In 2018[1], Ontario’s Construction Lien Act was renamed the Construction Act and sweeping new provisions were introduced, including those calling for prompt payment and adjudication. Seven years later, further changes were incorporated when the Building Ontario For You Act (Budget Measures), 2024 (or “Bill 216“), was passed into law on November 7, 2024. Bill 216 introduced annual expiry of lien rights, mandatory annual release of holdback, expanded rights of adjudication and an option to use “private” adjudicators.
After Bill 216 was passed, numerous stakeholders raised concerns about Bill 216 with the Attorney General, including our firm. For more in-depth information about the concerns raised, please see our prior articles Seismic Change Comes Yet Again to Construction in Ontario: A Series of Articles and Seminars on the Good, the Bad and the Ugly of Soon to be Implemented Construction Act Changes, The Annual Release of Holdback and Annual Expiry of Lien Rights[2] and Rethinking the Elimination of the “Notice of Non-Payment of Holdback”[3].
Fortunately, the changes were not immediately effective and only came into force on January 1, 2026. In the period between Bill 216 being passed in November 2024 and its coming into force in January 2026, there were two further developments. First, problematic aspects of Bill 216 were rolled back when the legislature passed the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 (or “Bill 60“), on November 27, 2025. Second, changes to the Regulations under the Construction Act were passed.[4] In this article, we review these developments in the context of what came into force January 1st, with a view to raising awareness of the changes for construction participants.
The Roll-Backs
Importantly, following a commentary period on the amendments to and regulations under the Construction Act, Bill 60 was passed to repeal Bill 216’s call for the annual expiry of lien rights. Bill 60 also softened Bill 216’s requirement that the holdback be released, without exception (even where the person holding it has significant unrecoverable backcharges at the end of the lien expiry period).[5]
The roll-backs will give contractors and subcontractors more time to decide whether or not to lien, help to avoid “runs” of liens (particularly where significant delays or disputes arise mid-project) and provide some recourse to payers to avoid releasing holdback to those beneath them who are in substantial default of their contractual obligations, once all liens that might be preserved against the improvement have expired.
The Three Biggest Changes Effective January 1, 2026
With the roll-backs in place, the three biggest changes which came into effect on January 1, 2026 are:
- the extension of the time within which adjudications may be commenced as of right to 90 days after the completion of the contract under which the dispute arose, with certain exceptions for subcontractors that are very similar to expiry of lien rights. In other words:
- under contracts, to 90 days after the date upon which the contract is completed, abandoned or terminated; and
- under subcontracts, to 90 days after the earliest of:
- the date the applicable contract is completed, abandoned or terminated;
- the date on which that subcontract is certified to be completed under section 33; and
- the date on which the subcontractor last supplies services or materials to the improvement;
- the (now modified) mandatory annual release of holdback; and
- the (now modified) elimination of the right to give a “Notice of Non-Payment of Holdback.”
In what follows, we will firstly review these three key changes. We will then provide an overview of the remaining changes.
Extending Adjudication Rights for an Additional 3 Months
It is hard to underestimate how big these changes might be. As a starting point, adjudication under the Construction Act can provide enforceable (albeit interim) decisions in as quickly as 46 days or less.[6] This, in contrast to the years it can take to obtain remedies through traditional dispute resolution processes. Prior to Bill 216, the right to adjudicate would expire (unless the parties agreed otherwise) upon the completion of the contract or subcontract under which the dispute arose. This meant that in many circumstances adjudication rights had expired by the time the need for dispute resolution was realized.
The extension of adjudication rights is accordingly destined to capture disputes which would previously have required far more protracted and expensive resolution processes. In addition, fewer and fewer disputes are arising under contracts procured prior to October 1, 2019 (in relation to which adjudication is not available)[7] and parties are becoming increasingly comfortable with adjudication. We accordingly believe that going forward the volume of adjudication is going to increase substantially.
