Dieseko Group, producer and supplier of hydraulic vibratory hammers and other foundation equipment, acquires Woltman Piling Equipment, a company located in Giessenburg, Netherlands. Woltman is market leader and producer and supplier of piling equipment.
By means of the acquisition, both companies can combine forces and achieve economies of scale, for example by joint purchasing. Clients will benefit from shorter delivery times and new innovations.
“The acquisition of Woltman seamlessly fits into our policy. We strive for market leadership for vibratory hammers and want to be the supplier for complete product packages for piling contractors,” said Ton Kraak, CEO of Dieseko Group. “We know Woltman very well as our subsidiary PVE Piling & Drilling Rigs - which was acquired by Dieseko Group in 2014 - has been working together closely with them for several years.”
Woltman Piling Equipment will operate as an independent business unit of Dieseko Group in the Benelux region. All employees will remain working within the organization.
{fastsocialshare}
PDCA and PDI, Inc. Hosting Educational Seminar in Mississauga
The Pile Driving Contractors Association (PDCA) and Pile Dynamics, Inc. (PDI) are hosting a Deep Foundation Dynamic Testing and Analysis (DFDTA) course in Mississauga, Ont., June 15 to 17 at the Hilton Toronto Airport Hotel & Suites.
Seminar on Deep Foundation Integrity Testing and Wave Equation Analysis Wednesday, June 15, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Who should attend: Geotechnical, structural and construction engineers; owners, contractors and other professionals involved in the design, construction and specification of deep foundations
High Strain Dynamic Foundation Testing Workshop parts 1 & 2 Thursday and Friday, June 16-17, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Who should attend: Users of the Pile Driving Analyzer® (PDA) system and CAPWAP® software interested in sharpening their skills, engineers, foundation testing professionals, students and professors already familiar with the basic concepts of deep foundation dynamic testing and analysis, professionals who desire to have a basic understanding of the dynamic test results being presented to them, those interested in taking the Dynamic Measurement and Analysis Proficiency Test
PDCA will also offer the Dynamic Measurement and Analysis Proficiency Test as part of the seminar/workshop for those who want to test their proficiency in understanding dynamic measurements and analysis.
For more information or to register, visit www.piledrivers.org.
New Agents for Soilmec, Leffer GmbH, TEI and Champion Equipment in Eastern Canada
Champion Equipment Sales has retained Equipment Sales & Service Limited (ESS) to serve as agents for Soilmec, Leffer GmbH, TEI and Champion Equipment Company in Eastern Canada. Specifically, ESS will be responsible for sales and service of these product lines throughout Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Relief from strict compliance with timelines under builders' liens legislation
By Jason E. Roberts, Fillmore Riley
With limited exceptions, those who are unpaid for the performance of work, provision of services or delivery of materials to a construction project have the right to register a builder's lien against the legal title of the owner of the land on which the work, services or materials were performed, supplied or delivered. Typically, the lien is registered for the value of the unpaid work, services or materials. Once the lien is proved, the lien claimant may take steps to sell the owner's interest in the land in order to be paid.
The provincial builders' liens statutes set out rigid timelines for filing the liens, as well as filing actions to prove the liens, and registering certificates of pending litigation (“CPLs”) against title to the affected land. The rationale for rigid timelines is that the timely administration of the construction lien process provides certainty for lenders who are financing the project, as well as subsequent purchasers of the property, all of whom rely on the accuracy of title information when advancing funds or closing a purchase. For this reason, courts have typically taken a hard line when it comes to compliance with the statutorily imposed timelines. However, two recent decisions from the Alberta courts suggest that strict compliance with these timelines can sometimes be avoided.
Selix Equipment Inc. is focused on safety and after-sales service
By Kim Biggar
In less than four years, Ottawa-based Selix Equipment, which supplies drill rigs and consumables to the deep foundation construction market, outgrew the facility where it was launched in 2011, moving in early 2015. Now sharing an 18,000-square-foot space in an industrial park in the city's east end with Shore Machine Works - a provider of welding repairs, fabrication and precision machining services that is also owned by the partners in Selix - the company has more than doubled the area of its old location.
In addition to servicing equipment in its shop, Selix's mobile mechanics - its “drill doctors” - repair clients' rock drills, drill rigs and hydraulic rock breakers anywhere in Canada.
Supreme Court of Canada Clarifies Builders’ Lien Legislation
A third option exists
By Kirk A. Vilks, Fillmore Riley
In the Q3 2014 edition of Piling Canada, Sven Hombach wrote an article titled, “Paying Once, Paying Twice.” The article discussed a decision by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in Olson (Stuart) Dominion Construction Ltd. v. Structal Heavy Steel. That decision has now been reviewed and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in Stuart Olson Dominion Construction Ltd. v. Structal Heavy Steel. While the Supreme Court upheld the Manitoba Court of Appeal's decision, they also provided some additional comments that will help guide contractors who wish to avoid providing double security for a subcontractor's lien.
