WHAT THE BUREAU DECIDED
On May 20, 2026, the Bureau des régisseurs dismissed the homeowner's application for revision.
The Bureau maintained the RBQ's refusal to proceed with the claim against the contractor's licence bond.
The decision did not determine that the alleged construction defects were absent.
It concluded that the RBQ could not determine whether the claim was well founded or establish its value without a final judgment or an agreement with the surety.
The result: the refusal remained in place.
THE BUREAU'S REASONING
The Bureau examined whether the additional evidence submitted in revision changed the outcome.
At paragraph 39, it addressed the engineer's confirmation that no vapour barrier was present in the areas inspected.
The Bureau noted that the engineer's July 2025 letter corroborated her original May 2025 report and therefore did not constitute a new fact justifying revision.
The Bureau stated that even if this evidence were determinative in proving the presence of a construction defect, it could not determine whether the claim was well founded or establish its value.
The obstacle identified in the decision was therefore not simply whether a defect could be proven. It was whether the RBQ could decide the claim in the absence of a final judgment or the surety's agreement.
THE ROLE OF THE SURETY
The published decision records that the RBQ transmitted the claim file to the surety and sought its consent to an agreement or transaction.
The surety, Intact Assurance, refused.
After further observations and evidence were submitted, the file was again considered by the surety. The surety maintained its refusal to conclude an agreement with the homeowner.
The surety's refusal was therefore central to the procedural outcome recorded in the decision.
WHAT THE DECISION DID NOT DETERMINE
The decision did not determine that a vapour barrier was present in the areas inspected.
It did not reject the engineer's physical observation that no vapour barrier was present.
It did not determine that the contractor's work was free of construction defects.
It did not determine the value of the homeowner's claim.
Those questions were not decided.
The application for revision was dismissed on the legal and procedural reasoning set out in the published decision.
READ THE DECISION FOR YOURSELF
The full decision is publicly available from the Régie du bâtiment du Québec.
This website does not ask the reader to accept a characterization of the decision in place of the decision itself.
Read the published decision. Compare it with the documented chronology. Examine the record.
CONTINUE TO THE BOND →