Team Members ()

Publications ()

News ()

Pages ()

Services ()

  • Our Team

    Our Team

    • Lawyers & Clerks
    • Leadership Team
    • Board of Directors
    • Human Resources
    • Marketing & Business Development
    • Paraprofessional Services
  • Our Services

    Our Services

    • Service Areas
      • Aboriginal and Indigenous Law
      • Administrative Law
      • Agribusiness
      • Banking and Financial Services
      • Bankruptcy and Insolvency
      • Business Disputes
      • Business Immigration
      • Class Actions
      • Construction Law
      • Corporate and Business
      • Corporate Finance and Securities
      • Corporate Governance and Compliance
      • Cross-Border Law
      • Education Law
      • ESG (Environmental, Social, & Governance)
      • Estates and Trusts
      • Environmental Law
      • Foreign Direct Investment
      • Franchise Law
      • Health Law
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property
      • Labour and Employment
      • Litigation
      • Maritime Law
      • Media & Entertainment
      • Municipal Law
      • P3 and Infrastructure
      • Pensions and Benefits
      • Privacy, Data Protection and Cyber Security
      • Public Law
      • Real Estate
      • Regulation of Professions
      • SISIP LTD Allowances Class Action
      • Tax
      • Technology
      • View All
    • Industries
      • Cannabis
      • Construction & Property Development
      • Emerging & High Growth Companies
      • Energy & Natural Resources
      • Financial Services
      • Government & Institutions
      • Insurance
      • Manufacturing, Processing & Sales
      • Mining
      • Ocean Economy
      • Private Clients
      • Technology
      • View All
    • More Services
      • MC Advisory
      • MC Legal Lab
  • Our Insights
  • Our Firm

    Our Firm

    • Our Values
    • Our History
    • Our Representative Work
    • Our Global Reach
    • Our News
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Collective Social Responsibility
    • Pro Bono Program
  • Our Careers

    Our Careers

    • Lawyer Opportunities
    • Business Professional Opportunities
    • Paralegal & Legal Assistant Opportunities
    • Summer Student & Articling Opportunities
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Collective Social Responsibility
  • 1.866.439.6246
  • Contact
  • Search
  • Stay Updated
  • Contact Us
  • LexMundi World Ready
  • Privacy Policy
  • http://linkedin.com
  • http://facebook.com
  • http://twitter.com
  • 1.866.439.6246
Home > Our Insights > Chandos Construction Ltd. v. Deloitte Restructuring Inc.: Anti-Deprivation Rule Exists in Bankruptcy Law
Publication

Chandos Construction Ltd. v. Deloitte Restructuring Inc.: Anti-Deprivation Rule Exists in Bankruptcy Law

Published:

October 5, 2020

Author(s):

  • Hilary Gilroy
  • Colin Boyd

Share

Print

On October 2, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the existence and application of the anti-deprivation rule in Canadian bankruptcy law. In Chandos Construction Ltd. v. Deloitte Restructuring Inc., the Court firmly established that any contractual provision that removes value from a bankrupt’s estate upon an insolvency (or bankruptcy) is unenforceable. In essence, the common law anti-deprivation rule prohibits parties from contracting in a manner that circumvents the operation of bankruptcy laws. The rule aims to prevent unsecured creditors from taking property directly from the bankrupt upon a bankruptcy. Instead, this property must be remitted to the bankrupt’s estate and divided amongst all creditors. The Court’s decision is significant because it provides parties with clear guidance on the enforceability of contractual clauses triggered by insolvency:

  • If a provision in a contract is triggered by bankruptcy or insolvency and removes assets from the bankrupt’s estate that would otherwise vest in the trustee, the clause is not enforceable.
  • The intentions of the contracting parties and whether the clause had a bona fide commercial purpose is not a relevant consideration to its enforceability.

As a result of this decision, parties are wise to consider taking security, acquiring insurance or requiring a third-party guarantee instead of relying on contractual provisions as protection from risk of counterparty insolvency.

