Holdback Deficiencies and Mortgage Priority: Court of Appeal for Ontario Clarifies s. 78(2) of the Construction Act

To listen to an audio recording of this article, click here.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario’s recent decision in KingSett Mortgage Corporation v. Mapleview Developments Ltd., 2026 ONCA 512, provides important guidance on the calculation of holdback deficiencies under s. 78(2) of the Construction Act (the “Act”). The decision resolves a long-standing uncertainty regarding the extent to which lien claimants are entitled to priority over a construction mortgage where an owner has failed to retain the statutory holdback.

The court affirmed that, where a contractor has a direct contractual relationship with the owner and there are no subcontractor lien claimants, a holdback deficiency is calculated with reference only to unpaid invoices, not the total value of work performed under the contract. In doing so, the court expressly endorsed the reasoning in Dufferin Concrete Products Ltd. v. Waterbrooke Development Ltd. and reinforced the principle that the holdback provisions should not operate to provide a contractor with a double recovery.

Background

The dispute arose from the insolvency of Mapleview Developments Ltd., the owner of a residential townhouse development project in Barrie, Ontario.^[1] The project was financed through a construction mortgage held by KingSett Mortgage Corporation and was later placed into receivership. Questions subsequently arose concerning the priority of claims asserted by the mortgagee and two lien claimants, Alpa Stairs and Railings Inc. and Newmar Window Manufacturing Inc.^[2]

Both contractors had supplied labour and materials directly to the owner and had preserved and perfected construction liens. While portions of each contractor’s accounts remained unpaid, the owner had previously paid substantial amounts without retaining the full statutory holdback required by the Construction Act.^[3]

Importantly, there were no subcontractor lien claims asserted through either contractor. The contractors themselves were the only parties seeking the benefit of any holdback deficiency.^[4]

The Legal Issue

Section 78(2) of the Construction Act grants lien claimants priority over a construction mortgage “to the extent of any deficiency in the holdbacks required to be retained by the owner.”

The central question before the court was how that deficiency should be calculated.

The contractors argued that because the Act requires an owner to retain 10% of the value of services and materials supplied, the deficiency should be calculated as 10% of all work performed under the contract, regardless of whether invoices had already been paid.^[5] Under this approach, the owner’s failure to retain holdback on historical payments would increase the contractors’ priority claim against the mortgagee.

The mortgagee and purchaser, by contrast, argued that where a contractor had already received payment on an invoice, there was no remaining unpaid claim associated with that invoice. Accordingly, any deficiency should be calculated only with respect to unpaid invoices.^[6]

The Court’s Decision

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the motion judge’s determination that the holdback deficiency was limited to 10% of the unpaid invoices.^[7]

In reaching this conclusion, the court emphasized that the statutory obligation to retain holdback and the concept of a holdback deficiency are distinct concepts. While s. 22 of the Act requires an owner to retain 10% of the value of services and materials supplied, s. 78(2) grants priority only in respect of a “deficiency” in that holdback.^[8] The court held that the term “deficiency” must be interpreted in light of the purpose of the holdback regime and the nature of the lien claims that remain outstanding.^[9]

Holdback Exists to Secure Outstanding Lien Rights

A central aspect of the court’s analysis was the well-accepted concept that the holdback fund exists to secure lien claims that may be asserted against it.^[10] The court noted that the Act requires holdback to be retained until all liens that may be claimed against the holdback have expired, been satisfied or otherwise been resolved. The purpose of the statutory holdback is therefore to preserve a fund for the benefit of unpaid claimants.

The court reasoned that determining whether a “deficiency” exists requires consideration of whether there are lien claims capable of being asserted against the holdback and whether those claims have already been satisfied.^[11] Where a contractor has received full payment of an invoice and there are no subcontractor claimants asserting rights through that contractor, there is no remaining holdback deficiency associated with that invoice.^[12]

Avoiding Double Recovery

The court was particularly concerned that the contractors’ interpretation would yield a commercially unreasonable result.^[13] If an owner paid a contractor 100% of an invoice without retaining holdback, the contractor would already have received the entire value of the services and materials supplied. Under the contractors’ proposed interpretation, that same contractor could nevertheless claim an additional priority amount against the mortgagee equal to the unretained holdback.^[14]

The court concluded that such a result would effectively require payment of the same holdback twice and would create an impermissible double recovery. Nothing in either s. 22(1) or s. 78(2) supported that outcome.^[15]

An Important Limitation

In reaching its decision, the court expressly approved and adopted the reasoning in Dufferin Concrete.^[16] In that case, the court held that once contractor invoices are paid in full, a contractor is entitled to a holdback only for unpaid invoices, not all invoices relating to services or materials supplied under the contract.

However, the court emphasized that the outcome might be different where subcontractor lien claims exist and rights against the statutory holdback remain outstanding.^[17] It therefore limited the ruling in Dufferin Concrete to cases not involving subcontractor liens. What happens in those cases will have to wait for future guidance from the bench.

The court also emphasized that the legislation is intended to balance the competing interests of owners, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and mortgagees, rather than maximizing recoveries for any one constituency. It observed that the limitation of mortgage priority to actual holdback deficiencies reflects the legislature’s attempt to strike a fair balance between the interests of construction lenders and lien claimants. The holdback-priority regime in s. 78(2) is one of the mechanisms by which that balance is achieved.

Practical Implications

The decision carries several practical implications for participants in the construction industry.

(a) For Owners

Owners remain obligated to retain the statutory holdback in accordance with the Construction Act. While a failure to do so may still expose an owner to liability and affect mortgage priority disputes, the resulting deficiency will not necessarily equal 10% of the entire value of work supplied.

(b) For Mortgage Lenders

Construction lenders obtained some certainty from the decision. The court’s confirmation of the Dufferin Concrete approach prevents lien claimants from enlarging mortgage-priority claims beyond the amount required to secure truly outstanding lien rights.

(c) For Receivers and Insolvency Professionals

The judgment provides appellate authority supporting the calculation of holdback deficiencies using unpaid invoices only, at least where no subcontractor claims exist. This clarification should assist in the administration of distressed construction projects and insolvency proceedings involving competing priority claims.

(d) For Contractors

Contractors can no longer contend that an owner’s historical failure to retain holdback automatically creates mortgage-priority rights equal to 10% of all work performed. The focus is now squarely on the contractor’s remaining unpaid entitlement.

Key Takeaways

KingSett has joined the ranks of leading Ontario appellate authorities on the calculation of holdback deficiencies under s. 78(2) of the Construction Act. The court has confirmed that, absent subcontractor claims, a holdback deficiency is measured by reference to unpaid invoices rather than the total value of services and materials supplied.

The decision reinforces two important principles underlying Ontario’s construction lien regime. First, the statutory holdback exists to secure outstanding lien rights, not to create additional recoveries for parties who have already been paid. Second, the Construction Act seeks to balance the interests of contractors, owners, subcontractors and lenders, rather than favouring any one participant in the construction pyramid.

The Construction Group at Aird & Berlis LLP will continue to monitor developments related to the Construction Act. Please contact the authors or a member of the group if you have questions or require assistance.

[1] KingSett Mortgage Corporation v. Mapleview Developments Ltd., 2026 ONCA 512 at para. 4.