Year in Review

Construction Law in 2025: Faster Decisions, Fewer Second Chances

Construction law across Canada had a big year in 2025. Not because of flashy legislative overhauls or dramatic Supreme Court rulings, but because courts quietly and consistently reinforced a new reality for the industry: disputes are moving faster, flexibility is shrinking, and waiting to sort it out later is becoming a risky strategy.

British Columbia Is Closing a Long-Standing Safety Valve

For years, British Columbia had a unique quirk in its lien regime that gave contractors a second chance. Known informally as the “Shimco lien,” it allowed a party who missed the standard lien deadline to still reach holdback funds by starting a court action instead. It wasn’t widely understood outside legal circles, but it mattered, especially on complex projects where timelines blur and paperwork slips.

That safety valve is disappearing.

With BC’s new prompt payment legislation coming into force in 2026, the statutory language that allowed Shimco liens is being repealed. Once that happens, lien rights in BC will look much more like the rest of the country: miss the deadline, and the leverage is gone. At the same time, BC is introducing prompt payment adjudication, bringing faster payment timelines but far less forgiveness for delay.

For contractors, the takeaway is simple but important. Lien rights are becoming stricter, not looser. Systems, reminders, and early legal advice will matter more than ever, because the law is no longer designed to save you from missed steps.

Adjudication in Ontario: Pay First, Fight Later

Ontario’s adjudication regime continued to mature in 2025, and the courts made one thing crystal clear: adjudication decisions are meant to be followed immediately. Even if you think the adjudicator got it wrong. Even if the underlying dispute is still very much alive.

Several cases reinforced that adjudication is an interim process, but “interim” does not mean optional. Parties are expected to comply with adjudicator determinations right away, and courts are increasingly unwilling to entertain attempts to delay payment through lien actions, enforcement proceedings, or creative procedural arguments.

Where there are real issues, such as procedural unfairness or questions about whether the adjudicator even had jurisdiction, Courts have been clear about the proper path. Those concerns must be raised quickly, through judicial review and a request for a stay. Simply refusing to pay and hoping the court will sort it out later is no longer a viable strategy.

For construction businesses, this changes how disputes need to be approached. Adjudication isn’t a casual step in the process. It’s a moment where preparation, evidence, and timing can have immediate financial consequences.

You Can’t Re-Argue the Case at the Collection Stage

Another theme that emerged in 2025 was how courts are treating enforcement of adjudicator decisions. Once a determination reaches the garnishment or collection stage, the court’s focus narrows significantly. These hearings are not an opportunity to revisit the merits of the dispute or debate whether the adjudicator made the right call.

In multiple decisions, courts emphasized that enforcement is about collecting a debt. Not relitigating the case. Arguments about fairness, evidence, or process must be raised earlier, or they may never be heard at all.

This matters because many parties still assume there will be multiple chances to push back. The reality is that the window to challenge an adjudication is short, and once it closes, the conversation changes from “who’s right” to “how is this getting paid.”

Adjudication Is Starting to Carry Long-Term Weight

Although adjudication is technically interim, it is no longer disappearing once payment is made. Lawyers across the country are increasingly seeing adjudication records, findings, and reasoning resurface in later court proceedings. As adjudications become more complex, involving expert evidence, detailed submissions, and tight timelines, their influence is lasting longer than originally anticipated.

For contractors and owners, this means adjudication should be treated as a serious dispute process from day one. The positions taken, documents produced, and arguments made can shape the dispute well beyond the immediate payment issue.

Insolvency Cases Are Sending Shockwaves Through Construction Projects

One of the most unsettling developments discussed in 2025 involved insolvency proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. In two high-profile cases, courts issued stay orders that extended beyond typical claims and into performance bond territory, a result that raised eyebrows across the construction bar.

These decisions highlighted how vulnerable project participants can become when insolvency intersects with construction law. Lien claimants, in particular, were reminded that waiting out a stay can be dangerous. Limitation periods continue to run, and failing to take steps early can mean losing rights entirely.

The practical lesson is uncomfortable but necessary: when insolvency enters the picture, speed and strategy matter more than optimism.

What 2025 Really Told Us

Taken together, the 2025 cases point to a construction law landscape that is less forgiving and more decisive. Courts are prioritizing speed, certainty, and compliance over flexibility and second chances. Processes designed to keep projects moving are being enforced exactly as intended.

This means disputes must be approached earlier, more deliberately, and with a clear understanding of timing. The days of waiting to see how things play out are fading. The law is increasingly rewarding those who act quickly and penalizing those who don’t.

As we move into 2026, with legislative changes coming and adjudication continuing to evolve, the most valuable legal strategy isn’t aggressive litigation. It’s preparedness. And in today’s construction environment, preparedness is what keeps projects, cash flow, and businesses standing.

This publication has been prepared for general information only and does not constitute legal advice or create a solicitor-client relationship. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice based on their particular circumstances. LEGALLY BUILT accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage that may arise from reliance on the information contained in this publication.