Skip to content

A new era: expanded obligations for owners under New Brunswick’s Construction Remedies Act

Included in Discovery: Atlantic Education & the Law – Issue 09


Conor O’Neil, P.Eng. and Sarah-Jane Lewis

Construction lien legislation exists in every province and territory in Canada. Liens are a creature of statute introduced, at least in North America, first in the state of Maryland. The concept of early construction liens was intended to combat the issues of bad credit encountered by colonial era material suppliers who faced the new world problem of land owners with abundant land, but little cash and bad credit. Materials were expensive to transport to new remote locations and so, the legislatures of that era created liens to protect material suppliers by giving them a charge against the lands for which materials or services were supplied.

Beginning in 2016 with Ontario, every province, with the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador, has undertaken a review of its lien legislation and most have passed some legislative changes or indicated their intention to do so. New Brunswick’s Mechanics’ Lien Act is the oldest lien act still in force of any of the provinces. The Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick passed new legislation, the Construction Remedies Act (“Act”), on December 18, 2020 and the Act, with the exception of several sections, came into force on November 1, 2021, replacing the Mechanics’ Lien Act.

The new legislation is long – double the length of its predecessor. Most of the fundamental concepts remain the same. However, the Act makes significant changes with respect to entities considered “owners ” under the legislation, including introducing new holdbacks provisions and expansive trust obligations for owners. Most universities and colleges will fall into the category of an owner for both new projects and capital improvements. As of the writing of this article, the sections of the Act dealing with owner holdback trust accounts are being revised. Bill 68 was introduced on November 1, 2021, outlining minor proposed amendments to these sections.

Why the new holdback and trust provisions matter

The Mechanics’ Lien Act creates a statutory trust for all funds paid by owners on a construction project, the beneficiaries of which are the contractors and material suppliers below the owner in the construction pyramid. Importantly, under that legislation an owner is not a trustee of such funds and its obligations are largely limited to retaining the fifteen per cent statutory holdback.

Under the new legislation, the trust provisions have been greatly expanded. The construction trust will extend to owners and there have been significant changes to owners’ obligations.

Owners will be required to retain a ten per cent statutory holdback, a reduction from the predecessor legislation, until the expiry of the holdbacks period. In retaining such funds every owner must create separate holdbacks trust accounts for each improvement where the value of the contract is over $100,000. Further, the owner is required to administer the trust account jointly with the contractor as trustees and, unless ordered otherwise by the court, any payment from a holdback trust account requires the signatures of both trustees.

This is potentially administratively burdensome to owners with several projects happening simultaneously. Owners should expect to track trust information to maintain traceability of trust funds such as:

  • Deposits and withdrawals to and from the account;
  • Any transfers made for the purposes of the trust;
  • The names of parties involved in any transaction regarding the trust; and
  • The amount retained as a holdback for each contract.

Perhaps most surprisingly to some, the new legislation makes appropriation or conversion of any part of an owner’s trust a category F offence under Part 2 of the Provincial Offences Procedure Act which may include a fine of up to $10,200 and a term of imprisonment of up to 90 days.

Further, any director, officer or person, including employees or agents who have effective control of the corporation, who assents to, or acquiesces in conduct, that such persons knew or ought to have known amounts to the corporation committing a breach of trust may be personally liable to the trust beneficiaries. This effectively creates a statutory right for trust beneficiaries to personally sue such persons for breach of trust. Similar sections exist in other jurisdictions and may result in an increased risk of litigation for directors, officers and employees managing the statutory trust.

What types of projects does this apply to?

The new legislation defines an “improvement” in respect of lands as:

  1. any alteration, addition or capital repair to the land,
  2. any construction, erection or installation on the land, or
  3. complete or partial demolition/removal of a building, structure or works on the land.

Importantly, the new legislation also clarifies that capital repairs include any repair intended to extend the normal economic life of the land, building, structure or works but do not include normal preventative maintenance.

The supply of services to an improvement also clearly includes the supply of a design, plan, drawing or specification by an architect or engineer which enhances the value of the land. In other words, owners should maintain the ten per cent statutory holdback on contracts they enter into with their consultants for building projects and capital repairs.

University obligations more expansive than colleges

Although both colleges and universities may be “owners” of improvements or projects within the meaning of the new legislation, the obligation to maintain a holdback trust account does not apply to the Crown or to local government. Although there is not a “one size fits all” answer, generally community colleges are likely to be deemed the Crown for the purposes of the Act, while the same is not true for universities. This may have a significant impact on a university’s obligations under the Act with respect to holdbacks and owners’ trusts.

Community colleges in New Brunswick are Crown corporations. They are creatures of statute and subject to the New Brunswick Community Colleges Act (“NBCAA”). Under section 8 of NBCAA, community colleges are clearly defined as agents of the Crown.

Universities in New Brunswick are not subject to legislation similar to the NBCCA, are self-governed, and are not expressly legislated as Crown agents under the Act. As such, the expansive definition of improvement makes it likely that universities, which typically make dozens of capital repairs above and beyond $100,000 in the run of a year (e.g. replacing a gymnasium floor, renovations to dormitories, building or modifying laboratories, etc.), will likely be faced with creating and maintaining separate holdback trust accounts for each improvement contract, and will be subject to the corresponding obligations under the Act. Further, as noted above, both the university as a corporation, and those of its individual directors, officers and employees who have responsibility for the management of the holdback trusts, may be held personally liable for appropriation or conversion of any part of the trusts.

How Stewart McKelvey can help

Stewart McKelvey can assist universities and colleges with reviewing and drafting procedures and construction contracts to best manage the risks inherent in the new legislation. In the event of a dispute, Stewart McKelvey’s dispute resolution team has extensive experience in dealing with all forms of dispute resolution across the Atlantic region and beyond.


This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Education group.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2017 Proxy Season

February 8, 2017

In preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Client Update: The Future of Planning and Development on Prince Edward Island – Recent Amendments to the Planning Act

January 23, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…

Read More

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top