Background. The general contractor on a condominium project, Chandos, subcontracted certain work on the project to Capital Steel. The subcontract agreement between the parties contained a clause that 10% of the subcontract price would be forfeited if the subcontractor became insolvent, bankrupt or ceased operations “as a fee for the inconvenience of completing the work using alternate means and/or for monitoring the work during the warranty period.” The enforceability of the clause took centre stage when Capital Steel filed an assignment in bankruptcy prior to completing the subcontract. When Chandos sought to rely on the clause, Deloitte, as trustee, made a court application for a determination of whether it would offend the common law anti-deprivation rule. The application judge determined the clause was enforceable as a bona fide commercial transaction that was not predominately designed to deprive the subcontractor’s property in bankruptcy. In January 2019, a majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal reversed the application judge’s decision, holding the provision conflicted with the operation of bankruptcy legislation by removing assets that would otherwise form part of the bankrupt’s estate and was unenforceable.

Supreme Court of Canada. A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Alberta Court of Appeal’s ruling that the clause was unenforceable for violating the anti-deprivation rule. The Court provided four important insights into the existence and application of the common law anti-deprivation rule:

  • Existence of the Anti-Deprivation Rule. The anti-deprivation rule is a long established common law principle. Its origin dates as far back as 1876, and it has never been extinguished by a subsequent decision.
  • Co-Existence with Federal Bankruptcy Legislation. The anti-deprivation rule does not contradict federal bankruptcy provisions. Sections 65.1, 66.34, and 84.2 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act all regulate the enforceability of contracts in a bankruptcy; however, they are not intended to be a full codification of the matter. These provisions aim to protect the debtor, whereas the anti-deprivation rule protects unsecured creditors. The Court determined it was not Parliament’s intention to occupy the whole field with these provisions or to eliminate the anti-deprivation rule. The legislation and common law anti-deprivation rule exist simultaneously in Canadian law.
  • Effects-Based Test. Having established the existence of the anti-deprivation rule, the Court also confirmed its proper application. The court adopted an effects based test:
    • (1) The relevant clause must be triggered by an event of insolvency or bankruptcy; and
    • (2) The effect of the clause must be to remove value from the insolvent’s estate.
  • Scope of the Anti-Deprivation Rule. The Court also provided guidance on the types of clauses that would not violate the anti-deprivation rule. First, the rule would not be violated where property removed from the bankrupt’s estate has no value. Second, it would not be violated where the clause is triggered by some event other than insolvency or bankruptcy. Finally, it would not be triggered if a party sought protection against the risk of counterparty insolvency by taking security, acquiring insurance or requiring a third-party guarantee.

Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of the Bankruptcy & Insolvency Law Team @ McInnes Cooper to discuss this topic or any other legal issue.


McInnes Cooper has prepared this document for information only; it is not intended to be legal advice. You should consult McInnes Cooper about your unique circumstances before acting on this information. McInnes Cooper excludes all liability for anything contained in this document and any use you make of it.

© McInnes Cooper, 2020. All rights reserved. McInnes Cooper owns the copyright in this document. You may reproduce and distribute this document in its entirety as long as you do not alter the form or the content and you give McInnes Cooper credit for it. You must obtain McInnes Cooper’s consent for any other form of reproduction or distribution. Email us at public[email protected] to request our consent.

Share

Print
View Related Content

Related Lawyers

  • Hilary Gilroy

    Hilary Gilroy

    Lawyer

  • Colin Boyd

    Colin Boyd

    Lawyer

Related Services

  • Bankruptcy and Insolvency

Related Industries

  • Financial Services

Related Publications

View All Publications
  • Court Says B.C. Receiver Can Litigate Despite Arbitration Clause

    Nov 21, 2022

    On November 10, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada examined the interaction of arbitration and bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, deciding a…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Mortgage Deficiencies: NB Appeal Court Clarifies Use of “Market Value” & More

    May 2, 2022

    On April 14, 2022, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal released its decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. Estate of Susan Lynn Williams, revisiting…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Court-Ordered CCAA Super-Priority Charge Can Outrank CRA: 5 Key Take-Aways

    Aug 5, 2021

    On July 28, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a decision protecting the status of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) as a…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Top 5 Legal Considerations When Launching a FINTECH Startup

    Jun 12, 2020

    The financial technology (Fintech) industry uses technology to support and enhance financial and banking services.

