein otherwise provided, a lien for wages or for the price of the work or material, as the case may be, or for so much thereof as remains owing to him, upon the estate or interest of the owner in the land in respect of which the improvement is being made, as such estate or interest exists at the time the lien arises, or at any time during its existence.

The approach is not consistent across Canada. For example:

  • The Manitoba Builders' Liens Act expressly provides at section 36 that an architect retained to provide architectural services in respect of construction or improving land does not have a lien against the structure or land for its professional fees and charges.
  • Architects were specifically given the right to claim construction liens in Ontario by virtue of the passage of the Government Process Simplification Act in 1997. A similar change occurred to Saskatchewan's legislation when "improvement" was redefined to specifically include services provided by an architect.
  • Recent changes to Ontario's legislation also expand the definition of "improvement" to include any installation of equipment that is essential to the normal use of the land or a structure on the land, which could extend lien rights to architects who participate in a building redesign that involves the installation of such equipment.
  • In British Columbia, section 4(6) of the Builders' Lien Act provides that holdbacks are not to be retained from architects and engineers regardless of their lien status.
  • The Atlantic Canadian provinces and Alberta chose not to specifically address the lien rights of architects, engineers or their work within their legislation.

The evolving scope of the lien right

In Nova Scotia, the scope of an architect's right to lien was discussed in Nova Scotia Sand & Gravel Ltd. v. Kidstone Estates Ltd. (1973), 13 N.S.R. (2d) 431. In this case, the court concluded that an architect can maintain a lien for the cost of plans prepared by him if he superintends or directs subsequent building, but stated that the architect wouldn't be entitled to a lien for the costs of preparing plans alone where the building is not proceeded with. The architect in this case was found to maintain a lien because of his inspection services on site.

The most oft-discussed Nova Scotia case on an architect's right to a lien, where the architect developed plans but the project did not proceed, is actually a case about an engineering lien. Jenkins v. Wilin Construction Ltd. (1977), 25 N.S.R. (2d) 19, held that an engineer who performed services for a proposed project including the preparation of plans and drawings was entitled to a lien even though the project was never built. The judge found that what is now section 6(1) of the Nova Scotia Builders' Lien Act was broad enough to encompass plans created by an engineer because the work done by the engineer was work done "with respect to the land". The court linked the work done by the engineer to the work done by an architect who was granted a right to a lien in a much earlier case on the basis that an architect's plans are essential to construction work on the property.

While Nova Scotia Sand & Gravel Ltd. has never been overturned, there is a reasonable prospect that a court would apply the Jenkins approach to a situation where an architect is seeking a lien for work on plans that were not acted on.

Jenkins was considered in the Alberta case of LeDuc Estates Ltd. v. IBI Group, [1992] 4 W.W.R. 561, where the court found that architectural plans are so directly related to the construction process as to fall within the definition of services in respect of an improvement of the land. The issue appeared to be settled in Alberta with Raimond Fung Architect Ltd. v. Dr. Jeremy Chai Professional Corp. (1992), 1 C.L.R. (2d) 114, where the court stated that an architect could assert a valid lien claim for the preparation of plans even though his plans were not used in the project.

In 1246798 Ontario Inc. v. Sterling, [2000] O.J. No. 4261, the court overturned a motion judge's finding that plans prepared by architects in order to gain a city permit were not lienable. The court commented that:

If obtaining site plan approval enhances the value of the owner's interest in the land, then it follows that the cost of preparing the documentation that supported the application would also give rise to a lien.

The matter did not proceed to trial to resolve the outstanding issue of whether the city permit had enhanced the value of the owner's land. The case certainly implied that even if nothing was constructed, if the architect's work had contributed to improving land value, the architect could well be entitled to a lien.

Is the tide turning back?

