Supplier Beware: Appropriate Payments at Your Own Risk
Whether you’re a general contractor, a subcontractor, or a supplier, this decision regarding the application of the Builders’ Lien Act is important for your business.
Whether you’re a general contractor, a subcontractor, or a supplier, this decision regarding the application of the Builders’ Lien Act is important for your business.
Contrary to the perception that lawyers thrive in loopholes, when a dispute arises, the concepts of fair and reasonable are consistent. It is on that basis that most parties are able to work through disputes without commencing litigation.
From the employer’s perspective, one of the most beneficial terms in an employment contract is a prescribed notice period in the event of a “without cause” termination.
Recent amendments to the Builder’s Lien Act and new Builders Lien Regulations, effective June 30, 2017, allow for early release of holdbacks to subcontractors and alter how finishing holdbacks are calculated.
The world of the contract lawyer should never be immune from the press for efficiency; the reliable, predictable and confidently reproducible contract in standard form is the one-size solution to fit most client needs.
The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Stuart Olson Dominion Construction Ltd. v. Structal Heavy Steel, 2015 SCC 43, on September 18, 2015 and clarified the interaction between lien claims and statutory trusts upon the filing of a lien bond. The Court found that filing a lien bond to remove a lien from property does not satisfy a contractor’s trust obligations.
One of the questions at the forefront of many employers’ minds when they are considering terminating an employee without cause is how much it is going to cost. Unless there is a written employment contract with an express termination clause, an employer’s obligation is to provide reasonable notice of termination.