Schultz (Benjamin) & Associates Ltd. v. Samet, (1991) 52 O.A.C. 180 (DC)

• Judge: Steele, McKeown and Davidson, JJ.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: June 26, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1991), 52 O.A.C. 180 (DC)

Schultz & Assoc. Ltd. v. Samet (1991), 52 O.A.C. 180 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Benjamin Schultz & Associates Ltd. (plaintiff/appellant) v. Henry Samet (defendant/respondent)

(123/90; 124/90)

Indexed As: Schultz (Benjamin) & Associates Ltd. v. Samet

Ontario Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Steele, McKeown and Davidson, JJ.

August 22, 1991.

Summary:

A master dismissed a contractor's action under s. 46 of the Construction Lien Act, S.O. 1983, c. 6, declared that the lien had expired and ordered registration of the claim for lien vacated. The con­tractor appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

Mechanics' Liens - Topic 6922

Loss or discharge of lien - Discontinuance of action - Expiry of limitation period - [See Mechanics' Liens - Topic 6983 ].

Mechanics' Liens - Topic 6983

Loss or discharge of lien - Loss by oper­ation of statute - Expiration of time period - Section 37 of the Construction Lien Act, S.O. 1983, c. 6 provided that a perfected lien would expire if no trial date was fixed or if an action was not set down for trial within two years from the date the action was commenced - The Ontario Divisional Court concluded that there was no judicial discretion to grant relief from s. 37 as it did not prescribe a limitation period, but extinguished all liens not complying with its terms - See paragraph 6.

Cases Noticed:

Ramrock Electric v. Lords & Ladies, (1989), 34 C.L.R. 26 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 3].

Basarsky v. Quinlan, [1972] S.C.R. 380; [1972] 1 W.W.R. 303; 24 D.L.R.(3d) 720, dist. [para. 6].

Statutes Noticed:

Construction Lien Act, S.O. 1983, c. 6, sect. 37 [paras. 6, 8]; sect. 37(1)[para. 4]; sect. 38 [para. 8]; sect. 46 [paras. 1, 2, 4, 8]; sect. 65 [para. 8].

Counsel:

W.A. McLauchlin, for the appellant;

Carl S. Zeliger, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 26, 1991, before Steele, McKeown and Davidson, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. Steele, J., released the following judgment of the court on August 22, 1991.