    Read More
    Publication
  • Callidus Capital Corp: Policing CCAA Proceedings

    May 11, 2020

    The Supreme Court of Canada recently released a much-awaited decision regarding the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The CCAA is…

    Read More
    Publication
  • CBCA Register for Individuals With Significant Control: 5 FAQs

    May 21, 2019

    We updated this publication on February 17, 2023. As of June 13, 2019, private companies incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Auditor Negligent & Liable for $40M in Livent v. Deloitte

    Dec 23, 2017

    Parents often threaten their children that if their behaviour did not improve they will get a lump of coal in their Christmas stockings. On…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Is cryptocurrency the right tool for your company to raise capital? 5 FAQs about Initial Coin Offerings (ICO)

    Dec 22, 2017

    Blockchain technology has already been a transformative force in a number of sectors. Its most prominent use to date has been as the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Canada’s Private Corporation Tax Proposals: Year End Planning in the Face of Uncertainty

    Nov 20, 2017

    October 2, 2017 marked the end of the consultation period relating to the taxation of private corporation proposals the Department of Finance…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Cashing Banks Continue to Bear the Biggest Risk of Fraudulent Cheques in Teva Canada Ltd. v. TD Canada Trust

    Oct 31, 2017

    On October 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that a bank that pays out on a fraudulent cheque has the protection of section 20(5)…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Federal Crown’s Deemed Trust Priority for Unremitted GST/HST Survives Bankruptcy

    Aug 28, 2017

    Recently, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that a tax debtor’s bankruptcy does not extinguish the federal Crown’s priority to proceeds…

    Read More
    Publication
  • 5 Anti-Corruption Law Compliance Program Tips

    Aug 16, 2017

    In the not-so-distant past, Canadian enforcement of its anti-corruption and anti-bribery legal regime has been relatively laid-back. But the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Warns Judgment Creditors: Implied Consent is Enough to Disclose Discharge Statement in Royal Bank of Canada v. Trang

    Nov 22, 2016

    On November 17, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada decided a mortgagee has the mortgagor’s implied consent to disclose its discharge statement…

    Read More
    Publication
  • NB Court Clarifies Mortgage Lenders’ Rights on Default: 5 Steps for NB Mortgage Lenders to Consider

    Sep 23, 2016

    On September 15, 2016, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal clarified the province’s statutory regime governing both the exercise of a lender’s…

    Read More
    Publication
  • NS Dives into Pooled Registered Pension Plans (PRPP)

    Jun 30, 2016

    As of June 25, 2016, provincially regulated workers and employers in Nova Scotia, Quebec, BC and Saskatchewan can participate in Pooled…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Common Ground: Retail & Commercial Condominium Financing

    Jun 30, 2016

    The condo real estate market, both retail and commercial, is hot. But condo developers and unit buyers need funding. Here’s the legal…

    Read More
    Publication
  • A Penalty by Any Other Name: Supreme Court of Canada Says Interest Rate Increase Triggered by Default, Whatever It’s Called, Infringes the Interest Act in Krayzel Corp. v. Equitable Trust Co.

    May 9, 2016

    On May 6, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that a mortgage imposing a higher interest rate in the event of default and reserving a…

    Read More
    Publication
  • New Early Warning Reporting System Exemptions for Certain Securities Lending Arrangements Effective May 9, 2016

    May 2, 2016

    Amendments changing the early warning reporting system take effect on May 9, 2016, provided all necessary approvals are obtained (except in…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Value of Hindsight – 3 Steps to Help Financial Advisors Avoid Client Claims and Complaints

    Mar 30, 2015

    Hindsight is 20/20. Lawyers can’t always predict the outcome of a legal claim. But when a dispute between an investment client and her…

    Read More
    Publication
  • General Security Agreements: Tips & Traps

    Aug 28, 2013

    A general security agreement (GSA) is the most common form of personal property security used in the Atlantic Provinces to secure commercial…

    Read More
    Publication

Stay Updated

Subscribe to McInnes Cooper to stay current with our leading insights on legal updates, trends, news, events, and services.

Connect With Us:
  • Follow us on Twitter @mcinnescooper
  • Like us on Facebook @mcinnescooperlaw
  • Join us on LinkedIn @mcinnes-cooper
  • 1.866.439.6246
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright © 2023 — McInnes Cooper
Lex Mundi Logo MC Advisory Logo