Is the Contingency Fund Sufficient? The Question Every Buyer Should Ask

Most buyers don't ask it. They ask about the unit, the condo fees, the parking spot, and they insist on an inspection. But the inspector looks at the unit, and at most the common areas around it. No one checks whether the building can pay for its roof, its windows and its garage over the next ten years, and that is the question that decides what the condo really costs. It rarely gets asked until a special assessment (cotisation spéciale) answers it.

So the broker has to ask it for them. Since August 2025, Quebec has a way to answer it: a professional study that says what the fund should hold. But existing buildings have until August 2028 to get one, and for the next few years many files won't have it. The first step is finding out what you are working with.

What the fund is for

Under article 1071 of the Civil Code, the contingency fund (fonds de prévoyance) pays for major repairs and replacements of the common portions: the roof, the envelope, windows, elevators, the garage slab, mechanical systems. It belongs to the syndicate (syndicat de copropriétaires), and part of it must stay available in the short term. Operating costs and routine maintenance come out of the regular budget, not the fund. A fund that has been used to cover operating deficits is weaker than its balance suggests.

First, find out what you're working with

Every file falls into one of four situations, and the attestation and the minutes (procès-verbaux) usually tell you which.

1. 01A compliant studyObtained since August 14, 2023 from an eligible professional. The attestation shows a recommended amount next to the fund balance.
2. 02An older studyObtained before August 14, 2023. It must be replaced by August 15, 2028, and its recommendation may rest on costs and assumptions that no longer hold.
3. 03A study in progressThe minutes show the board has hired a professional. The results, and often a new contribution level, are still to come.
4. 04No studyThe attestation shows a balance with nothing to compare it to.

If the documents don't make it clear, ask the syndicate for the study's date and author. The answer decides which of the next two sections applies.

When there is a compliant study

The study is prepared by an independent professional: an engineer, architect, professional technologist or chartered appraiser, or a chartered professional accountant. It starts from the maintenance log's 25-year plan of major work, prices each item in the year it is expected, and recommends how much the fund should hold at the start of each year and how much should be paid in. It is renewed at least every five years. The board sets contributions on the basis of the study, and if the fund is short, the transition rules give it ten years from the first study to reach a sufficient level.

That last rule matters to a buyer. A building can follow its catch-up plan to the letter and still be well short today. The catch-up is paid through higher contributions over the coming years, and your buyer will be paying them.

Three comparisons tell you most of what you need.

1. First, the fund balance against the study's recommended amount: the gap is the current shortfall.
2. Second, this year's budgeted contribution against the study's recommended contribution: if the budget is lower, the gap is growing, and the minutes should say why.
3. Third, the work the study and the attestation schedule over the next five to ten years against what the fund will hold when each item comes due: a building can be fine on average and short in one specific year, and that year is when a special assessment happens.

Before relying on the numbers, look at the study itself. Check that it was built on a current maintenance log (carnet d'entretien), look at its inflation and interest assumptions, and find out which scenario the board adopted if it was given more than one.

When there isn't one

This is the most common situation today, and the question still has an answer. You can't say precisely how much the fund should hold, but you can tell whether the building is keeping up or falling behind.

Start with the building's age and its major components. A building from the 1980s with original windows and a roof replaced in 2000 has major work coming whatever the fund holds. Older engineering reports, the minutes and the attestation's list of work done in the last five years show what has already been replaced.

Then look at the fund over time. Three years of financial statements show whether it is growing, flat or being drawn down, and for what. A flat fund with flat contributions is losing ground every year, because construction costs are not flat.

Finally, read the minutes for what has been discussed, quoted and deferred, and for past special assessments. A building that has needed them before, and keeps putting off the same item, is telling you what comes next.

One risk is specific to this situation. A building that contributed a flat percentage for years often sees a sharp increase when its first real study arrives, because the study prices 25 years of work at once. If the minutes show a study has been commissioned, ask when it is expected. A buyer purchasing just before it lands may be buying into the increase without knowing it.

Two files, side by side

Two illustrative examples

With a study

40 units · built 2005

Recommended fund, start of 2026

$520,000

Fund today

$310,000

Current shortfall

$210,000

2026 contribution vs recommended

$60,000 / $95,000

Fund in 2029 vs envelope and windows

~$490,000 / $650,000

A 40-unit building from 2005 received its first compliant study in 2025. It recommends a fund of $520,000 at the start of 2026 and contributions of $95,000 a year, and it schedules the envelope and windows for 2029 at $650,000. The attestation shows $310,000 in the fund, and the 2026 budget contributes $60,000. The fund is $210,000 short, the budget is widening the gap, and at this pace the fund will hold about $490,000 in 2029 against a $650,000 bill. Contributions are likely to rise, and a special assessment around 2029 is a real possibility.

Without a study

24 units · built 1990

Fund today

$140,000

Fund three years ago

about the same

Contributions

unchanged since 2021

Windows

original, "to be planned" twice

Study

commissioned, due in spring

A 24-unit building from 1990 has $140,000 in its fund, about the same as three years ago, and contributions unchanged since 2021. The windows are original. The minutes list them as "to be planned" at two consecutive annual meetings, and the latest minutes show a study was commissioned, with results expected in the spring. There is no recommended amount to compare against, but every signal points the same way: a fund that isn't growing, a major component near the end of its life, and a study about to put a price on it.

Neither building is in crisis. In both, your buyer should know what is coming before firming up.

Your buyer's share

Per-unit averages are a useful first read, but they are not what your buyer will pay. Contributions and special assessments are allocated according to each fraction's relative value (valeur relative) in the declaration of co-ownership (déclaration de copropriété), its quote-part. A larger unit can carry well above the average share.

To turn a shortfall into a figure your buyer can use, multiply it by the unit's relative value. In the first example, the $160,000 gap expected in 2029 is $4,000 per unit on average, but $5,120 for a unit with a 3.2% share. That is the number that belongs in the conversation.

What to do with it

• Establish which of the four situations the file is in, and ask for the study's date and author if it isn't clear.
• With a study, make the three comparisons and check which scenario the board adopted.
• Without one, read three years of statements and minutes for the fund's trend, the contribution history and what has been deferred, and ask whether a study has been commissioned.
• Use the unit's relative value from the declaration, not an average, to estimate your buyer's share.

Sources

• Civil Code of Québec, art. 1071
• Regulation establishing various rules concerning divided co-ownership, s. 7