The decision deals with the remedies in builders' lien legislation. Each province has their own such legislation, but the effect of the various statutes is similar. Builders' lien legislation provides two remedies to trades to ensure they are paid for their services: statutory liens and statutory trusts. A lien creates an encumbrance on the land. To remove the lien, money can be paid or security can be provided by the owner or general contractor. The security provided is usually in the form of a lien bond. The payment or security stands in place of the land, so that the land itself is no longer encumbered while the merits of the lien claim are decided. Under either scenario, the purpose is to ensure the subcontractor gets paid, either from the value in the land or from the value of the security posted to discharge the lien.
In addition to the lien remedy, builders' lien legislation provides for a statutory trust. The legislation provides that subcontractors, workers employed by the contractor, and other beneficiaries are to be paid before an owner or general contractor can use trust funds for their own use. All funds received by the general contractor for the general contract are trust funds held for subcontractors, the Workers Compensation Board, employees of the contractor and the owner for any counterclaim related to the performance of the contract. If a general contractor uses funds that are held in trust for a subtrade for his or her own purposes, the result can be stiff fines or jail time for breaching the trust.
Olson (Stuart) Dominion Construction Ltd. v. Structal Heavy Steel involved a lien claim by a steel subcontractor totalling approximately $15.5 million to construct the roof of Winnipeg's new football stadium. The general contractor deposited a lien bond into court for the full amount of the lien claim to discharge the lien. The subcontractor then demanded payment under the trust provisions of the statute. The contractor sought a declaration from the court that the lien bond satisfied its trust obligations under the builders' lien legislation.
Like the Manitoba Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear that liens and statutory trusts are separate and distinct remedies. If a contractor files a lien bond to vacate a sub-contractor's lien, that will discharge the lien, but not satisfy the contractor's trust obligations under the legislation. The contractor will still need to hold funds they receive from the owner under the contract in trust for the sub-contractor. The implication here is that the contractor will need to provide double security; both the lien bond and monies received from the owner held in trust.
After the Court of Appeal's decision, many were left thinking that the contractor had two options: either provide double security or choose not to vacate the lien. The Supreme Court explained that contractors have another option: if a contractor wants to avoid posting double security but still wants to vacate the lien, he or she can pay money into court to vacate the lien rather than posting a lien bond.
46. There may be circumstances where a contractor will choose to maintain double security where there are lien and trust claims for the same work, services, or materials, by acquiring a lien bond while still holding trust funds. However, a contractor can avoid double security by paying cash into court pursuant to s. 55(2) instead of depositing a lien bond.
Money paid into court will remove the lien and still be considered to be held in trust for the subcontractor. Therefore, paying money into court rather than a lien bond satisfies both the lien and trust obligations.
Payment of the trust funds into court to vacate a lien, for the amount of the lien claim implicated by the trust claim, does not constitute an appropriation or conversion of the trust funds. The contractor is doing exactly what the Act requires - ensuring the monies are held in trust for the beneficiary.
If the contractor pays funds into court and the lien claim later fails, the monies paid into court will be returned to the contractor, but will still be held in trust for the subcontractor.
These funds remain impressed with the trust; should the lien claim fail while the trust claim is outstanding, the cash would continue to be trust funds when returned to the owner, contractor, or subcontractor. So long as the trust funds themselves are deposited with the court, the funds are secure and the trust has not been breached.
The takeaway for contractors is that there are three options when a subcontractor places a lien on property. First, they could allow the lien to remain on the property, second, remove the lien with a lien bond while simultaneously holding funds paid for the contract in trust, or third, pay money into court to remove the lien. The circumstances will dictate which option the contractor selects, and unfortunately, there may be times when none of the options appear to be a desirable option for the contractor. Subcontractors will know this and use it to leverage a more favourable settlement in litigation with the contractor. Even with the additional option given to contractors by the Supreme Court of Canada, the remedies offered by builders' lien legislation remain powerful tools that, in the hands of savvy subcontractors, can be used to apply tremendous pressure on general contractors.
Kirk A. Vilks is an associate with Fillmore Riley LLP who practises primarily in the area of civil litigation, with a focus on construction and insurance litigation. You may reach him at 204-957-8358 or kvilks@fillmoreriley.com.
{fastsocialshare}
Piling Canada is the premier national voice for the Canadian deep foundation construction industry. Each issue is dedicated to providing readers with current and informative editorial, including project updates, company profiles, technological advancements, safety news, environmental information, HR advice, pertinent legal issues and more.
