CONSTRUCTION LAW 
 Chandos Construction v.  
 Deloitte Restructuring 
 How to draft construction contracts to  
 avoid the anti-deprivation rule 
 In  Chandos  Construction  Ltd v.  Deloitte  
 Restructuring  Inc1 “Chandos”, the majority  
 of the Supreme Court of Canada  
 (SCC) reaffirmed the common law anti-deprivation  
 rule in Canada. The anti-deprivation rule  
 voids contractual terms that apply upon a party’s  
 insolvency and bankruptcy where the clause  
 removes value from an insolvent person’s estate  
 that would otherwise have been available for  
 the insolvent person’s creditors. Anyone entering  
 into construction contracts should avoid  
 contractual provisions that may trigger the antideprivation  
 rule and understand that if they are  
 already in a contract, they may not be enforceable. 
  However, despite the anti-deprivation rule,  
 there are contractual provisions that can be used  
 to protect parties where their contracting counterpart  
 becomes insolvent or bankrupt.  
 Factual background 
 Chandos Construction Ltd. (Chandos) was a  
 general  contractor  that  entered  into  a  subcontract  
 with Capital Steel Inc. (Capital Steel). The  
 subcontract provided that in the event of Capital  
 Steel’s insolvency or bankruptcy, Capital Steel  
 would forfeit 10 per cent of the contract price to  
 Chandos “as a fee for the inconvenience of completing  
 the work using alternate means and/or  
 for monitoring the work during the warranty  
 period” (the “Insolvency Clause”). 
 Capital Steel filed an assignment in bankruptcy  
 prior to completing the subcontract work.  
 Chandos argued that it was entitled to rely upon  
 the Insolvency Clause and set-off 10 per cent  
 of the subcontract price as a fee. The Trustee  
 in Bankruptcy for Capital  Steel  applied  to the  
 Alberta Court  of Queen’s Bench  to  determine  
 whether the Insolvency Clause was valid.  
 Trial and appellate  
 judgments 
 In Chandos, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench  
 found the Insolvency Clause was valid because  
 the Insolvency Clause was not an attempt to  
 By Charles W. Bois, Rachel Haack and Kayla Romanow, Miller Thomson LLP 
 XICRO / 123RF 
 thinkbigmagazine.ca  |  Quarter 1 2021  |  Think BIG  45 
 
				
/thinkbigmagazine.ca