A DOCUMENTED CHRONOLOGY
This page follows the chronology recorded in the RBQ's published revision decision and the documents submitted in the claim and revision process.
The purpose is simple: to show what was submitted, what was confirmed, and what happened next.
OCTOBER 22, 2023 — THE CONTRACT
A contract was signed with Quali-Réno P.M. Inc., a licensed RBQ contractor, for renovation work in the bathroom and laundry room of the residence. Contract value: $19,656.12.
MARCH–MAY 2024 — THE WORK
Renovation work was performed, including the demolition and reconstruction of wall assemblies in both rooms. This type of work is subject to vapour-barrier requirements under the Code de construction du Québec, Division B, Part 9, section 9.25.
APRIL 1, 2025 — THE CLAIM
The homeowner filed a claim with the Régie du bâtiment du Québec seeking recourse under the contractor's licence bond.
The claim sought $40,000 for deficiencies arising from the construction work. The principal issue identified in the published decision was the absence of a vapour barrier in the laundry room and bathroom. Supporting documentation included an engineering report. See May 16, 2025, below.
MAY 16, 2025 — THE ENGINEERING REPORT
Engineer Jessica Courte, ing. (OIQ No. 6019175) issued an expert report concluding that no vapour barrier was present in the inspected areas and identifying this as the source of the damage. She recommended that the walls be opened and a vapour barrier installed.
MAY 20, 2025 — THE FILE IS TRANSMITTED TO THE SURETY
The RBQ transmitted the claim file to the surety, Intact Assurance, and requested its consent to conclude an agreement.
MAY 23, 2025 — THE SURETY REFUSES
The surety refused to recognize the claim and required the homeowner to obtain a civil court judgment.
MAY 28, 2025 — NOTICE OF INTENDED REFUSAL
The RBQ informed the homeowner of its intention to refuse the claim because there was no final judgment or agreement with the surety.
JUNE 5, 2025 — OBSERVATIONS AND NEW EVIDENCE
The RBQ transmitted the homeowner's observations and additional evidence to the surety for reconsideration of the claim file. The material included the engineering report dated May 16, 2025.
JUNE 20, 2025 — THE SURETY MAINTAINS ITS REFUSAL
The surety informed the RBQ that it maintained its decision not to conclude an agreement with the homeowner. The published decision states that this led to the RBQ's first decision refusing recourse to the licence bond.
JULY 4, 2025 — THE FIRST DECISION
The RBQ issued its first decision refusing to proceed with the homeowner's claim against the contractor's licence bond.
JULY 2025 — THE WALLS ARE OPENED
After the first decision, portions of the laundry-room and bathroom walls were dismantled. Photographs were taken of the exposed wall assemblies.
JULY 25, 2025 — THE ENGINEER CONFIRMS THE PHYSICAL CONDITION
Engineer Jessica Courte issued a letter confirming that no vapour barrier was present behind the drywall or insulation in the areas inspected. She stated that the physical observation corroborated the findings in her original engineering report dated May 16, 2025.
JULY 30, 2025 — APPLICATION FOR REVISION
The homeowner filed an application for revision of the RBQ's July 4 decision. The application included the July photographs and the engineer's July 25 letter as additional evidence obtained after the first decision.
AUGUST 8, 2025 — THE REVISION HEARING IS CONVENED
The Bureau des régisseurs issued a notice convening the homeowner to a hearing to determine whether the first decision should be maintained, reversed, or modified. The notice was also transmitted to the contractor and the surety.
APRIL 17, 2026 — THE HEARING
The revision hearing was held before the Bureau des régisseurs.
The contractor's representative, Patrick Martin of Quali-Réno P.M. Inc., was present but made no representations.
The surety's representative was absent. By email dated April 17, 2026, he confirmed that he did not intend to make representations and relied entirely on the RBQ's arguments.
MAY 20, 2026 — THE REVISION DECISION
The Bureau rejected the application for revision and maintained the RBQ's July 4, 2025 decision.
The Bureau concluded that the RBQ had followed the process prescribed by law and that, following the surety's refusal to conclude an agreement, it had no other choice but to refuse to proceed with the claim.
The Bureau further stated that the RBQ cannot, in licence-bond matters, substitute itself for civil courts to determine whether a claim is well founded or establish its value — even where the evidence could be determinative in proving the presence of a construction defect. (Decision 2025-42-118, paragraph 39.)
The decision noted that the homeowner could pursue a civil action and, if applicable, later submit a new claim to the RBQ to seek recourse under the licence bond.
WHAT THE CHRONOLOGY SHOWS
The record documents a claim filed on April 1, 2025.
An engineering report was submitted. The surety refused to recognize the claim and required a judgment. The RBQ sought reconsideration after receiving additional evidence. The surety maintained its refusal.
After the first decision, additional photographs and an engineer's letter were submitted in revision. The published decision records that the engineer's physical observation corroborated her original report.
The Bureau nevertheless concluded that the RBQ's role in licence-bond matters is limited by the regulatory framework and that it could not determine whether the claim was well founded or establish its value.
The chronology is not an allegation. It is the sequence recorded in the RBQ's own published decision.
CONTINUE TO THE DECISION →