By Satinder Sidhu and Carter Moe

The Government of British Columbia’s new prompt payment legislation, Bill 20, the Construction Prompt Payment Act (the “Act”), received Royal Assent on November 27, 2025. The Act is not yet in force, with commencement expected following a transition period to allow for regulations, establishment of an adjudication authority, and industry education—likely within the next 6 to 12 months.

In our previous bulletin, we outlined various topics that will need to be considered under the Act, including what constitutes a proper invoice, whether the legislation amends holdback requirements, adjudication of payment disputes, and the elimination of the Shimco lien.

In this bulletin, we will compare the prompt payment frameworks in Ontario and Alberta to identify similarities and notable differences with the Act in the areas of prompt payment, release of holdback, adjudication, determination, and enforcement.

The Act Compared to Prompt Payment Legislation in Ontario and Alberta

The provisions of the Act are substantially similar to prompt payment legislation in Ontario and Alberta, but several marked differences warrant attention from contractors, owners, and other stakeholders. Notably, several provisions similar to those contained within the Act were recently implemented in Ontario (effective January 1, 2026), further aligning the prompt payment frameworks in these two jurisdictions.

Prompt Payment

In order to trigger payment under the Act, a contractor must submit a “proper invoice” to the party that retained them. An invoice is deemed proper unless the payor delivers written notice within 7 days of receipt, specifying deficiencies and how to remedy them. If the invoice is deemed proper, the owner must pay the contractor within 28 days of receiving the invoice. Once the contractor is paid, the contractor must pay its subcontractors within 7 days of receiving payment from the owner, and so on down the chain.

Ontario’s regime now includes a 7-day deeming provision similar to the Act. In Alberta, there is no deeming provision that treats a deficient invoice as proper if the owner does not respond or object in time. If an invoice lacks any required element, it simply does not qualify as a proper invoice. This means prompt payment timelines do not trigger until a valid proper invoice is actually received.

The Act requires invoicing at least every month unless the contract provides otherwise. Ontario’s updated legislation similarly mandates monthly invoicing unless otherwise provided under contract. Alberta’s framework is more restrictive, requiring invoices every 31 days unless testing and commissioning conditions stipulated under the contract remain unmet.

For disputes, the Act provides a streamlined process:

• Owners must issue notice of non-payment within 14 days of receiving the proper invoice.
• Contractors/subcontractors must issue notice of non-payment by the earlier of:
  • 7 days after receiving an upstream notice, or
  • their own calculated payment date for the invoice.

The “calculated payment date” simplifies downstream timelines (adding 7 days per tier). By contrast, Ontario and Alberta use separate provisions for non-payment by a payor further up the contractual chain, resulting in more complex timeline calculations. These frameworks also include more convoluted processes to determine appropriate payment timelines for each contractor/subcontractor.

Release of Holdback

In Ontario, recent amendments to legislation mandate the annual release of accrued basic holdback for all contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2026. These amendments require owners to publish a notice within 14 days of each contract anniversary and pay the holdback for the preceding year’s services or materials within 60 to 74 days thereafter, the process flowing down to subcontractors to ensure timely disbursement unless liens prevent it.

Alberta’s legislation similarly enforces mandatory annual holdback release for large-scale projects valued at $10 million or more that exceed 12 months in duration, unless the contract explicitly provides for progressive or phased releases shorter than one year.

In contrast, the Act does not introduce mandatory annual holdback release provisions, maintaining the traditional holdback under the Builders Lien Act with a reduced retention period from 55 to 46 days after substantial performance or completion. Payments made under the Act remain subject to standard lien expiration periods without requiring annual or other periodic releases.

Adjudication

Unlike Alberta (and now Ontario, where private adjudicators are permitted alongside an adjudication authority), the Act restricts adjudicators to those registered with a designated adjudication authority or appointed by the minister – no private adjudicators.

The Act and Ontario legislation grant adjudicators broad discretion to conduct proceedings as they see fit. Alberta’s regime is more prescriptive, requiring adherence to regulations or procedures set by a nominating authority. [1]

Neither the Act nor Ontario legislation include provisions for an adjudicator to refer a matter to court. Alberta expressly permits referral if the adjudicator lacks jurisdiction or deems court more appropriate.

Determination and Enforcement

In comparison with Ontario and Alberta, the Act provides narrower grounds for judicial review whereby an adjudicator’s decision may only be set aside on one or more of the following grounds:

• the dispute may not be the subject of an adjudication,
• the adjudicator lacks jurisdiction, or
• procedural fairness was not observed.

The legislation in Ontario and Alberta each list seven specific grounds for judicial review. While the grounds set out under the Act are rather broad and may provide for a wide berth of judicial discretion, they likely result in a more limited scope of judicial review in BC when compared to Ontario or Alberta.

The Act allows adjudicators to consider a party’s conduct during both the adjudication and the project when apportioning costs/fees for frivolous, vexatious, abusive, or bad faith behaviour. While Ontario’s legislation previously limited consideration to conduct on the project, the updated regime now aligns closely with the Act, permitting consideration of conduct in both contexts. Notably, Alberta’s legislation is silent as to the scope of an adjudicator’s consideration with respect to a party’s conduct.

Conclusion

The Act largely mirrors its counterpart legislation in Ontario and Alberta but stands apart with streamlined payment timelines, absence of annual holdback release requirements, restricted adjudicator selection, narrower judicial review grounds, and (now aligned with updated Ontario legislation) broader conduct considerations for costs.

As Ontario’s recent amendments further harmonize its regime with the provisions of the Act, stakeholders operating across provinces should note these evolving alignments and differences.

If you have any questions or concerns about BC’s new prompt payment legislation, please contact our Infrastructure, Construction, and Procurement group.

[1] Welcome Homes Construction Inc. v. Atlas Granite Inc., 2024 ABKB 301 at paras 14-18.