Developers cannot claim a lien:
I find that the role of Mr. Brown and Conquest was as part of the role undertaken by a developer. I am satisfied that a developer cannot claim a lien…
(Tuscany Village Holdings Ltd. v. Conquest Development Corporation, 2005 BCSC 1392 at para. 26).
In that case the court described the activities of the developer as follows:
I can not conclude that Mr. Brown and Conquest were providing architectural services. Rather, they assisted the Plaintiffs in dealing with the architects. The other roles performed by Conquest and Mr. Brown related merely to functions that a developer might undertake, including arranging for financing, dealing with real estate agents, meeting with the bankers, investors, lawyers, attending public meetings, arranging for press releases and organizing “ground-breaking” ceremonies, and performing “executive services”.
The services performed were not so directly related to the construction process to fall within the definition of “work” being “... services ... on an improvement.” Whether or not the services provided by Conquest and Mr. Brown were performed on the Property, the services performed were not an “integral and necessary part of the actual physical construction of the project”. I conclude that the services and work performed by the Defendants were not lienable.
(Tuscany Village Holdings Ltd. v. Conquest Development Corporation, 2005 BCSC 1392 at para. 26-27).
Similarly, promoters are not entitled to a lien:
The Act has the effect of separating promotional development of the kind the respondent undertook from site planning and preparation and from construction.
(“E.C.R.A.” Elderly Citizens Recreation Assn. v. Loeppky Consulting Ltd. (1999), 45 C.L.R. (2d) 122 (B.C.S.C.))