Integricon v Stevens: Ontario court limits challenges to adjudication enforcement

August 2025

Dylan Dilks

In Integricon Construction Inc. v Stevens et al, 2025 ONSC 4688, the Superior Court was once again asked to opine on the interplay between adjudication under the Construction Act and lien proceedings in Ontario, this time in the context of a garnishment enforcement motion. Unlike in Feldt Electric v Gorbern Mechanical Contractors, (discussed here) the court in Integricon held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the correctness of the adjudicator’s determination.

Key takeaways

Correctness not reviewable – The court confirmed it does not have jurisdiction to question the correctness of an adjudicator’s determination on a garnishment motion.
Binding but interim – Determinations are binding and enforceable, subject only to judicial review, arbitration, further judicial ruling, or agreement of the parties.
No circumvention through termination – Termination of a contract does not excuse payment of an adjudicator’s order.
Low risk of double recovery – The Construction Act allows parties to pursue multiple remedies (lien and adjudication) concurrently, with payments credited against future lien judgments.

Background

Derek Stevens and Ashna Latchmiah (“Owners”) hired Integricon Construction Ltd. (“Integricon”) to construct their single-family home. The parties executed a contract with a draw schedule that set out conditions and timing of payments. Financing was provided by RBC.

The Owners paid the first draw – approximately $170,000. Integricon then completed foundation and backfilling work and invoiced for the second draw. RBC refused to pay because only 15% of the project was complete and RBC required 25% completion before it would release further funds.

Integricon delivered a Notice of Adjudication asking an adjudicator to determine if Integricon was entitled to the second draw. During the adjudication process, Integricon registered a lien against the Owners’ property.

The adjudicator ordered the Owners to pay the second draw with interest. The Owners did not pay. Integricon then filed the determination with the Superior Court and sought to enforce the adjudicator’s order by way of garnishment.

The Owners brought a motion to stay the garnishment process, arguing that enforcing the determination through the garnishment process could lead to double recovery for Integricon, through garnishment and the lien action.

Decision

The Owners argued that garnishment of the determination order would work inequitably and cause unfairness to the Owners, namely in that enforcement would result in amounts being paid to Integricon for work not completed. The Owners also highlighted the potential of double recovery.

The Owners argued that i) the adjudicator’s determination was premised on Integricon continuing work on the project; ii) the adjudicator’s determination is interim and can be reviewed on a garnishment motion, and iii) Integricon’s termination of the contract disentitles it from payment of the determination.

Integricon argued that the determination is binding, enforceable, and that the Superior Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the Owners.

Ultimately the Court rejected the Owners’ arguments and dismissed the motion to stay.

The court reviewed the adjudicator’s determination and the statutory regime, highlighting the importance of the prompt payment provisions of the Construction Act, and the purpose served by the adjudication rules.

The court rejected the Owner’s first ground of argument as baseless.

The court rejected the Owner’s second ground of argument, highlighting that the court has no jurisdiction to question the correctness of the determination, only the authority to consider the equities of enforcement.

The court rejected the Owner’s third ground of argument, citing the decision in Pasqualino, and noting that if termination of a contract was a means by which parties could circumvent the prompt payment and adjudication provisions of the Construction Act, the intended effect of the provisions would be gutted.

The court also addressed the argument that enforcement of the determination via garnishment could result in Integricon being paid twice.

The court held that the Construction Act is designed to allow claimants to access multiple remedies concurrently (adjudication and liens) and that the risk of double recovery in these processes is low, given that any amounts paid would presumably be deducted from any future judgment on the lien claim.

The court concluded that relying on a stay of enforcement motion to stay a determination amounted to asking it to act beyond its jurisdiction.

Analysis

The decision in Integricon reaffirms the importance of adhering to the mechanisms of the adjudication regime under the Construction Act. Attempting to avoid compliance through collateral motions is unlikely to result in success. Parties should be discouraged from seeking relief from an adjudicator’s determination via mechanisms outside of the Construction Act before first seeking judicial review of the determination in question.

This decision comes only weeks after the court’s decision in Feldt Electric v Gorbern Mechanical Contractors, where it refused to stay a lien action despite the claimant’s non-payment of an adjudication determination. In that decision, discussed in my article here, the court held that it would be unjust to Feldt to stay its lien action given its serious concerns about the adjudication – particularly regarding procedural fairness and jurisdiction. The Court further found that staying the lien action would be disproportionate to the nature of Feldt’s breach of its mandatory statutory obligation to pay the adjudicator’s determination.

In contrast, Integricon the Court held that it did not have the jurisdiction to question the correctness of the adjudicator’s determination on a garnishment motion.[1] The result is a slight ambiguity about what the court may consider in assessing non-payment of a determination and when the court may make that consideration.[2] It will be left to another court to assess when the context of an unpaid determination matters in granting substantive relief.

Regardless of the ambiguity, the prevailing guidance is that parties should investigate and exhaust the options available to them under the Construction Act before attempting to override those procedures in favour of the mechanisms available under the Rules of Civil Procedure. This means parties who are subject to an unfavourable determination should first seek judicial review of the determination before seeking relief elsewhere. In both Feldt and Integricon, the Court examined whether the party subject to pay the adjudication determination first exhausted its rights under the Construction Act. In both cases the subject party did not seek judicial review of the determination, and this failure did not assist the subject party in the collateral motion.

Navigating the procedures set out in the Construction Act in an adjudication or when seeking judicial review can be difficult, but Beale & Co’s Toronto office can help. Beale & Co’s Toronto office supports our Canadian and international clients with their construction and infrastructure project needs. Owners, contractors, and suppliers requiring assistance navigating the dispute resolution options available under the Construction Act should contact Dylan Dilks.

For more updates on developments in international construction, engineering, and infrastructure, subscribe to our mailing list.

[1] See Integricon at para. 69: “To be clear, my decision is not a ruling on the reasonableness or correctness of the Adjudicator’s determination. That assessment falls outside the scope of this motion. To the extent that the Respondent’s lien action requires a judge to interpret the contract, it will be that judge who determines the meaning of the contract and the Draw Schedule.”

[2] We note that Feldt and Integricon are distinct decisions in relation to separate motions and circumstances. Feldt is a decision on a motion to stay a lien action brought by a party who was successful on an adjudication, whereas Integricon is a decision on a garnishment motion brought by a party who failed to pay a determination. Which party brings the motion may factor into

Download PDF