Paron Construction v. Town Drywall et al.
- Citation
- [1980] 2 SCR 115
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 3 June 1980
- Posture
- Appeal; Mechanics' Lien Priority Dispute / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 3 June 1980
- Posture
- Appeal; Mechanics' Lien Priority Dispute / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
On these facts the appellant was not a cestui que trust of the funds paid into court under The Mechanics' Lien Act and could not claim the rights of lienholders whom it had paid for its own purposes; therefore the order directing payment of the funds to the judgment creditor was correct and the appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Order directing payment of $14,965.65 (plus interest and costs as ordered) to Brampar Building Supplies Limited affirmed
02
Material facts
Parties
Paron Construction Limited
Plaintiff/appellant Counsel: Ronald B. MoldaverTown Drywall Inc.
Defendant/respondentBrampar Building Supplies Limited
Defendant/respondent Counsel: Robert StattonAmounts and remedies
- Amount Paid Into Court and in Dispute: CAD 14,965.65
- Subcontract Contract Price: CAD 210,675
- Total Paid by Paron in Connection With Subcontract (approximate): CAD 246,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Appeal; Mechanics' Lien Priority Dispute / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a general contractor who pays funds into court under The Mechanics' Lien Act becomes cestui que trust of those funds
- 02
Whether a general contractor who pays subcontractors or workmen directly can step into the shoes of those lien claimants to assert lien rights against funds paid into court
- 03
Whether consent to an order for payment into court and failure to raise trust submissions in the record precludes a trust claim
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Paron argued that the money it paid into court under The Mechanics' Lien Act was held on trust for those entitled under the Act or for Paron as cestui que trust, that it had paid workers and suppliers to keep the work going and thus should be able to assert their rights or its equitable claim to the funds.
- Respondent
- Brampar argued that Paron was not a cestui que trust of the funds paid into court, that Paron could not step into the shoes of lien claimants whom it paid for its own purposes, and that Brampar as judgment creditor was entitled to the funds; Brampar also relied on Paron's consent to the payment into court and the absence of timely trust submissions.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Paron Construction v. Town Drywall, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 115
Payment into court under The Mechanics' Lien Act does not automatically make the payer the cestui que trust of the fund in the absence of established trust rights on the facts
- 02
Paron Construction v. Town Drywall, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 115
A party who pays off lien claimants for its own commercial purposes does not thereby acquire the lien claimants' rights to step into their shoes against priority claimants
- 03
Court of Appeal for Ontario; affirmed by Paron Construction v. Town Drywall, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 115
Consent to an order for payment into court and failure to raise trust submissions in the record may preclude later reliance on trust arguments
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
On these facts the appellant was not a cestui que trust of the funds paid into court under The Mechanics' Lien Act and could not claim the rights of lienholders whom it had paid for its own purposes; therefore the order directing payment of the funds to the judgment creditor was correct and the appeal was dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- The Court noted the appellant had consented to the order for payment into court and had not raised trust submissions in the record at the appropriate time
- The decision underscores that equitable claims based on inferred trust status require clear factual foundation and cannot be manufactured by commercial payments to suppliers or labourers
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Order directing payment of $14,965.65 (plus interest and costs as ordered) to Brampar Building Supplies Limited affirmed
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 3 June 1980
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 3 June 1980
Paron Construction v. Town Drywall et al. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1980-06-03 Report [1980] 2 SCR 115 Judges Martland, Ronald; Dickson, Robert George Brian; McIntyre, William Rogers; Chouinard, Julien; Lamer, Antonio On appeal from Ontario Subjects Priorities and hypothecs Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Paron Construction v. Town Drywall et al., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 115 Date: 1980-06-03 Paron Construction Limited (Plaintiff) Appellant; and Town Drywall Inc. and Brampar Building Supplies Limited (Defendant) Respondent. 1980: June 3. Present: Martland, Dickson, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. Mechanics’ liens—Funds paid into court by general contractor—Contractor not cestui que trust of such funds—Does not step into shoes of lien claimants whom it pays directly to permit continuation of work—The Mechanics’ Lien Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 267, as amended. The appellant Paron, a general contractor, entered into a subcontract on April 4, 1977, with Town Drywall Inc. for an amount of $210,675. The respondent Brampar had obtained a default judgment against Town Drywall in March of 1977. As work progressed on the project, Paron received a number of claims in respect of amounts becoming due from itself to Town Drywall. These included a June 15, 1977, County Court order for attachment in respect of all such debts owing or
accruing due, a notice of garnishee served by Brampar on June 22, 1977, and an ex parte order for payment into court of the amount of $14,580.63, together with interest and costs, on August 3, 1977. Paron paid into court the sum of $14,965.65 on August 11, 1977. This full amount was ordered paid out to Brampar over the objections of Paron on January 4, 1978. At the time of this order, moneys were owing to subcontractors of Town Drywall and to material suppliers. In addition, Paron had paid Town Drywall’s workmen directly in order to keep them working on the project, thereby removing their lien claims. By completion of the project, Paron had paid, including the funds in dispute, in excess of $246,000 in connection with its subcontract with Town Drywall, which was by this time without assets. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Paron’s appeal against the order to pay the funds out to Brampar, stating that on the facts of this case, Paron was not a cestui que trust of the trust fund which it held and had paid into court pursuant to The Mechanics’ Lien Act. The Court also held that Paron could not otherwise step into the shoes of those lien claimants whom it had paid for its own purposes. The Court of Appeal also noted that Paron had consented to the order for payment into court, and had not raised the trust submissions in the record. APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal
for Ontario dismissing an appeal from an order of Sullivan J. Appeal dismissed. Ronald B. Moldaver, for the appellant. Robert Statton, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by MARTLAND J.—We are all of the opinion that the judgment of the Court of Appeal should not be disturbed. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Bristow, Swybrous & Moldaver, Toronto. Solicitors for the respondent: Statton & Webster, Toronto.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.