What a construction claim is, and why claims are won or lost

A construction claim is a request for more time, more money or both, made because something happened that one party says the other should pay for. Claims are normal: on a project with hundreds of activities and dozens of firms, something always goes wrong. What separates a claim that is paid from one that is rejected is rarely the size of the problem. It is whether the party making the claim can prove four things, with records made at the time. This lesson sets out those four things, for whichever side of the table you sit on.

Learning outcomes

• Define a construction claim and how it differs from a change.
• Name the four elements every claim must prove: entitlement, causation, effect and quantum.
• Explain where claims sit in CCDC 2-2020, from GC 6.5 and 6.6 to Part 8.
• Describe the most common reasons claims fail, for both owners and contractors.

The lesson

A change, a claim and a dispute

A change is agreed: both sides accept that the work or the time has changed and they negotiate the price, usually through a Change Order or Change Directive (see Construction Phase lesson 16). A claim starts when one side asserts a right to time or money that the other side has not accepted. A dispute is a claim that negotiation has not resolved and that goes to a formal process: adjudication, mediation, arbitration or court.

Most claims are made by contractors against owners, for delay, disruption, changed conditions or unpaid changes. Owners make claims too: for liquidated damages, back-charges, defects and the cost of the contractor's own delay. Subcontractors claim against contractors, and contractors pass those claims up. A good claims process works the same way in every direction.

The four things every claim must prove

Whatever the label, a claim has to prove four elements, in this order:

• Entitlement. A contract clause, or the law, gives a right to time or money for this kind of event, and the procedural conditions, especially notice, were met.
• Causation. The event, for which the other party carries the risk, caused the delay or cost. Not the weather, not the claimant's own crew, not a supplier the claimant chose.
• Effect. The event actually changed something measurable: the completion date on the critical path, the productivity of a crew, the cost of a trade.
• Quantum. The amount of time or money, calculated from records rather than from a target.

Ontario courts insist on this chain. In Schindler Elevator v. Walsh Construction (2021 ONSC 283), the court held that a party claiming project delay losses must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the other party's delay caused delay to the critical path, and that delay to the next activity alone was not enough [3]. Each lesson in this course works through one link in the chain.

Where claims sit in CCDC 2-2020

CCDC 2-2020 handles claims in three places. GC 6.5 deals with delay: what earns time, what earns time and cost, and the Notice in Writing required within 10 Working Days after a delay starts. GC 6.6 deals with claims for a change in Contract Price: timely Notice in Writing, a duty to mitigate, records, and a detailed account within a reasonable time, after which the Consultant has 30 Working Days to give findings. Part 8 then sets out how disputes about those findings are resolved [1]. Lesson 2 covers the notice rules in detail.

Why claims are won or lost

Experience across projects points to the same handful of causes. Notice was late or missing, so entitlement fails before anyone looks at the facts. The records were made after the event, or never made, so causation becomes one witness against another. The schedule was never updated properly, so nobody can show the critical path at the time. And the amount was built backwards from the overrun rather than forwards from the event, which is the global-claim problem covered in lesson 17. Each of these is avoidable, and each is avoided by doing ordinary project controls well.

Northgate worked example

Northgate Distribution Centre (fictional) is a 12,000 m² tilt-up warehouse in Vaughan, Ontario, built by Halvorsen Builders Ltd. (fictional) under CCDC 2-2020, with Ridgeline Architects Inc. (fictional) as Consultant. See the Northgate fact sheet. This course follows one delay claim from first notice to settlement. Ready-for-Takeover (M9) was due Friday, January 14, 2028 and was reached on Tuesday, March 14, 2028: 60 calendar days late. All events, dates and amounts are illustrative.

On April 7, 2028, Halvorsen submits Claim C-01. It asks for an extension of 60 calendar days and $1,140,000, made up of four heads of claim (Figure 2). Halvorsen says the owner caused the whole delay: a late answer on the office mezzanine redesign, a late decision on upgraded dock levellers, and a refusal to extend time when permanent power was late, which forced Halvorsen to work overtime.

