the evidence of a key witness or witnesses . . . and, while the
absence of such an explanation is not necessarily dispositive, it
may go a long way toward putting the reasons beyond the reach
of meaningful appellate review”. Unfortunately, that is the result
in the present case. In the absence of any mention of these
witnesses, and having regard in particular to the potential
importance of Mr. Derewonko’s evidence to the question of the
respondents’ credibility, it is impossible to know whether and why
the trial judge accepted or rejected the evidence or if it impacted
his credibility findings.
 Another issue in the proceedings was whether Birkshire’s
construction lien was perfected in time in accordance with the
requirements of the Construction Lien Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30.
In particular, for the lien to be valid it was necessary for contract
work exceeding $1,000 to have been performed (which would fix
the contract completion date) after a certain date (which was
identified by the trial judge as April 4 or 6, 2007). The parties disagreed about whether the work that was done during the relevant
time was contract work, repair work or work to correct a deficiency. The trial judge, in brief oral reasons, accepted that there
was at least $1,000 worth of work to be done within the relevant
time frame, and he referred specifically to the children’s vanity,
installation of crystals on a chandelier and the hardwood flooring.
Having considered the evidence, we are of the view that the trial
judge would have had to have accepted the Fiumes’ evidence and
rejected that of the appellants, with respect to the timing and
nature of the work that was done on each of these items, and, as
such, the trial judge’s failure to address evidence relevant to the
parties’ credibility precludes effective review of the lien issue as well.
 The appeal is therefore allowed. The judgment is set aside
and a new trial of the two actions is ordered. In the interim,
Birkshire’s construction lien remains registered against the subject property and its validity will be determined at the new trial.
Costs to the appellants in the sum of $8,500, inclusive of HST and
disbursements. Costs of the first trial shall be determined by the
judge hearing the new trial.