Ottawa Construction News staff writer
An Ontario Superior Court of Justice judge has ordered general contractor AtkinsRéalis to release $703,000 in statutory holdback funds to local subcontractor Bradley-Kelly Construction Ltd., establishing critical guidance on how the province’s Construction Act defines an “improvement” across complex, multi-site transit infrastructure projects.
The summary judgment endorsement, delivered by Associate Judge Karen Perron, resolves a key issue in ongoing lien litigation surrounding the City of Ottawa’s $1.6-billion Stage 2 Trillium Line light rail extension.
The dispute arose between Bradley-Kelly, sub-general contractor GIP Construction Ontario East Ltd. (formerly Aecon Construction Ontario East Limited), and AtkinsRéalis Construction (Pacific) Inc. (formerly SNC-Lavalin), the prime construction partner operating through TransitNext General Partnership.
In March 2019, the City of Ottawa awarded TransitNext the design, build, finance, and maintenance contract to expand the north-south diesel commuter rail line. As part of the civil and electrical works, sub-general contractor GIP hired Nepean-based Bradley-Kelly to construct roadway lighting, duct banks, and utility infrastructure. The subcontracts encompassed two primary work areas: the realignment and park-and-ride facility at Earl Armstrong and Bowesville roads, and the New Walkley Yard rail maintenance facility.
Relations between AtkinsRéalis and GIP soured in late 2023 over unpaid invoices and project delays, leading GIP to suspend work and AtkinsRéalis to terminate its contract. Caught downstream in the supply chain, Bradley-Kelly preserved two separate construction liens in February 2024 to protect unpaid contract balances and statutory holdbacks.
While AtkinsRéalis subsequently settled the New Walkley Yard lien by paying $615,000 in holdback funds, the contractor refused to release the remaining $703,000 holdback on the Earl Armstrong Road project. AtkinsRéalis brought a cross-motion arguing the Earl Armstrong lien was invalid.
The general contractor contended that the Earl Armstrong and Walkley Yard scopes constituted two separate and distinct “improvements” under Ontario’s Construction Act. Because Bradley-Kelly concluded its field operations at Earl Armstrong on Dec. 27, 2023, AtkinsRéalis argued the statutory 45-day deadline to preserve that lien had expired on Feb. 13, 2024—rendering the subcontractor’s February 2024 filing late. Bradley-Kelly did not complete its work at the Walkley facility until Jan. 25, 2024.
Represented by construction law litigators Daniel Leduc and Chelsea Packman, Bradley-Kelly argued that the work across both locations was interconnected and formed a single, unified improvement for the public transit extension. GIP was represented by Jay Nathwani, while Nathan Lean at Gowling WLG represented AtkinsRéalis.
Justice Perron ruled entirely in favor of Bradley-Kelly.
“Somewhat surprisingly … there are no factual issues in dispute on this motion except for the underlying determination on whether Bradley-Kelly did work on a single improvement or multiple improvements,” Perron noted in the endorsement.
Rejecting AtkinsRéalis’ position that geographic division created separate legal improvements, the court concluded that the infrastructure components could not be severed from the public system’s collective function.
According to the ruling, the subcontracts shared an overarching operational purpose, as the light rail expansion could not open without both the Earl Armstrong road adjustments and the Walkley maintenance operations. Perron wrote that she had “no difficulty” concluding the subcontract work was undertaken toward a unified project goal and met the legal standard of a single improvement, confirming that Bradley-Kelly preserved the lien in a timely manner.
The court ordered AtkinsRéalis to release the full $703,000 holdback to the subcontractor.
The ruling arrives as AtkinsRéalis navigates more than $100 million in cumulative claims filed by various Trillium Line subcontractors—including OWS and Pomerleau—over inflation adjustments, design revisions, and contract administration. In court pleadings, AtkinsRéalis has asserted that project contracts were fixed-price arrangements not subject to cost escalation.
