The work performed by the lien claimant should be accurately described.
However, courts have noted that it is not consistent with the purpose of the Builders Lien Act to be overly technical regarding the description of the work:
The defendant argues the inclusion of the word “installation” in the general description of work in the lien claim, which reads “supply and installation”, invalidates the lien. AWD supplied windows but had no role with respect to installation.
The plaintiff admits that although AWD did provide remediation services on the windows which could be considered “installation” work, AWD’s role was to supply the windows and doors.
The incorrect description of the work performed, in the circumstances of this case does not invalidate the lien claim. It is akin to a typographical error.
(Arch Windoor Ltd. v. Aragon (Quayside) Properties Ltd., 2012 BCSC 179 at para. 55, 56 and 59).