Anonymised, illustrative composite. Ontario's shift to a mandatory annual holdback release gave a general contractor a firmer cash calendar to plan around — and the fleet utilization review it triggered found three leases not worth carrying through it.
At a glance
An Ontario general contractor ran a mixed fleet of owned and leased equipment across several active sites. Since 1 January 2026, holdback on every one of its active contracts has released on a different schedule than before — a change that gave the office a reason to look hard at what the fleet was actually costing against that new schedule.
The Construction Act amendment that took effect 1 January 2026 changed how holdback comes back to a payer: it moved from a discretionary release to a required one. ODACC records the change with a date, twice: “further revisions occurred on January 1, 2026”, and Treadstone Law describes the mechanism directly: “since 1 January 2026 accrued holdback must be released annually rather than at the payer's option”, on top of the 10% retained under the Act in the first place. That is a firmer, more predictable cash calendar than the contractor had been planning around — and it made the cost of equipment sitting idle between draws harder to ignore.
A six-month utilization review across the 11 leased units found eight running at 71% or better — clearly earning their monthly payment — and three well under 30%: a compactor at 22%, a second skid steer at 26%, and a mobile generator at 19%. Those three carried combined monthly lease payments of $2,100 + $2,600 + $2,200 = $6,900/month. Annualized, that is $6,900 × 12 = $82,800/year going out for equipment that, on the review’s own numbers, was idle roughly three-quarters of the time.
The Construction Act change was the trigger, not a technicality to work around. Ontario now requires the payer to release accrued holdback on a fixed annual cycle rather than deferring it at will, which means the contractor can plan cash inflows with more certainty than it could a year earlier — but it also means the cash tied up in underused equipment between those fixed release points is now easier to see, and harder to justify.
Two of the three leases were allowed to run to term and returned; the third, the mobile generator, was bought out early once the numbers showed it was cheaper than another 14 months of an under-25%-utilized lease. The $82,800/year freed up was redirected toward the equipment actually running at capacity, timed against the now-predictable annual holdback release instead of a discretionary one. For the tracking behind the review, see tracking equipment utilization across active sites and tracking Ontario holdback release dates automatically. The bonding-capacity decision that followed a similar financial tightening at a different firm is in why a surety cut a contractor's bonding capacity.
Left unreviewed, the three underused units would have kept costing $82,800 a year indefinitely — over three more years on those lease terms, roughly $248,400 paid for equipment running at under 30% utilization, money that never shows up as a single alarming number because it is spread thin across three ordinary-looking monthly payments.
A firmer, more predictable cash-release calendar is itself a signal to look at what else assumed the old, less certain one — a fleet sized around uncertain cash timing often carries more idle capacity than one sized around a fixed release schedule, simply because "buffer equipment" stops being necessary once the calendar is fixed.
Utilization was tracked as billed or logged operating hours against total available hours in the six-month window, not against whether a unit was simply present on a site — a distinction that matters, since equipment can sit mobilized on a job without actually running. The compactor at 22%, the second skid steer at 26% and the generator at 19% were each running fewer than one day in four on average, against monthly payments that assume something closer to steady use. The eight units kept at 71%-plus utilization were not merely "not flagged" — they were running close enough to capacity that ending their leases would have created rental costs exceeding what the lease payments already cost, the opposite of what happened with the three that were cut.
Running the utilization check across all 11 units at once, rather than investigating units individually as concerns came up, is what surfaced three low performers the office had not otherwise flagged — none of the three had triggered a complaint or an obvious problem on its own; they were simply quietly underused next to eight units that were not. A fleet review conducted only when a specific unit looks like a problem misses exactly this pattern, because chronic low utilization rarely announces itself the way a breakdown or a scheduling conflict does.
A 30-minute call is enough to tell you whether AI pays for itself here.
