Facts:

Capital Steel, a subcontractor for Chandos Construction, filed for bankruptcy in 2016. Deloitte Restructuring Inc., its trustee, filed a builder’s lien for $150,720.58, later discharged with funds paid into court. The subcontract included a clause forfeiting 10% of the contract price upon insolvency, later invalidated by the Supreme Court of Canada for violating the anti-deprivation rule. A dispute arose over limitation periods for enforcing the lien and entitlement to funds in court.

Issues:

1. Did the claim under the builder’s lien lapse due to expired limitation periods?
2. Could the consent order substituting funds for the lien validly initiate enforcement without a formal statement of claim?
3. Did later actions in bankruptcy proceedings suffice to seek a remedial order?

Ruling:

The Alberta Court of Appeal ruled the consent order effectively commenced lien enforcement proceedings, even without a statement of claim. Procedural irregularities, without prejudice, are not fatal. The court held that the lien claim was not barred by limitation periods and that the consent order allowed all lien issues to be resolved.

Outcome:

The appeal was allowed. The case was remitted to the trial court to determine the claim's quantum and entitlement to the funds held in court. No monetary award specified in the judgement.