Capital
Most of what it takes to qualify for SR&ED or IRAP is decided while the work is being planned and built — not when the claim is filed. We sit on the technical side of that, so the funding case is built alongside the product.
Talk to usNon-dilutive capital
Canada funds R&D more generously than most countries, and software development frequently qualifies. The programs reward companies that plan for them.
The Scientific Research and Experimental Development program is Canada's largest support for business R&D, delivered through the tax system as credits against eligible development work. Much of what a software team already does — resolving genuine technical uncertainty, building and testing approaches that might not work — can qualify. The difficulty is rarely the work itself; it is demonstrating afterwards that the work met the bar.
The Industrial Research Assistance Program supports innovation projects through advisory services and funding contributions, delivered via the National Research Council and its network of advisors. Unlike SR&ED it is assessed before the work happens, which makes the framing of the project and the strength of the plan central to the outcome.
The two programs operate on different timelines — one assessed up front, the other claimed after the fact — so they are frequently pursued in sequence across a single development cycle. Planning them together, rather than discovering the second one late, materially changes how much support a project can attract.
How we help
We map eligible work while a project is being planned, and usually project it across more than the current fiscal year. For an early-stage company that turns SR&ED from a year-end surprise into something you can actually budget against — and defend in a pitch deck, where a credible non-dilutive line changes how much you need to raise.
Most companies under-claim. Not because they are not doing qualifying work, but because the qualifying parts are not recognised as such while they happen, and the evidence is gone by the time anyone goes looking. Knowing where to look is most of the job.
A claim turns on whether the technical uncertainty is legible to a reviewer. We write those reports — either directly, or alongside a specialist claim preparer we pair you with. The engineering detail comes from people who were in the build, not reconstructed from a timesheet.
The evidence a claim needs is generated while the work is done, not after it. We build it into how the team already operates — commit history, decision records, experiment logs — so substantiation is a byproduct rather than a project of its own.
We have submitted successful proposals across Canada and work regularly with Industrial Technology Advisors, so we know how a project gets evaluated and what a proposal has to demonstrate. IRAP is assessed on merit — what we bring is knowing how to present the work clearly, not a shortcut around that.
IRAP contributions are frequently tied to hiring, and a contribution that commits you to headcount you did not need is expensive money. Sometimes the honest answer is that a program is not worth pursuing this year, or that the role it would fund is the wrong role. We would rather say that than book the work.
Venture readiness
When investors get serious, someone technical looks under the hood — at the architecture, the roadmap, the team's ability to execute what the deck promises, and whether the timeline is credible.
We prepare founders for that conversation and, where useful, sit in it. That means an architecture that survives scrutiny, a roadmap defensible on engineering grounds, and technical claims a founder can stand behind.
We also know investors, and we make introductions where there is a genuine fit — the right stage, the right sector, a company we would put our own name beside. That is a small number of the companies we talk to, and we would rather make one introduction that lands than ten that waste everyone's time.
To be clear about scope: we are not a placement agent and we do not raise capital on your behalf. We make the technical side of your company hold up when it is examined, and open a door when we think it should be open.
How we engage
Most of this work happens on a normal commercial footing. But for a small number of companies we would rather take equity and stay involved for the long run — which is usually the arrangement that makes the higher-level work possible in the first place.
Funding strategy, technical leadership and investor readiness are not one-off deliverables. They compound over years, and they work best when the people doing them have a reason to still be there in year three. Sharing the upside is the cleanest way we have found to align that.
It is not the right structure for every company, and we will not push it where a straightforward engagement serves you better. But if you are building something we would want a stake in, say so early.
The earlier funding enters the conversation, the more of it tends to be available. A short call is usually enough to tell whether there is anything worth pursuing.
Start a ConversationThis page is general information about Canadian innovation funding programs, not tax, accounting, or legal advice. Program eligibility, rates, and limits change — confirm current details with the Canada Revenue Agency, the National Research Council, and your own advisors before making decisions.