Petrifond Midwest Ltd. v. H.M.W. Constructors Ltd. et al., (1985) 75 A.R. 134 (QBM)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 30, 1985
• Citations: (1985), 75 A.R. 134 (QBM)

Petrifond v. HMW Constructors Ltd. (1985), 75 A.R. 134 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

Petrifond Midwest Limited v. H.M.W. Constructors Ltd., Crown Trust, Simmons Pipelines Ltd. and Syncrude Canada Ltd. (defendants) and H.M.W. Constructors Ltd., Segers, Bastrache, Doe, Leger, Ouintal, LeBlanc and Brown (third parties)

(Action No. 8303 07708)

Syncrude Canada Ltd. v. Petrifond Midwest Limited and H.M.W. Constructors Ltd.

Indexed As: Petrifond Midwest Ltd. v. H.M.W. Constructors Ltd. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Funduk, Master in Chambers

September 30, 1985.

Summary:

Syncrude contracted with H.M.W. for it to do certain work at the Syncrude plant. H.M.W. subcontracted with Petrifond. Petrifond did the work and registered a builders' lien. Syncrude paid into court monies sufficient to cover the lien claim. Petrifond made a pretrial application under s. 39 of the Builders' Lien Act to have the monies paid out of court. Syncrude counterclaimed against Petrifond respecting the quality of its work and sought an order that the lien claim and the counterclaim be tried together.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that Syncrude had an equitable right of set-off; that the two claims should be tried together. Alternatively, the Master stated that there was a sufficient connection between the lien claim and counterclaim to justify a stay of execution on any judgment on the lien claim pending adjudication of the counterclaim.

Execution - Topic 479

Stay of execution - Second action pending - A subcontractor sought judgment on a builders' lien claim - The owner counterclaimed against the subcontractor respecting the quality of the work giving rise to the lien - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that if he was wrong in determining the owner had an equitable right of set-off, there was a sufficient connection between the lien claim and the counterclaim to justify a stay of execution on any judgment in favour of the subcontractor pending adjudication of the owner's counterclaim.

Mechanics' Liens - Topic 8008

Practice - Availability of set-off - A subcontractor filed a builders' lien - The owner counterclaimed against the subcontractor respecting the quality of the work giving rise to the lien - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the claims were sufficiently related to found a claim for equitable set-off.

Cases Noticed:

Pockar Bros. Masonry v. Hilberta Construction Co. (1978), 9 A.R. 554 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Renner v. Racz, [1972] 1 W.W.R. 109 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Aboussafy v. Abacus Cities, [1981] 4 W.W.R. 660; 29 A.R. 607 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Kaps Transport v. McGregor Telephone and Power Construction Company (1970), 73 W.W.R.(N.S.) 549 (Alta. C.A.) refd to. [para. 8].

Standard Oil Company of British Columbia v. Wood (1964), 47 W.W.R.(N.S.) 494 (B.C. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 8].

Johnston Terminals v. L.G.R. Business Consultants (1984), 48 A.R. 281 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 8].

Wasylyk v. Metropolitan Separate School Board, [1970] 3 O.L.R. 391 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Mercantile Bank of Canada v. J.T. Miller Construction (1985), 60 A.R. 151; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 89 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Western Caissons (Man) v. Trident Construction, 54 D.L.R.(3d) 289 (Man. Cty. Ct.), refd to. [para. 8].

Alros Products v. Dalecore Construction, 2 O.R.(2d) 312 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

P.P.G. Industries Canada v. J.W. Lindsay Enterprises (1982), 52 N.S.R.(2d) 267; 106 A.P.R. 267; 30 C.P.C. 13 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Aqua-Pond Industries v. Gould, 3 O.R.(2d) 439 (H.C.), refd to [para. 8].

City Wide Lumber v. 349207 Ontario, 39 C.P.C. 78 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

Chicago Vitreous (Canada) v. Clark, 15 C.P.C. 38 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

St. Denis v. Trumbley (1977), 4 A.R. 212; 3 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Royal Trust Corporation of Canada v. Kendall Adjusters (1984), 54 A.R. 393 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Builders' Lien Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. B-12, sect. 35(1)(a), sect. 39(1), sect. 39(3)(c)(ii), [paras. 44, 50].

Counsel:

D.B. Foster (Milner & Steer), for the plaintiff;

R.M. Curtis (McCuaig Desrochers), for H.M.W. Constructors Ltd.;

A.R. Gray (Lucas, Edwards & Bishop), for Syncrude Canada Ltd.

This application was heard before Funduk, Master in Chambers, of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on September 30, 1985.