Recently, in John Barlot Architect Ltd. v. 413482 Alberta Ltd., 2010 ABCA 51, the architects provided services to the contractor with regard to a sales centre and a condominium project. The Court of Appeal upheld the liens related to the sales centre, which was actually constructed. However, liens related to the condominium project, which was not constructed, were invalidated because the bulk of the work involved rezoning, subdivision and dealing with development issues. The court held this was not sufficiently connected to construction of an "improvement" to support a lien. The Raimond case was not discussed. The architect also argued he could "shelter" non-lienable work under a lien supported by lienable work. The court disagreed, suggesting the value of non-lienable items should be deducted from the purchase price before calculating the holdback amount.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench followed both of these findings in UPA Construction Group Limited Partnership v. Lake Placid Properties (Park) Inc., [2010] ABQB 675, in finding that "an architect's services do not need to be physically performed upon the improvement to give rise to a lien, however they must be directly related to the process of construction".

The Attorney General of Ontario is considering further amendments to Ontario legislation that would see a deemed division of contracted services of an architect into two parts: supply of services up to and including commencement of the improvement and supply of services thereafter. There is no indication yet whether the change would allow pre-commencement services to be lienable.

The application of the lien right

Where there is an applicable lien right, an owner must retain the holdback under the lien legislation from all payments to the architect, which holdback is for the benefit of the subconsultants. The architect is in turn obliged to retain the holdback from all payments to its subconsultants, which holdback is for the benefit of sub-subconsultants. It is not uncommon in the industry for owners to overlook the holdback requirement in respect of an architect's services. This may be because often there are no subconsultants involved.

The consequences for failure to retain the holdback are primarily risk of double payment of that amount. For example, if on a contract with an architect for $100,000 an owner does not retain the required holdback of 10 per cent ($10,000), but instead fully pays the $100,000 to the architect, it risks paying again the amount of the holdback it should have held to satisfy valid lien claims by subconsultants. A subconsultant who performs services has a lien upon the owner's property, which is secured by the holdback retained by the owner. The owner will be liable to the subconsultant up to the amount of the holdback required to be retained ($10,000 in this case). If the owner has paid out the full $100,000 to the contractor/architect, it will still be liable to satisfy a valid subconsultant lien claim up to the amount of the required holdback. Thus, the risk of double payment where the holdback was not retained.

As noted above, the owner's holdback is for the benefit of the subconsultants. Thus, if there are no subconsultants, the risk of double payment is minimal where the holdback was not retained. On the basis that the architect has a direct contract with the owner, it can bring a claim for breach if it is not paid, as well as asserting a lien on the property where it has not waived that right.

While an architect may be able to waive its right to a lien under the applicable legislation, it cannot waive the rights of its subconsultants (or independent contractors if it has any) to claim a lien. Nor can any party agree to exclude the application of the lien legislation (and the lien provided) for anyone providing manual labour.

Practically speaking, there is no regulatory offence for failing to hold back in accordance with the statutory obligations. The primary concern for the owner is being required to pay for certain work twice. There are a number of potential ways to mitigate this risk:

  • a covenant by an architect not to retain any subconsultants, together with an express waiver of its lien rights;
  • an indemnity by the architect in favour of the owner against liens by subconsultants; or
  • security provided in place of the holdback.

Of course, these possible solutions must be considered in the context of the trust provisions under the applicable lien legislation.

What this means for you

While there is some variance across Canada, architects do have a right to lien for services that are directly connected to an improvement or construction. There is little doubt that this is the case in Atlantic Canada, though there may be some argument over the scope of that right.

In general, where an architect prepares plans and designs which are implemented in a construction project, there will be a right to lien for the amount owing in respect of the services. The right to lien is less clear where the construction does not actually proceed, but where the services can be linked to some improvement in the owner's interest in the land, there may be a right to assert a lien. At least until there is further legislative change restricting that right. There are other nuances which affect the scope of this lien right which require consideration in the context of the particular circumstances. However, as a general rule it is prudent for construction parties to assume that an architect will have a right to lien for its services and that payments made to an architect or its subconsultants will be subject to the holdback provisions of the applicable lien legislation.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Michelle McCann
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Goldman Sloan Nash & Haber LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Goldman Sloan Nash & Haber LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions