THE DECISION IS PUBLIC.
THE RECORD IS CLEAR.
THE DECISION IS PUBLIC.
THE RECORD IS CLEAR.
A licensed RBQ contractor performed renovation work in a home in Quebec.
After problems appeared, an engineer identified the absence of a vapour barrier in the renovated bathroom and laundry room and recommended that the walls be opened and corrected.
The homeowner filed a claim with the Régie du bâtiment du Québec within the one-year guarantee period of the contractor's licence bond.
The claim was transmitted to the contractor's surety. The surety refused to conclude an agreement with the homeowner. The RBQ then refused to proceed with the bond claim.
The homeowner asked that the refusal be reviewed.
On May 20, 2026, the Bureau des régisseurs issued its decision.
This website examines the published decision and the documentary record underlying it.
The decision is publicly available on the RBQ's own website.
Read the decision.
Examine the record.
Draw your own conclusions.
On May 20, 2026, the Bureau des régisseurs of the Régie du bâtiment du Québec issued a nine-page decision in file 2025-42-118.
The decision rejected the homeowner's request to have the RBQ reconsider its earlier refusal and maintained the refusal to proceed with her claim against the contractor's licence bond.
The reason was not a finding that the alleged construction defects did not exist.
The Bureau stated that the RBQ could not determine whether the claim was well founded or establish its value.
In the absence of a final judgment, the RBQ transmitted the claim file to the surety and sought its consent to an agreement or transaction.
The surety refused.
Under the applicable regulation, the RBQ's authority to proceed with a bond claim requires either a final court judgment or a voluntary agreement with the surety.
With neither in place, the RBQ had no legal authority to proceed, regardless of the evidence on file.
EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE PROVED A CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
At paragraph 39 of decision 2025-42-118, the Bureau addressed the additional evidence submitted by the homeowner.
The engineer had confirmed that no vapour barrier was present in the areas inspected and that this physical observation corroborated her original engineering report.
The Bureau then stated that even if this new evidence were determinative in proving the presence of a construction defect, the law did not permit the Bureau to determine whether the claim was well founded or establish its value.
Even evidence determinative in proving a construction defect could not permit the Bureau to decide whether the claim was well founded or establish its value.
THE QUESTION THIS DECISION LEAVES
The licence bond is required “in order to indemnify” clients who suffer prejudice arising from the non-performance or execution of construction work.
Yet the published decision confirms that where there is no final judgment and the surety refuses to enter into an agreement or transaction, the RBQ cannot determine whether the claim is well-founded or establish its value.
What protection does the licence bond provide before a homeowner has already borne the cost and burden of obtaining a civil judgment?
The published decision confirms that, where the surety refuses to enter into an agreement or transaction, the RBQ bond mechanism cannot proceed with the claim unless the homeowner first obtains a final judgment from a civil court.
This website presents the record of one claim.
The published decision is publicly available.
Supporting documents referenced in the chronology may be requested for examination.
CONTINUE TO THE RECORD →