There is both good and bad that comes with this. On the one hand, construction participants now have increased access to a process in which their disputes can be determined in a timely manner. On the other they also have more exposure to someone using the process against them — in circumstances where, if they lose, they will be bound by the adjudicator’s determination, at least on an interim basis and with no right of appeal.[8] Construction participants therefore need to take the changes seriously.
In practical terms, those that give a Notice of Adjudication will need to produce all of the documents they intend to rely on within 5 days of the adjudicator being appointed (or agreeing) to conduct the adjudication. More importantly, respondents will have very little time to compile and present their documents in support of their positions: the adjudicator has to make a decision (unless the parties and adjudicator agree otherwise) a mere 30 days after the claimant provides its documents. This is not a lot of time. Participants will accordingly be best advised to alter and develop pre-construction, site and head-office practices to put themselves in the best possible position to support their positions in very tight timeframes. We will be presenting a free webinar specifically geared to practical strategies in this regard, on Tuesday February 3, 2026 at 8:30am. (This will follow two prior Tuesday seminars, on January 20 and 27 in which we will explore the changes effective January 1, 2026 in detail). To sign up for any of these webinars, click here.
The (Modified) Mandatory Annual Release of Holdback Regime
As above, Bill 216 made the annual release of holdback mandatory where the Construction Act applies.[9] That obligation was then tweaked, somewhat, by Bill 60.
Under the 2018 Construction Act changes the early release of the basic holdback was optional, allowing for its voluntary release where the owner and contractor agreed to it in their contract (either annually or on a phased basis and where a contract price was ten million dollars or more). In conducting the aforementioned review of the Construction Act which led to the Bill 216 changes, Duncan Glaholt suggested that there had been insufficient ‘up-take’ on the option. He accordingly recommended that annual release of holdback be mandatory. That recommendation was carried into Bill 216 and became effective January 1st. Accordingly, subject to the s.87.4 transition provisions we will discuss below, the new rules for the mandatory annual release of holdback (under a new s.26 of the Act) are as follows:
- the owner must determine the “date on which the contract was entered into” and, within 14 days of each anniversary of that date, publish[10] a “Notice of Annual Release of Holdback” in a new prescribed form “No. 6” under the Act;
- in the form, the owner will have to specify the amount of holdback it intends to pay, along with the intended date of the payment;
- so long as no lien has been preserved or perfected in respect of the contract,[11] the owner must then pay the contractor all of the “accrued” basic holdback in respect of services and materials supplied by the contractor during the year immediately preceding the contract anniversary date “at least 60 days but not later than 74 days after the date on which the notice of annual release of holdback is published”; and
- the contractor and subcontractor(s) must then pay their subcontractor(s) their accrued basic holdback within 14 days of receiving it from above.
Below is a graphic which sets out the process where the Construction Lien Act no longer applies:
Section 26 does not expressly establish any exception to the mandatory nature of its provisions. However, it appears the section 26 will be subject to new section 30, which will provide a right to apply backcharges against the holdback in limited circumstances. (Section 30 will be discussed below.)
Owners will have some time to adjust to the new regime: the transition provisions essentially provide that if the first anniversary date falls between January 1, 2026, and January 1, 2027, that date will be skipped, and not apply. In other words, the first annual release of holdback will have to occur relative to the first anniversary date that is at least 1 year on or after January 1, 2026.
