Delay claim

A delay claim is a contractor's formal claim under a construction contract for an extension of the Contract Time and/or additional compensation arising from delay events during the work. In the standard Canadian stipulated-price contract, CCDC 2 – 2020, a delay claim runs on two parallel tracks with separate notice requirements: GC 6.5 – Delays governs entitlement to time (plus costs where the delay is owner-side), and GC 6.6 – Claims for a Change in Contract Price governs claims for money.

Track one: time under GC 6.5

GC 6.5.1 entitles the contractor to an extension of the Contract Time and reimbursement of reasonable costs where the delay is caused by the Owner, the Consultant, or anyone they employ or engage. GC 6.5.3 covers delays from events beyond the contractor's control — abnormally adverse weather, labour disputes, and the like — extending time ("not less than the time lost") but without costs unless the delay resulted from actions of the Owner, Consultant, or their engaged parties. The gate is GC 6.5.4: no extension unless Notice in Writing of the cause of delay reaches the Consultant not later than 10 Working Days after the delay commences (one notice suffices for a continuing cause). See our page on excusable delay for how GC 6.5 sorts the delay categories.

Track two: money under GC 6.6

Where the claim is for costs, GC 6.6 — Claims for a Change in Contract Price — applies its own discipline. As summarized by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Finn Way General Contractor Inc. v. Lakehead University, 2024 ONSC 946: GC 6.6.1 requires timely Notice in Writing of intent to claim an increase to the Contract Price, given to the other party and the Consultant; GC 6.6.2 obliges the contractor to mitigate and keep reasonable records; GC 6.6.3 requires the claim to be submitted within a reasonable time; and GC 6.6.4 requires interim accounts for events with a continuing effect, with a final account once the effects crystallize. Note that on the OAA/OGCA recommended supplementary conditions for CCDC 2-2020, SC 6.6.1 adds "and the Consultant" to the notice recipients — on an OAA/OGCA-supplemented project, a money-claim notice that goes only to the Owner misses a required recipient.

The Finn Way lesson: notice failures sink good claims

Finn Way involved a contractor on a CCDC 2 fixed-price university project where the work was delayed by about six months through owner-directed changes and design issues; the changes were processed through change orders that extended time and price without the contractor's site and delay costs, and the contractor then claimed those costs separately. The court dismissed the claim: costs tied to negotiated changes belonged in the change orders themselves, and unanticipated delay costs required the contract's claim mechanics — GC 6.5.4 notice for delay, GC 6.6 process for money — which the contractor did not follow. The court treated timely notice as a condition precedent, citing authority that failure to notice "may deprive the contractor of all remedy," and declined to grant relief from forfeiture, holding that the contractor's disregard of the notice provisions undermined the cost certainty the contract was designed to protect. The court did accept that "Notice in Writing" is judged on substance over form — a change order is not notice of a delay claim, but any written communication transmitted per the contract that flags a delay and an intention to claim can be.

Why it matters for public-sector bidders

Government owners buy cost certainty, and CCDC notice clauses are how they get it — which is exactly why courts enforce them strictly. If you are delayed on a public project: give the GC 6.5.4 notice within 10 Working Days of the cause, reserve your costs in writing under GC 6.6 as they arise (interim accounts for continuing events), keep contemporaneous records, and never assume a change order quietly preserves delay rights the parties did not price into it.

Common questions

Is a delay claim the same as an excusable delay?

No. An excusable delay is a delay event category that entitles relief under GC 6.5; a delay claim is the contractual claim process — notices, records, and accounts — by which the contractor converts such events into time and/or money. Experiencing an excusable delay without delivering the required notices is how entitlement is lost.

Is missing the 10-working-day notice fatal?

Under GC 6.5.4, notice is a prerequisite to any extension, and Finn Way shows Ontario courts treating compliance as a condition precedent and refusing relief from forfeiture where the contractor ignored the claim machinery. Some written communication that identifies the delay and signals a claim may suffice — but it must exist, and it must be timely.

What about productivity losses from disruption that don't extend the schedule?

Work made less efficient without a schedule impact — trade stacking, out-of-sequence work, piecemeal access — still needs a contractual route to money, and under CCDC 2-2020 that route is the GC 6.6 claim process with its notice, mitigation, and record-keeping duties; in Finn Way the contractor itself described part of its claim as a productivity loss tied to a change, and it failed for want of the required claim notice.

Related definitions

Excusable delay · Change order · Liquidated damages · Notice of suspension of work