A renewal can keep the same customer and annual fee while changing the work included. The useful owner question is what that change does to the cost of delivering the agreement. A recurring payment is a starting point for that calculation, not the answer.
What’s In this Issue?
The Toronto transaction · Comparing service scope · A fictional renewal · Testing the price
The businesses and the transaction
KONE’s September 29, 2025 announcement described an agreement to acquire Cantech, a Toronto elevator maintenance and modernization business. Lift Business Advisors’ transaction record instead lists August 2025 finalization, and adviser Jeff Eaton’s post reports an August close. These accounts leave the exact legal closing day unresolved.
KONE supplied elevators, escalators, doors, maintenance and modernization. It described Cantech’s markets as residential and commercial, and said the combination would strengthen its Greater Toronto position through expertise, portfolio and reach. Results are not established.
Eaton’s account identifies Kevin Chan as Cantech’s founder in 2003 and Mike Leitch as a later co-owner. The post quotes Leitch describing the search for a buyer that would preserve the business’s people and legacy. That gives the seller perspective without establishing what happened after the transaction.
The sources do not establish price or acquired customer terms. The exercise below is separate from the transaction; it estimates neither Cantech’s earnings nor KONE’s acquisition return.
Compare the work, then the package name
On KONE’s Canadian maintenance page, Essential covers examination and lubrication checks, but excludes parts costs and calls. Advanced adds minor parts and regular-time calls; Premier describes major and minor parts plus regular-time calls. Those distinctions concern included work, not just a different label.
Ontario provider Elevator One describes LOG as routine maintenance with extra parts and visits chargeable. FM adds parts repair or replacement, with exclusions. FMX extends emergency minor-adjustment callbacks outside business hours, keeping FM’s parts boundaries. That is a particular extension, not a promise to include every repair around the clock.
Both pages are undated marketing descriptions read on September 28, 2026. They neither establish Cantech’s agreements nor make the providers’ packages equivalent. The comparison helps identify what to investigate in an actual scope document; it cannot substitute for one.
Build a fictional renewal from the work up
Everything in the following example is invented: the customer, agreement, units, event counts and costs. The amounts are Canadian dollars for one twelve-month period, not company data, engineering estimates or industry benchmarks. There is one customer, two covered units—U-A and U-B—and an annual fixed fee of C$12,000. Version 1 is the baseline; Version 2 is the proposed renewal.
Give the agreement an ID and retain both versions. Then connect each included activity to its unit, a distinct event record, a count and a direct cost. That lets the owner explain a change instead of trying to remember which email or work order justified a number. A newer file is useful only if it records what actually changed.
Here is the fictional cost build-up. Rows A–C are included in both versions; D–E are additional stipulated inclusions in Version 2. Each cost is counted once. The per-event amounts include whatever labour, travel and parts the example assigns to that event; they are not added again elsewhere.
A. Scheduled work: 40 hours at C$100, costing C$4,000.
B. Regular-hours callbacks: four events at C$250, costing C$1,000.
C. Minor-parts events: five at C$200, costing C$1,000.
D. Specified after-hours callbacks: two at C$600, adding C$1,200.
E. A specified major-parts event: one at C$1,800, adding C$1,800.
Rows D and E sit outside Version 1’s stipulated fixed-fee scope. Their zero contribution to that version’s calculation does not mean zero overall liability or automatically billable extra work. This exercise assumes no separate orders or additional revenue. It isolates what including those rows would do to this fee.
The baseline costs C$6,000 to deliver within the model, leaving C$6,000 from the fee. Version 2 costs C$9,000 and leaves C$3,000. The same customer is still paying the same amount. What changed was the included work. Looking only at the annual fee would miss the entire C$3,000 difference.
Call the amount left a residual before omitted costs. Overhead, insurance, financing, tax, capital costs and other unlisted expenses have not been deducted. It is not profit, and it says nothing about the return on an acquisition.
Choose a price and scope together
Under these assumptions, offering Version 2 at C$15,000 would restore the original C$6,000 residual in dollars. It would not restore the original percentage of the fee. Nor does the arithmetic tell us whether the customer would accept the offer. It gives the owner a clearly explained proposal to evaluate.
A second option is to negotiate a narrower renewal and recalculate the rows that remain included. A third is to keep the expanded scope at C$12,000 and accept the modeled C$3,000 residual before omitted costs. Neither is automatically wrong; the example provides the consequence, not a recommendation. Any scope change needs agreement, and leaving work outside the fee does not create a right to invoice it separately.
The record should make the choice visible. For each changed row, preserve the relevant version, inclusion status, event IDs, count period and cost basis. Match the cost to its underlying work-time or parts record. If one event produced several records, check that it has not appeared twice. The purpose is an explainable offer, not a larger spreadsheet.
Test what would overturn the offer
First, change frequency. Suppose Row D occurs five times instead of twice, with everything else unchanged. Three additional events at C$600 add C$1,800. Version 2 now costs C$10,800, leaving C$1,200 at the original C$12,000 fee or C$4,200 at the proposed C$15,000.
In this scenario, a fee of C$16,800 would restore the C$6,000 dollar residual. That is a conditional calculation, not a forecast of five events or a suggested market price. The earlier offer has lost its stated economic result. Before relying on it, the owner would need to revisit the count assumption and consider whether a different price or agreed scope makes sense.
Next, change what is known. Suppose nobody can establish whether Row E belongs inside the proposed renewal. The other rows total C$7,200, but that is only a subtotal. Subtracting it from the fee would present an incomplete result as if the missing obligation cost nothing. The proposal remains unpriced until its scope is resolved.
Keep that uncertainty separate from frequency uncertainty. A count can be tested through scenarios; an unresolved inclusion cannot simply be assigned a convenient zero. Obtain the operative document and appropriate interpretation, then update the affected row. That may change the offer, or it may show that the proposed addition was already included and should never have been counted twice.
The useful output is a decision the owner can explain: this version includes this work, these are the assumed costs, and these changes would make us reconsider the offer. A renewal deserves that explanation even when the customer name and annual fee look reassuringly familiar.
For general information and education, not legal, tax, investment or valuation advice. The fictional example is not technical guidance and does not predict your business’s value, service costs or sale outcome. Consult qualified advisers about your situation.
Subscribe to Deal Flow Canada for practical owner guides and Canadian deal updates.