As we have written in more detail here, there remain significant unknowns and issues surrounding annual release of holdback:
- the “date on which the contract was entered into” might be unclear and subject to dispute. There is no mechanism under the Act to allow a contractor or subcontractor to challenge the owner’s decision in that regard;[12]
- in the Form 6, the owner must set out what it “intends to pay” by way of annual release. The Act offers no formulae or guidance for how the calculation is to be made;
- while the owner must then pay all “accrued” holdback, “accrued” is not a defined term. While it is no doubt intended that “accrued” refers to amounts already retained as holdback by the owner from the contractor’s monthly payment draws, this is not clear;
- the new provisions related to payment say it must occur “unless a lien has been preserved or perfected” in respect of the subject contract or subcontract, which does not include a written notice of lien. While this is probably an oversight, lien claimants should be aware that a written notice of lien may not forestall the release of annual holdback;
- the actual holdback obligation established by the Act is tied to the value of the services and materials supplied by the contractor to date. It is entirely uncertain what happens if there are no pre-anniversary invoices or where invoicing is based on milestones. In these cases, the owner will have to determine what has “accrued,” with no formulae or guidance for how to make the determination; and
- an even more problematic question is: how is the contractor to determine how to distribute the holdback it receives amongst subcontractors? On sophisticated projects, progress applications are very often approved based on a schedule of values which breaks the contract price down into items of work, not subcontract prices. It appears that the contractor will have to make its own assessment of what has been paid by the owner vis-à-vis each subcontractor. This may be difficult where it is not clear how the owner determined either the amount it “intends” to pay or the amount “accrued” as holdback.
From a broader perspective, the process will (perhaps unnecessarily) put stress on many owners, including those working under a CCDC5A model with dozens, if not hundreds, of trade contractors on the same project and large owners which might have hundreds of contracts on the go at any one time. These burdens may be difficult to manage, and owners will need to develop strategies to meet the obligations to avoid inefficiencies and errors.
To address some of these issues, further changes might need to be considered. We believe the process for annual release should mirror, so far as is possible, the established process for release on substantial performance, which is a contractor driven process. This would take pressure off owners and allow the contractor to better assess what portion of the holdback should be paid to which subcontractors. We also believe the option of releasing on phases should be maintained, as it works well (for example) on CCDC5A projects or where payments are tied to milestones. We also recommend allowing owners and contractors to determine the anniversary date for annual release (to allow owners to coordinate the administration of releases and avoid the prospect of having hundreds of release dates in the same year or project). Time will tell if further changes might be necessary or forthcoming.
The (Modified) Elimination of the “Notice of Non-Payment of Holdback”
1. The Deletion of s.27(1)
Construction payers have historically had common law and contractual rights to set-off against the holdback at the end of the lien expiry period. As Bruce Reynolds and Sharon Vogel described the right in Striking the Balance: Expert Review of Ontario’s Construction Lien Act (their Report which led to the 2017 changes including prompt payment and litigation):
“Once all liens that may be claimed against the holdback have expired, the funds lose their status as holdback and become merely funds owing to the contractor pursuant to the contract. When this occurs, the owner may set-off any debts or claims it has against the contractor, whether related to the project or not.”[13]
The historical right changed, however, when the “prompt payment” provisions of the Construction Act came into being. In sum, Reynolds and Vogel reported in Striking the Balance that owner, contractor and subcontractor stakeholders alike had agreed that some right of set-off against the holdback should be maintained, so long as it was exercised with proper notice, and so long as set-off disputes were addressed in a timely fashion.[14] They then recommended that the owner’s right to raise a set-off be allowed where it publishes a “Notice of Non-Payment of Holdback” in accordance with section 27.1 of the Act within 40 days of the publication of the Certificate of Substantial Performance.
Mr. Glaholt, in making his 2024 recommendations, did not agree and, on his recommendation, section 27.1 was deleted from the Act under Bill 216 of 2024. With that, the balance struck by Reynolds and Vogel was eliminated. As will be discussed below, however, a limited right to raise a set-off was then reintroduced under Bill 60 of 2025, after concerns were raised by ourselves and others.