View the data

Item	Value
Extended site overhead (60 days)	$522,000
Head office overhead	$289,240
Disruption, mezzanine	$209,950
Acceleration (overtime)	$118,810

The owner's representative does not start with the money. She opens a claim file and sorts every event into the four elements. For each one she asks: which clause gives entitlement, was notice given on time, what do the schedule updates show about causation and effect, and what do the cost records show about quantum? The answers will take the rest of this course. The headline result: Halvorsen is entitled to 42 days of extension and $265,000, not 60 days and $1,140,000. The difference is almost entirely evidence.

Your move

If you are the owner

• Open a claim file the day a notice arrives. One folder per event, with the notice, the schedule update before and after, and the cost records.
• Respond on the elements, not the total. Agree what is proven, reject what is not, and say why.
• Keep your own record. Your representative's site reports and decision log are your evidence on causation.
• Treat valid claims as cost, not conflict. Paying a proven claim early is cheaper than litigating it.

If you are the contractor

• Build the chain as you go. Notice, record, schedule update, cost code: one event at a time.
• Price from the event forwards. A claim that starts from the overrun looks like an attempt to rebid the job.
• Separate your own delays. Owning your share makes the rest credible.
• Write for the reader who wasn't there. An adjudicator or arbitrator will judge the claim from documents.

Common mistakes

1. Treating a claim as a negotiation opener. An inflated claim damages credibility on the parts that are valid.
2. Missing notice. The strongest facts cannot fix a failed condition precedent.
3. Relying on memory. Records made at the time beat recollection months later.
4. Confusing delay to an activity with delay to completion. Only critical path delay moves the end date.
5. Leaving claims to the end. Old events are harder to prove and harder to settle.

Quick quiz

1. Which of these is a claim rather than a change?

   1. A Change Order both parties signed
   2. A contractor's demand for extra time the owner has not accepted
   3. A Supplemental Instruction
   4. An agreed unit-price adjustment

2. What are the four elements every claim must prove?

   1. Scope, schedule, budget, quality
   2. Entitlement, causation, effect, quantum
   3. Notice, mitigation, payment, release
   4. Cost, fee, overhead, profit

3. Under CCDC 2-2020 GC 6.5, when must notice of a delay be given?

   1. Within 30 days
   2. Within 10 Working Days after the delay starts
   3. At Substantial Performance
   4. With the next payment application

4. In Schindler v. Walsh (2021 ONSC 283), what did the court say about delay to the next activity?

   1. It proves project delay
   2. It is not enough on its own; delay to the critical path must be shown
   3. It entitles the claimant to costs
   4. It is irrelevant

5. Halvorsen's Claim C-01 asked for 60 days and $1,140,000. What did the evidence support?

   1. 60 days and $1,140,000
   2. 42 days and $265,000
   3. No time and no money
   4. 18 days and $81,000

Show answers and explanations

1. B. A claim is an assertion of a right to time or money that the other side has not accepted.
2. B. Entitlement, causation, effect and quantum, in that order.
3. B. GC 6.5 requires Notice in Writing to the Consultant within 10 Working Days after the commencement of the delay.
4. B. The court required proof of a causal link to critical path delay, not just delay to an immediate successor.
5. B. The owner's analysis supports 42 days of extension and $265,000; the rest of this course shows how.

Key terms

Claim

An assertion by one party of a right to time, money or both that the other party has not accepted.

Entitlement

The contractual or legal right to relief, including compliance with notice and other conditions.

Causation

Proof that a specific event caused the delay or cost claimed.

Quantum

The amount of time or money claimed, calculated from records.

Condition precedent

A requirement, such as written notice, that must be met before a right arises.

References

1. Canadian Construction Documents Committee, CCDC 2-2020 Stipulated Price Contract, GC 6.4 to 6.6 and Part 8. Clause content checked against a publicly posted tender copy; buy the form from CCDC.
2. Miller Thomson LLP, Ontario Court underlines the evidence and analysis required to establish critical path delays (July 2021).
3. Sahil Shoor and Tristan Neill, Gowling WLG, Ontario Superior Court endorses practical definition of concurrent delay (March 24, 2021), on Schindler Elevator Corporation v. Walsh Construction Company of Canada, 2021 ONSC 283.
4. BRC, Northgate fact sheet (fictional case study, v1, November 4, 2026).

Verified on November 9, 2026.

Next lesson in this trackNotice clauses and deadlines