Is Country Lumber's consent order agreement with unperfected lien claimants enforceable?

Finally, Country Lumber argues that the consent order agreement was based entirely on a common mistake about the sufficiency of the funds. As a result, the agreement is now void and unenforceable. Their counsel has provided the case of Seppanen v. Seppanen, [1991] B.C.J. No. 2165 (S.C.) as an example of the application of this principle. In any event, the pro rata sharing now sought by the unperfected lien claimants runs contrary to the very reason for the agreement’s existence, and so could never have been an implied term of it.