Pryers Construction LTD. v. MVMB is a reminder that parties in a lien action may be added after the 90 day limitation period in the Construction Act at any stage of the proceeding if there are special circumstances.
In Edan Agency Inc. v. Palinkas, the Court of Appeal held that limitation periods do not “generally” run against possessory liens. This is because such a lien is a defence, and defences are not subject to statutory limitation periods.
This is a settled point of law. Accordingly, it’s curious that the court should have used the qualifying language of “generally”. I’d like to know in what circumstance a possessory lien would be subject to a limitation period–I suspect there’s none.