In my view, the defendants’ interpretation of the Act is pref-
erable for a number of reasons. The first is that it is consistent with
the Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 14.01 of the Rules provides that
“a proceeding shall be commenced by the issuing of an originating
process”, and rule 14.03 provides that “the originating process for
the commencement of an action is a statement of claim . . .”
 The original statement of claim specifically pleaded that
the plaintiff was entitled to a claim for a lien on the defendants’
property under the Construction Lien Act. The addition of the
registration number of the lien in the amended statement
of claim was not a new cause of action, but, rather, it simply pro-
vided particulars of an allegation already pled.
 The plaintiff has provided no authority to support its position that the statement of claim must expressly reference the
registration number of the lien in order to commence the lien
action. None of the cases relied on by the plaintiff suggest such
a requirement. Nor is this requirement expressly required in
s. 36 of the Act. While the commentators state that an action to
enforce a lien may not be commenced before the preservation of
the lien (Kevin Patrick McGuinness, Construction Lien Remedies
in Ontario, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 1997), § 6.86) there is no
suggestion that failure to reference the registration number of
the lien in a subsequently issued statement of claim means that
the lien action is rendered a nullity.
 Based on the foregoing, I conclude that the issuance of the
statement of claim on October 1, 2015 was “the commencement
of the action that perfected the lien”, and the second anniversary
of that date was October 1, 2017.
 Since the plaintiff did not deliver its trial record until
October 5, 2017, it failed to meet the deadline imposed by s. 37( 1)
of the Act, and the defendants are entitled to an order under
s. 46( 1) of the Act, declaring that the plaintiff’s lien has expired,
and an order dismissing the action to enforce the lien and vacating
the registration of the claim for lien on the defendants’ property.
 As held by the Divisional Court in K.H. Custom Homes,
only the lien claim is dismissed, and all non-lien claims are unaffected by this decision.
 If the parties cannot agree on costs, the defendants may
serve and file costs submissions of not more than three pages,
plus costs outline and any offers to settle, within 25 days of the release of this decision, and the plaintiff may serve and file responding submissions on the same terms within 15 days thereafter.