Does a judge have authority to voide a contract where a contractor has been found in breach of the contract?

The trial judge applied the language of Cartwright J. (later C.J.C.) in Pauzé v. Gauvin, supra. That authority is not strictly applicable because this is not a case of illegality. Pauzé v. Gauvin does, however, illustrate that, in some cases, part of a contract may be treated as severable so that the balance of the contract can be enforced. In Pauzé v. Gauvin, it was held that the plaintiff, a civil engineer, could not recover his fees for preparing plans and specifications because that part of the contract was in breach of the Architects Act, which voided all contracts made in breach of it. But the part of the contract involving supervision of the works, that kind of work not being in breach of the Act, was held to be severable and enforceable.