BC Supreme Court orders owner of Maple Ridge’s Art Infiniti Hotel to pay more than $1 million in unpaid fire restoration bills

A BC Supreme Court judge has ordered the owner of a fire-damaged Maple Ridge hotel to pay more than $1 million to a restoration company, ruling the owner breached its contract after receiving insurance funds but refusing to pass them on.

In a March 19 decision, Justice John Walker ruled that MBW Canada Holding Inc. was liable for unpaid invoices issued by Canstar Restorations Limited Partnership, which carried out emergency cleanup and stabilization work following a major fire at the property.

The court awarded Canstar $1.039 million plus interest at a steep contractual rate of 24 percent annually, along with costs.

The dispute stems from a New Year’s Eve fire in 2020, which caused significant structural, smoke and water damage to the Art Infiniti Hotel, located at 21735 Lougheed Hwy.

Canstar was brought in by the insurer to perform emergency restoration work, including demolition of damaged areas, drying the structure, removing debris and contents, and installing protective measures such as a temporary roof covering.

The company began work within days of the fire and formally entered into a work authorization agreement with MBW on Jan. 7, 2021.

Under that contract, Canstar was to take direction from the insurance adjuster and be paid for its services once the insurer issued funds to the property owner.

The court heard that Canstar submitted two invoices totalling just over $1 million, which were reviewed and approved by both the insurance adjuster and an engineering firm hired to audit the costs.

The insurer subsequently issued payments to MBW in August and September 2021, explicitly tied to Canstar’s work.

But despite receiving those funds, MBW did not pay Canstar. Instead, the company later paid roughly $1 million into court in 2025 to discharge builder’s liens placed on the property as the legal dispute dragged on.

Lizhi Luo, who self-represented MBW in court, argued it should not have to pay because Canstar’s work was negligent, excessive and, in some cases, unauthorized or even unlawful.

The company alleged the contractor demolished more of the building than necessary, failed to properly protect the structure from further damage, and performed work outside the scope of the agreement.

It also claimed the work should have been overseen by engineers and suggested the restoration process inflated future reconstruction costs.

However, the court found those arguments were unsupported by admissible evidence and largely related to a separate counterclaim and lawsuit involving the insurer and its consultants.

“The facts related to Canstar’s contractual claim are not seriously disputed,” Walker wrote, emphasizing that MBW acknowledged receiving the insurance funds and failing to pay the contractor.

The judge also dismissed claims that the work was illegal or conducted in violation of building codes or regulations, finding no evidence to support those assertions.

Even if such issues had been proven, Walker noted, it would be difficult to justify MBW retaining insurance funds that were specifically paid for work Canstar had clearly performed.

The court further found no evidence to support allegations of collusion or fraud between the contractor and the insurance adjuster.

A key issue in the case was whether the dispute should proceed to a full trial or be resolved through a summary trial – a shorter process based largely on affidavit evidence.

MBW argued the case was too complex and intertwined with its broader claims to be decided summarily.

But the judge disagreed, finding the contractual dispute over unpaid invoices was straightforward and could be separated from the more complex allegations in the counterclaim.

Walker also pointed to a lengthy procedural history marked by multiple adjournments, changes in legal counsel and unsuccessful applications brought by MBW. 

He said further delay would be unjust. By resolving the payment issue now would help streamline the remaining litigation, according to the judge.

While the ruling resolves the core dispute over unpaid invoices, MBW’s broader allegations over negligence and misconduct tied to the insurance process have not been decided and will proceed separately.

The judge emphasized that findings in this decision would not bind a future court considering those claims.