Understanding the significance of the roll-back requires an understanding of why Mr. Glaholt wanted to completely eliminate any rights of set-off. In this regard, Mr. Glaholt wrote in his Review:
“…statutory holdbacks represent money that an owner has already acknowledged (or an adjudicator has determined) is earned, due, owing, and payable upon a ‘proper invoice'”; and
“The correct time under the Act to withhold payment for claims and deficiencies is at the time of receipt of a proper invoice, which triggers the parties’ rights to access adjudication and fair determination of any payment issues. Section 27.1 is not intended to allow an owner a second chance to raise payment issues.”[15]
As above, we, and others, raised concerns. We could not agree that the correct time to review for deficiencies is when a monthly invoice is presented for payment. Such an expectation, we suggested, runs contrary to what generally happens in construction, where deficiency (or “punch”) lists are most often prepared when the work in question nears completion. We suggested that imposing a burden on construction payers to perform qualitative monthly reviews will result in inefficiencies and costs not generally budgeted for, and that it will often be virtually impossible, in any event, for such reviews to be effective. We pointed, for example, to systems which need to be commissioned upon startup (such as an HVAC or building automation system), work that must be resistant to freeze-thaw-cycles, or work which must be sized, plumbed, leveled or sloped to support subsequent work which is months away from commencement.
Eliminating any right to use the holdback to address defaults and deficiencies at the end of the lien expiry period, we noted, also significantly changes the risk allocation profile between parties to most construction contracts and subcontracts in Ontario, contrary to the “balance” recommended by Reynolds and Vogel. Owners will (and already are) requiring that additional quality control documentation (such as site surveys or third-party sign-offs) as backup to their proper invoices, to off-set the need for monthly deficiency reviews. In addition, we noted that while holdback is not intended to be used as security for backcharges, it has been used for that purpose for decades. With the deletion of s.27.1, payers will predictably (and already are) taking steps to replace that security with increased performance bond requirements (particularly in relation to subtrades), as well as “deficiency,” “warranty,” “maintenance” or “contract retention” holdbacks.
We finally argued that, with the deletion of s.27.1, contractors or subcontractors who are in substantial default will be entitled to their holdbacks, without deduction, regardless of how expensive it might be to correct their defaults and even if they can’t pay a judgment if one is obtained against them. Said another way, we argued, defaulting payees would be immediately entitled to their holdback, even if a certain and substantial backcharge against them was looming, leaving the payer to have to pay anyway and chase the payee to recover, even if the payee was likely insolvent.
The concerns raised did lead to a limited roll-back under Bill 60, which we will discuss below.
Regardless, as regards the deletion of s.27.1, those looking down the contractual ladder will want to consider, where possible, qualitative reviews for deficiencies and backcharges as part of the individual progress draw approval process. They may also want to consider that those below provide documentation or third-party certifications with their invoices, to show that the work they have invoiced for is deficiency free. They might, in addition, also want to explore options to replace the security they used to have in the holdback with alternative security, be it performance bonds or maintenance/deficiency retention holdbacks.
Those looking up will, of course, want to beware of the impact of any such clauses or obligations, and, if they are agreed to, include for those impacts in their pricing.
2. The Roll Back: Limited Rights of Set-off under s.30
Under Bill 60, section 30 of the Act has been amended to provide limited rights of set-off against the holdback. As above, a significant concern raised was that contractors or subcontractors who are in substantial default will be entitled to their holdbacks, even if a certain and substantial backcharge against them is looming.
The new section 30 appears to address this concern in a very confusing way: rather than setting out when a set-off against holdback can be applied, it speaks to when a set-off may not be applied:
“How holdback not to be applied
30 If a contract or subcontract is abandoned or terminated, a holdback shall not be applied by any payer toward obtaining services or materials in substitution for those that were to have been supplied under the contract or subcontract, nor in payment or satisfaction of any claim against the contractor or subcontractor, until all liens that may be claimed against that holdback have expired or been satisfied, discharged or otherwise provided for under this Act.”
To break it down, section 30 provides that a person who holds holdback under a contract or subcontract shall not apply that holdback:
- to pay for services or materials in substitution for those that were to have been supplied under the contract or subcontract; or
- to pay or satisfy any claim against the contractor or subcontractor;
unless:
- the contract or subcontract was abandoned or terminated; and
- all liens that may be claimed against that holdback have expired or been satisfied, discharged or otherwise provided for under the Act.
