Chandos Construction Ltd v Deloitte Restructuring Inc, 2020 SCC 25 is a landmark case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the position of the anti-deprivation rule within Canadian insolvency law.

It held that, because of differences in Canadian law, the rule has wider application relative to the English rule applied by the UK Supreme Court in Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd. Chandos, hired as the general contractor for a condominium project in St. Albert, Alberta, subcontracted Capital Steel to supply steel-related work for it.

[4] In March 2017, Deloitte, (as the trustee in bankruptcy), applied to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, seeking advice and directions on whether Chandos was entitled to rely on that clause.

[18] While she agreed with Rowe J "that the anti-deprivation rule has a longstanding and strong jurisprudential footing in Canadian law and that it has not been eliminated by this Court or through legislation", Côté J argued that, as in Belmont Park, it should not apply where contractual provisions have a bona fide commercial purpose.

[20] She also asserted that s. 71 of the BIA is not as clear as Rowe J stated, and thus there is a principled basis for adopting a purpose-based approach such as seen in Belmont Park and British Eagle.