Construction Restrictions in Advance of FIFA World Cup 2026: Contractual Considerations for Delay and Risk Allocation

Toronto’s preparation for the 2026 FIFA World Cup has introduced traffic and mobility measures that include restricting or pausing construction activities along key corridors during the event period, potentially impacting contractual performance and project schedules. Public reporting indicates that construction affecting major routes may be limited between May and July 2026, with some projects being sequenced or temporarily paused to accommodate traffic management and event logistics, creating foreseeable, non-project-specific constraints. In certain cases, active works may be stopped and resumed following the tournament, with associated demobilization and remobilization costs and schedule impacts falling to be addressed under the applicable contract mechanisms.

While these measures are grounded in legitimate planning considerations, they raise a number of contractual questions for construction lawyers and industry participants, including entitlement to time, compensation, and the allocation of risk between contracting parties. In particular, they present circumstances that do not fit neatly within traditional categories of delay or disruption, increasing the likelihood of disputes if not expressly addressed in contract drafting or administration.

A threshold issue is how these restrictions should be characterized under standard form construction contracts, and whether parties should amend those forms in advance to allocate the resulting risk. Depending on the circumstances, they may be framed as delay caused by the Owner, delay caused by authorities having jurisdiction, a suspension of the Work, or some form of regulatory interference, each of which carries different entitlement and notice requirements. Each characterization may carry different implications, particularly in relation to compensation and the availability of markup, extended site overhead, and impact costs.

Unlike traditional force majeure scenarios, these measures appear to be planned, coordinated, and implemented in advance for broader public objectives. This raises the question of whether their planned nature affects how they are treated under delay provisions, including whether they fall outside force majeure and within change or suspension regimes. Under contracts such as the standard CCDC, contractors are generally entitled to extensions of time for delays beyond their control, subject to timely notice and mitigation obligations. Where access or sequencing is impacted, entitlement to time extensions may be relatively straightforward if the impacts are on the critical path and properly documented.

The more nuanced issue is whether such delays are compensable under the relevant contract regime. That determination may depend on how the delay is framed and the extent to which the Owner has control or direction over the restriction. Where the delay is attributed to the Owner, compensation may be available, including extended general conditions and reasonable demobilization/remobilization costs. Where it is attributed to authorities having jurisdiction, entitlement to costs may be more limited or excluded absent a change order or express contractual risk allocation. In practice, however, the distinction may not always be clear, particularly where the Owner is a public authority or where there is some overlap between the Owner’s role and the implementation of the restriction, underscoring the value of negotiated drafting to allocate risk prior to bid or award.

Ontario courts have generally approached delay through a practical lens, focusing on causation and the impact on the work rather than formal characterization, with contemporaneous project records often proving determinative.[1]

In some cases, the impact of these measures may not take the form of an express stop-work direction. Instead, restrictions may arise through limitations on access, working hours, or staging that materially impede progress on the critical path. This raises the possibility of a de facto interruption to the work, where performance is not formally halted but is practically constrained, engaging potential entitlement to time relief, delay damages, and demobilization costs. Whether such circumstances amount to a suspension of the work may depend on the degree of interference, the availability of alternative means of performance, the impact on the critical path, and compliance with contractual notice and mitigation obligations.

These issues may also have implications at the subcontract level, where risk allocation and pass-through rights must be carefully aligned. General contractors may be required to address subcontractor claims arising from delay, demobilization, and remobilization, while at the same time pursuing recovery upstream pursuant to strictly back-to-back notice and entitlement provisions. This creates potential timing and cash flow challenges, particularly in the context of Ontario’s prompt payment regime under the Construction Act.[2] The extent to which subcontract terms align with prime contract risk allocation, including paid-when-paid compliance and flow-down of change, delay, and dispute provisions, may become an important factor in managing this exposure.

As with many delay-related matters, notice provisions are likely to play a central role and should be strictly complied with to preserve entitlement to time and money. Contractors may need to consider when notice obligations are triggered, particularly where restrictions are known in advance but implemented over time, and whether rolling or supplemental notices are required as impacts evolve. This raises a further question as to whether advance knowledge of a potential disruption affects the timing or content of required notice, and how evolving impacts should be documented through contemporaneous records, daily site reports, and schedule updates.

The World Cup preparations highlight a broader issue in construction contracting, specifically how to allocate foreseeable, government-imposed urban disruptions within standard forms. Standard form contracts are not typically drafted with planned, large-scale urban disruptions in mind and may require targeted amendments to address access constraints, sequencing, and compensability. As a result, these circumstances may provide a useful lens through which to consider how existing contractual frameworks respond to events that are neither unforeseen nor project-specific, and to incorporate project-specific special conditions before tender or award.

As these measures are implemented and their effects become more concrete, they may offer further guidance on how delay and disruption are analyzed in Ontario construction law, including the treatment of suspension of work and compensability for extended general conditions. In the meantime, they raise a number of open questions regarding characterization, compensation, and risk allocation that merit proactive contract amendments, disciplined notice and recordkeeping, and back-to-back subcontracting to reduce exposure.

Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.