There is, unfortunately, no question that the new s. 30 will generate confusion, disputes and litigation.
First, it conflicts with section 26, which makes the payment of the holdback mandatory, without noting section 30 as an exception. Similarly, section 30 does not say that it applies “notwithstanding section 26.” In addition, section 30 doesn’t actually authorize payments: it merely tells payers what they cannot do with holdback during a certain period. This, some will say, is consistent with s. 26. The entire purpose and intention of section 30 is therefore likely to be debated and litigated.
Second, under the (now deleted) s.27.1, the ability to apply set-off against holdback was only available for claims arising in relation to the subject improvement. Now, the amended section 30 appears to include a limited right to set-off for “any” claims.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, section 30 rights of set-off against holdback are only available (if at all) where the “contract or subcontract is abandoned or terminated.” Those with holdback obligations who believe they have valid backcharges therefore have an incentive to terminate. Previously, of course, the ability to keep and use the holdback was not a factor to be considered in deciding whether to terminate. As a result, we anticipate that there will be more terminations, and more litigation over the extent to which terminations were proper.
Fourth, there is no requirement that the termination be for a substantial default. In this regard, CCDC and CCA standard form termination provisions require default to a “substantial degree.” However, these are commonly changed in bespoke contracts or by way of supplementary condition. “Termination for convenience” clauses are not uncommon. In addition, clauses which allow the payer to terminate for any default are increasingly common. We believe such clauses are likely to become popular with those who want an ability to terminate so as to retain holdback at the end of the lien expiry period.
Fifth, it is not mandatory that a notice of termination of a contract or subcontract be published in a construction newspaper for the purposes of section 30. (There is a requirement to publish a notice of termination of a contract under s.31(6), but this is for the purposes of commencing the lien expiry period.) As there is also no requirement to give a Notice of Non-Payment of Holdback (with the repeal of s.27.1), payees may end up blissfully unaware that a contract or subcontract two or more rungs above them in the construction ladder has been terminated, such that their holdback most likely won’t be paid as required under s.26. They might therefore also let their lien rights expire.
In the end, we believe the amended section 30 creates significant confusion and potential problems. Like Bill 216 before it, Bill 60 was passed into law with no warning or consultation with stakeholders. We believe its drafting has flaws and should be revisited. In the meantime, parties will have to take care, when they negotiate and review their contracts, to consider the potential for termination to be used to apply holdback to fund backcharges and deficiencies.
All participants will need to know that termination can be used to raise backcharges against holdback which would otherwise be unavailable. Those looking down will want to consider clauses which allow for termination for convenience and/or for less than ‘substantial’ defaults. Those looking up will need to beware of such clauses.
Those below will need to know that, if they are found to have abandoned a contract or subcontract (after dropping tools for non-payment, for example) they will have opened up the door for the payer above them to raise a set-off against the holdback.
Those below should also take comfort that, in the absence of a purported termination, the payment of basic holdback is mandatory at the end of the lien expiry period. In addition, they have a right to pursue the payment of the holdback in adjudication in circumstances where it appears no defence will be available (beyond a dispute over the quantum of the payment).
