Treadstone Associates
Case File № 806 · Construction & Land

No licence, no draw

a Granby accessibility retrofit's structural work needed an RBQ-licensed contractor

Widening a load-bearing doorway for wheelchair access is construction work requiring a Regie du batiment du Quebec licence, including for an owner-arranged renovation. A Granby family's unlicensed handyman triggered a funding-condition hold on the final draw until a properly RBQ-licensed contractor, verified against the public registry, took over the work.

QuebecInsured · Purchase-plus-improvementsFiled August 9, 20265 min read
$24,000 

the accessibility retrofit -- a load-bearing doorway widened and a bathroom converted to a roll-in shower

9 days

the final draw held until a licensed contractor, verified against the RBQ's public registry, took over

41.5%

total debt service, comfortably inside CMHC's 44% cap

Anonymized illustration. The borrowers, dollar figures, and rates in this file are an illustrative composite — no real client is identifiable, and any rate shown is illustrative, not a quote. The rules are real: every regulatory figure is cited to its source in the Sources section, and the math computes exactly as shown.

№ 01

The client

A buyer in Granby financed a $318,000 purchase with a $24,000 accessibility retrofit under a purchase-plus-improvements mortgage -- widening a load-bearing doorway and converting a bathroom to a roll-in shower for wheelchair access.

Purchase price

$318,000, Granby

10% down, insured

Accessibility retrofit

$24,000

Load-bearing doorway widened, roll-in shower conversion

Original contractor

An unlicensed handyman

No RBQ licence for structural work

Buyer's income

$6,800/month

№ 02

The problem

Under Quebec's Building Act, any person who performs or commissions construction work -- foundation, alteration, structural renovation -- must hold a licence from the Regie du batiment du Quebec (RBQ), and the requirement reaches an owner-arranged renovation as well as a professional builder's own project.

What the lender's funding condition caught

  • The family had hired a handyman to widen a load-bearing doorway -- structural work, squarely inside the Building Act's licence requirement
  • The handyman held no RBQ licence at all for this category of work
  • The lender's own funding condition for the final draw required proof of a licensed contractor before releasing the balance

The retrofit itself was never in question. Who was legally allowed to build it was.

№ 03

The numbers

The retrofit's cost never changed; what changed was who was licensed to actually perform the structural portion of the work.

Financing the retrofit, regardless of which contractor performed itAmount
As-improved lending value (purchase + retrofit)$342,000
CMHC premium (3.10% at 90% LTV)+$9,542
Total insured mortgage$317,342
Total debt serviceFigure
Payment at the qualifying rate (6.95%), 25 years$2,213/mo
Property tax$295/mo
Heat$115/mo
Car loan$200/mo
Total debt service41.5%

41.5% clears comfortably inside CMHC's 44% ceiling, unaffected by the licensing question -- the retrofit's cost and the mortgage math were never in doubt. What held the final draw was a funding condition, not the ratios, a pattern consistent with how closely lenders now tie construction holdback releases to verified, licensed work.

№ 04

The solution

A courtier hypothecaire licensed under Quebec's Act respecting the distribution of financial products and services treated the licensing gap as a condition to satisfy, not a reason to abandon the retrofit or the file.

First, confirmed with the RBQ's own public licence registry that the original handyman held no licence for structural renovation work at all. The requirement is not a formality; the Building Act reaches an owner-arranged renovation directly.

Second, engaged a properly RBQ-licensed contractor for the structural doorway work, verifying the new contractor's licence number and category against the same public registry before any further work proceeded.

Third, resumed the draw once the lender's funding condition was satisfied, with the licensed contractor's own documentation supporting the remaining, inspected progress.

RBQ public-registry verification of any contractor performing structural work
Purchase-plus-improvements draw schedule tied to inspected, licensed progress
Written confirmation from the lender of its own funding condition on contractor licensing
Standard insured-purchase documentation for income, down payment and credit
№ 05

The outcome

The purchase funded insured at 41.5% total debt service, with the structural work completed by a verified, RBQ-licensed contractor and Quebec's welcome tax on the $318,000 purchase coming to $2,880.

Because this file is CMHC-insured, the 41.5% TDS figure is measured against the real 44% ceiling and the 38.6% GDS figure against the real 39% ceiling; both clear with real margin.

№ 06

What to take from this file

  • 01Quebec's RBQ licence requirement reaches an owner-arranged renovation, not just a professional builder's project. Structural work -- including widening a load-bearing doorway -- needs a licensed contractor either way.
  • 02Verify a contractor's licence against the RBQ's own public registry before work begins, not after a lender's funding condition catches the gap.
  • 03A licensing gap is a funding-condition problem, not a ratio problem. The mortgage math in this file was never the obstacle.
  • 04An accessibility retrofit's structural elements deserve the same licensing scrutiny as any other construction work. The purpose of the renovation does not change what the Building Act requires.

Sources

Every regulatory figure in this file traces to one of these primary sources. Client details and anything that varies by lender are illustrative, as flagged below.

Illustrative in this file — lender-specific, not rules:

  • 4.95% contract rate — rates move daily; not a quote.
  • the 9-day draw delay — how long a licensing gap actually delays a draw depends on the lender's own funding-condition process and how quickly a replacement contractor can be engaged.

Authority & provenance

How this case file was built

We publish the origin, the verification method and the reviewer for every case file, so you can judge how far to trust it before you rely on it with a client.

Where it comes from

Derived from files handled by Treadstone’s fulfillment desk and from scenarios contributed by partner brokerages. Names, employers, exact amounts and dates are changed so no client or file is identifiable.

Provenance: Composite — a pattern seen repeatedly on fulfilled files, not a single transaction.

What is verified

Every regulatory figure traces to a primary source listed above and was checked against it on the date shown. The arithmetic is recomputed by machine on every rebuild.

Anything that varies by lender is labelled illustrative rather than stated as a rule.

Who reviewed it

Reviewed for Canadian regulatory accuracy before publication, and re-checked whenever a cited rule changes.

Reviewed by: Nicholas Parson, Treadstone Associates — reviews every case file before publication.

First published 9 August 2026Rules last verified 9 August 2026Next scheduled review 9 February 2027

This case file is professional reference material for licensed mortgage professionals. It is not advice to a borrower, and it is not a lender commitment. Insurer rules, qualifying rates and provincial taxes change — confirm the current position with the insurer, regulator or lender before you rely on any figure here in a live file.

Treadstone fulfillment

Files like this are daily work for our desk.

Document collection, ratio math under multiple treatments, lender placement notes, and submission-ready packaging — for Canadian mortgage brokers who would rather be in front of clients.