Digest: Prestige Commercial Interiors (1992) Ltd. v Prairie Green Restaurant (Southland) Holdings Ltd., 2018 SKQB 93

• Date: March 22, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 93

Docket Number: QBG 1588/14 QBG 1516/14 JCR , QB17477

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-03-22

Judges:

• McMurtry

Subjects:

• Statutes � Interpretation � The Limitations Act, Section 20

Digest: The plaintiffs (All-Rite and Prestige) were two sub-contractors on the construction of a restaurant owned by the respondent corporation, Prairie Green. The defendant, Abacus Design Build and Project Management (Abacus) became the project manager for the restaurant�s construction. Abacus subcontracted with the plaintiffs. In January 2014 the plaintiffs and six other sub-contractors filed lien claims after substantial completion of the project. In June 2014, Prairie Green obtained an order to vacate the liens upon payment of $400,000 into court. In June 2015, the court ordered payment out of $174,000 to be distributed to 16 lienholders, amongst them the plaintiffs, who then brought actions against Prairie Green, Abacus and their principals for breach of trust and failure to pay for goods and services. Both plaintiffs added the remaining 14 lien claimants as defendants in their respective actions. A number of applications were made to the court, including: 1) one made by Raven, a representative of the lien claimants other than the plaintiffs, that sought a declaration in advance of trial that The Limitations Act (LA) did not bar the claims of lienholders who had not filed cross-claims. Raven argued that the plaintiffs� pleadings raised all the legal issues between the parties and additional cross-claims from the lien claimants would not raise new or different legal issues, and therefore Prairie Green and Abacus would not be surprised that the claimants were parties to the dispute and were maintaining claims in debt in addition to a lien on the interest of the owner. Alternatively, despite the fact that a claim or cross-claim was out of time under s. 3 and s. 5 of the LA, s. 20 applied to allow lienholders to file additional pleadings to clarify their claims. Prairie Green argued that the lien claimants were restricted to sharing in the holdback on a pro rata basis, that holdback had been exhausted and that Raven had not met its onus under s. 18 of the LA by establishing that it and the claimants were not out of time; and 2) the directors of Prairie Green applied for summary dismissal of the breach of trust allegations made against them in Prestige�s action. They argued that there was no genuine...