The (Many) More Changes that became Effective January 1, 2026
Other (but not all) changes that are to be effective on January 1st are summarized as follows:
- The “Proper Invoice”: “proper invoices” must be given by the contractor to the owner to start the clock ticking on the owner’s 28 day payment obligation (subject to its giving a ‘Notice of Non-Payment’ within the first 14 days). Under the Bill 216 changes, what must be included in a “proper invoice” under section 6.1(1) has been clarified, eliminating confusion. In addition, an owner will now have to give the contractor notice if it believes an invoice it has been given is not “proper.” In this way, the contractor will know if the owner is taking the position that the clock has not yet started on its prompt payment obligations. These are very welcome changes. Contractors, of course, need to know the section 6.1(1) requirements so they can meet them (and start the clock ticking). Owners need to know that they must review all invoices to see if they meet the section 6.1(1) requirements, and give notice if they feel otherwise, to avoid having to pay invoices that may not be “proper” for the purposes of the prompt payment legislation;
- Adjudication Provisions: A number of changes have been made, many of which are technical and will not be reviewed here. Significant changes include the following:
- parties to construction adjudication have always been able to select their adjudicator from the roster of adjudicators listed in the ODACC[16] registry. Now, they will also be able to select an adjudicator from a different list of non-roster “private adjudicators.” The change was driven by the perception that the ODACC roster lacked a sufficient number of experienced senior construction lawyers capable of handling complicated, sophisticated matters (given the cap on what registry adjudicators were allowed to charge). Where parties agree on a private adjudicator, that adjudicator will have to be approved by ODACC and, also, charge at least an effective rate of $1,000.00 per hour. (We wonder whether parties willing to pay $1,000.00 or more per hour for dispute resolution might prefer (for that rate) to retain that person as an arbitrator, to avoid the interim nature of an adjudicator’s decision);
- the introduction of private adjudicators may also impact the timing of adjudicator appointments. Prior to the January 1, 2026 changes, the timing was governed by section 13.9 (2), (4) and (5) of the Act. In practice, the Authority would not wait for a request to appoint an adjudicator if the parties had not, within four calendar days, agreed on a roster adjudicator. However, there is no timeframe within which an agreement on the appointment of a private adjudicator needs to be made. The upshot of this is that the ODACC Authority may no longer be able to unilaterally appoint a roster adjudicator where neither a roster nor private has been appointed by the parties. Rather, it appears the person who gave the Notice of Adjudication will have to request the appointment of a roster adjudicator before this will occur;
- while only one “matter” could previously be adjudicated at a time, the word “matter” is being replaced with the word “dispute.” The change does little to bring clarity to what can (and cannot) be adjudicated in a single adjudication, absent the agreement of the parties. For example, if a claimant wants to adjudicate a simple “scope of work” dispute over a single proposed change, whether the respondent can raise a complicated and document intensive set-off against the claim, for unrelated alleged deficiencies or delays, remains unclear;
- previously, an adjudicator could award costs against a party based on the party’s conduct in relation to the improvement. The recent changes now allow costs to be awarded based on conduct taken in the adjudication. It remains unclear how, when, or if the adjudicator will be afforded the time to hear submissions and make a determination on such costs after a determination in the merits has been made. If costs are going to be sought, parties should consider raising the issue with the adjudicator early in the process;
- adjudicators’ determinations will now be made publicly available, allowing adjudicators and parties alike to benefit from prior decisions. This will hopefully bring some predictability to the adjudication process;
- the number of days upon which parties must pay a determination award and bring a motion for leave to apply for judicial review have each been extended from 10 to 15 days;
- the grounds upon which a party can bring a motion for leave to apply for judicial review has been amended to remove the ground that “the contract or subcontract ceased to exist” (which is a ground no construction lawyer we know of really understood) and to confirm that where the ground is that the adjudicator lacked or exceeded jurisdiction in circumstances where the party did not raise the objection before the adjudicator, the Court will only set aside the determination if it finds the failure to make the objection justified;
- Design Work where the Improvement does not proceed: where this occurs, the changes create a presumption that the designer will have lien rights unless the owner can show that the value of the land has not, in fact, been enhanced. The presumption only applies, however, “if an owner retains holdback in respect of the design, plan, drawing or specification.” This raises the possibility that an owner can avoid liens for design where an improvement is not commenced by simply not retaining a holdback in that regard;
- The Definition of “Price”: currently a lien is for the “price” of the services and materials supplied to an improvement where “price” is either what has been agreed to by the parties or the actual market value of the services or materials supplied. Under Bill 216, the definition of “price” has been amended to allow it to be set by Regulation. Mr. Glaholt had suggested that the change is necessary to address P3 projects where the contract and subcontract prices are not always tied solely to the supply of services and materials in construction. We are nonetheless confused by a sweeping amendment which appears to give provincial regulators the ability to determine what contractors and subcontractors are going to be paid for their work;
- Statutory Deadline for Notice of Termination of a Contract: Prior to the amendments introduced by Bill 60, a notice of termination was required but there was no specific statutory deadline for publishing them after a contract was terminated. Additionally, the Act deemed the date of the termination set out on the Notice as being the date upon which the lien expiry period would commence. Now, under the amendments, a notice of termination “shall” be published no later than seven (7) days after a contract is terminated, by “the owner or the contractor or other person whose lien is subject to expiry” in the prescribed form and manner. Also, the date on which a notice of termination is published is now the termination date for the purposes of the Act (unless there were multiple notices, in which case the date of the first notice shall be the effective date). This allows parties to have a full 60 days, post-publication, to preserve a claim for lien. Subcontractors and suppliers will continue to have to search the three (3) online construction newspapers in the province of Ontario to ensure that a termination of the contract above them has not been terminated such that the clock is ticking on the expiry of their lien rights. Owners and contractors will want to consider publishing a Notice of Termination quickly and deliberately where appropriate.
