Deficient Certificates of Completion: Failure to Deliver Certainty on Lien Filing Timelines

In the context of builders lien claims, we have seen an uptick recently in disputes around deficient certificates of completion not issued in compliance with the requirements of the Builders Lien Act, SBC 1997, c 45 (the “Act”). Certificates of completion, when properly issued, constitute a trigger for the 45-day lien filing period. However, if they are not issued in compliance with the legislative requirements, they may not trigger the lien filing period at all and owners, contractors, and potential lien claimants are left to consider whether other triggering events under the Act apply instead. This is less than ideal for owners and contractors unknowingly intending to rely on deficient certificates of completion to trigger the lien filing deadline to protect their interests, and may be less than ideal as well for potential lien claimants assessing the time period open to them for filing liens.

The Builders Lien Act sets out the requirements of the certificate and that they must be issued (in summary):

1. by the “payment certifier”, defined as the person identified in the contract or subcontract as responsible for payment certification, or, if there is no person so identified, one of the owner or contractor, depending on whether amounts are due to the contractor or subcontractor;
2. within 10 days of a written request by a person entitled to a lien if the contract or subcontract is completed, and, within seven days of issuance be:
   1. delivered to the owner, head contractor, and person who requested the certificate;
   1. delivered to any persons who previously requested the certificate in respect of the improvement; and
   1. posted in a prominent place on the improvement;
3. in the prescribed form, which is Form 3 under the Builders Lien Forms Regulation, BC Reg 1/98.

The court recently examined some of these requirements on a section 25 petition to extinguish liens filed more than 45 days after a certificate was issued. In Clough Pacific Joint Venture and PPM Civil Contractors, ULC v AECOM Canada Limited, 2025 BCSC 164, the court found the petitioner could not rely on a certificate of completion to trigger the lien filing period, as the certificate was not issued or delivered within the time limits set out in the Act and the petitioner was unable to show it was issued in response to a request. The liens were not extinguished and the petitioner was ordered to pay costs of the petition to the successful lien claimant. If you are an owner, contractor, or potential lien claimant, and are unsure whether a certificate of completion issued on a project affects your rights or obligations, reach out to the author or members of the construction group at Harris.