CAUTION: We have been advised that fraudulent emails with a modified domain name have been sent by a source purporting to be from Aird & Berlis LLP. These communications are not legitimate and are not from Aird & Berlis LLP. Disregard any such emails and do not engage with the sender or the email in any way. Please report the attempted fraud by contacting the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre and by emailing Aird & Berlis LLP at help@airdberlis.com.

Back to all publications
Mar 20, 2020

The Impact of COVID-19 on Contractual Performance

By Mark van Zandvoort and Gaurav Gopinath

With the global spread of Coronavirus disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) causing unprecedented disruption to individuals and businesses, many will wonder whether their inability to perform contractual obligations can be excused, or whether they may be discharged from a contract, either in reliance on a force majeure provision of a contract or in circumstances where no such clause exists.

1.  To what extent can a force majeure clause protect a non-performing party from liability given the impact of COVID-19?

Parties often negotiate a force majeure clause into their contracts. The standard effect of a force majeure clause is that the person who is affected by the event gives notice to the other party that they cannot perform in order to be excused from performance for a period of time. Such clauses are usually negotiated in a manner that allocates risk between the parties in the event of a supervening event, such as war or a natural disaster, that materially affects a party’s ability to perform in a manner that was not within the contemplation of the parties when they entered into the contract.

The party seeking to rely on a force majeure clause will need to be able to demonstrate that the force majeure event is captured by the clause, and that it is causally linked to the party’s inability to perform the contract.

Force majeure clauses which reference epidemic, disease and/or quarantine will provide support for the assertion that COVID-19 is an event falling within the scope of the clause. It is anticipated that force majeure clauses which include acts or restraints of a governmental body preventing contractual performance, and acts of God, will similarly be relied upon by parties in connection with the impact of COVID-19.

2.  But what if the contract does not include a force majeure provision?

If the contract does not contain a force majeure clause, the doctrine of frustration may nevertheless be available to excuse contractual performance and to discharge the parties’ respective obligations under the contract.

The doctrine of frustration has a longstanding history at Canadian common law. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that frustration is available when a supervening event has occurred without the fault of either party, and for which the parties did not allocate risk in the contract, but which causes performance of the contract to become “a thing radically different” from what the parties had in mind when entering into the contract.1

While the remedy flowing from the doctrine of frustration, being the discharge of both parties’ obligations under the contract, is less flexible than a carefully drafted force majeure clause, the doctrine of frustration may nevertheless apply to insulate a party from liability for non-performance of its contractual obligations as a direct result of the impact of COVID-19. It is also anticipated that many parties who have a mutual desire to see a contract continue, but recognize the unanticipated consequences of COVID-19, will seek to renegotiate a contract in good faith.

The Litigation and Financial Services Groups at Aird & Berlis can advise their clients with respect to the applicability of force majeure clauses and the doctrine of frustration in circumstances of contractual non-performance, in negotiating and drafting contracts and the provisions of force majeure clauses, and in re-negotiating existing contracts. Details are available on our Litigation & Dispute Resolution webpage and on our Financial Services webpage.


1 Naylor Group Inc. v. Ellis-Don Construction Ltd., 2001 SCC 58, [2001] 2 SCR 943, at paras 53 and 55.

Related Publications

Publications Article
Excess Claims Fees to Be Introduced Into Canada’s Patent Regime By Tony Sabeta, B.Eng. Nov 25, 2021 The Canadian patent regime has always been unique and flexible. However, many of these unique asp... The Canadian patent regime has always been unique and flexible. However, many of these unique aspects are disappearing in order to bring Canada’s patent regime into procedural harmony with the practice in other jurisdictions.
Publications Article
Emerging Case Law Regarding the Enforcement of Vaccination Policies By Alex Kagan and Jessica Schissler Nov 23, 2021 In this article, we summarize several recent decisions which provide guidance regarding how court... In this article, we summarize several recent decisions which provide guidance regarding how courts and arbitrators will assess the complex issue of workplace vaccination policies.
Publications Article
City of Toronto Introduces Inclusionary Zoning Framework By Eileen P. K. Costello, Sidonia J. Tomasella, Maggie Bassani, Meaghan Barrett and John Pappas Nov 10, 2021 The City of Toronto approved its new inclusionary zoning framework on November 9, 2021. Council a... The City of Toronto approved its new inclusionary zoning framework on November 9, 2021. Council adopted the official plan amendment and passed the zoning by-law amendment that will permit the City to require a percentage of all new development within delineated Protected Major Transit Station Are...