- Section 26 and Special Purpose Entities: section 26 of the Act, as it read on December 31, 2025 (i.e. before, among other things, annual release of holdback became mandatory), will continue to apply to certain contracts prescribed in the regulations involving special-purpose entities (i.e. certain P3 Projects). As a result, those prescribed contracts will remain subject to the traditional holdback regime, and the annual holdback release mechanism will not apply.
This carve-out recognizes the commercial and financing constraints that are common in P3 and similar project structures. In these arrangements, project companies are typically thinly capitalized special-purpose vehicles whose obligations are tightly aligned with lender requirements. Holdback timing is often embedded into the project’s financing and overall planning “behind the scenes.” In that context, the continuation of the pre-existing holdback framework avoids the need to reopen or renegotiate financing arrangements that were structured on the assumption of a single, end-of-project, or certification of substantial performance holdback release.
We will be reviewing these changes (as well as practical strategies for dealing with them) in detail in two forthcoming free Tuesday morning webinars, on January 20 and 27, 2026, from 8:30 to 10 am. To register, click here. To subscribe to our blog, or inquire about webinars for your group or association, please contact us at inquiries@kennaley.ca.
Rob Kennaley, Paige Crewson, Darcia Perry, Rachel Prestayko and Joseph O’Hearn
Kennaley Construction Law
Footnotes
[1] Subject to transition provisions we will discuss below.
[4] See Order in Council 1523/2025, Schedule 4 of the Building Ontario For You Act (Budget Measures), 2024 (commonly referred to as Bill 216) and Schedule 2 of Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 (commonly referred to as Bill 60).
[5] i.e. when all liens which might be preserved against it have expired or been satisfied, discharged or otherwise provided for under the Act.
[6] Adjudication Determinations are enforceable as is a Judgment of the Court, on an interim basis in the sense that, if a party is not satisfied with a decision it is free to commence litigation (or Arbitration (where available or required)) to revisit the issue and potentially obtain a decision which will ‘trump’ (and therefore potentially ‘undo’) the Determination.
[7] Under the complicated transition provisions we have written about here.
[8] It is possible to set-aside a determination upon a successful “judicial review” application, but we will not explore that here.
[9] The mandatory annual release of holdback will not apply where the old provisions of the Construction Lien Act continue to apply by virtue of section 87.3 of the Act.
[10] in one of the three prescribed on-line construction newspapers: the Daily Commercial News, Ontario Construction News and Link2Build.
[11] As will be discussed below, the giving of a written notice of lien will not impact the owner’s obligation to pay the holdback.
[12] Section 39 allow requests for the date to be made of owners or contractors, however given the potential confusion, the two might provide different answers to the question.
[13] Striking the Balance, section 5.1
[14] Striking the Balance, section 5.3
[16] the Authorized Nominating Authority empowered under the Act to administer adjudications