Software Development in Canada

About Software Development

We are a small, senior software studio in Noida, Delhi NCR building custom software, web apps, SaaS products, and mobile apps for companies in India and abroad. You work directly with the engineers writing your code, not an account manager or an offshore team you never meet.

What the engagement includes

• You talk to the engineers building your software, directly. No account manager relaying messages, no offshore team you never meet.
• A written scope before any code, and a flat quote inside 24 hours, so the price is set before we start.
• Senior developers on your project from day one. We do not sell junior time at senior rates or swap people in after the sale.
• You own your code, your repo, and your hosting. Nothing is locked to us, and you can walk with everything at any point.
• Small team, direct access. When something breaks a year later, you message the people who built it, not a ticket queue.
• Proof we build real things: our own products PlugEV (an OCPP EV-charging platform), CloudNX (cloud hosting), and ToolKiya (online tools), plus 70+ client projects shipped.

Choosing one supplier for the whole build in Canada: SR&ED, Law 25 and Interac

Ask about SR&ED before you decide how much of the system a single supplier should own, because the answer is usually not the one Canadian buyers expect. The credit is not paid on custom software as such. It is paid on work that sets out to resolve a technological uncertainty that standard practice could not resolve, which is a narrow slice of most builds and often the hardest slice. On top of that, the expenditure generally has to be for work carried on in Canada, so development we perform in Noida is unlikely to end up in an eligible pool however difficult it was. Your accountant or SR&ED adviser is the one to confirm the position for your own circumstances, and we would rather that happened while the scope is being written than after a budget has assumed a recovery. What it changes is where the line between your engineers and ours falls. Where a client intends to claim, the uncertain part usually stays with their own Canadian team and we take the system around it: the data layer, the interfaces, the admin, the integrations, the deployment and the long tail of everything the claimable work needs before it can ship. We are used to being scoped that way. It means clean boundaries and a repository somebody else can work in, and it means commit history and issue tracking kept legible per work stream rather than squashed into a single handover, because a claim rests on contemporaneous evidence of what was attempted and when.

If your business operates in Quebec, Law 25 reaches into application logic further than the federal act does, and on a whole-system build the obligation lands in your scope rather than in some component vendor's, because nobody supplying one piece of the stack will be asked for it. Since September 2023, an organisation that makes a decision about someone based exclusively on automated processing of their personal information has to tell that person so at or before the time of the decision, and on request tell them what personal information was used, the reasons and the principal factors and parameters that led to it, and their right to have that information corrected. The person also has to be able to put observations to a member of staff in a position to review the outcome. There is no legal or similarly significant effect threshold of the kind the European regime carries, so plainer product logic can sit in scope: an eligibility rule that filters an applicant out, a score that decides which queue an application joins, an approval that clears without anyone reading it. In code that means a decision record written at the moment the decision is made, holding the inputs and the parameter values that were live then, plus a review path in the admin that a person can actually act on. Adding it afterwards means reconstructing decisions from data nobody kept. The portability right that followed in September 2024 has the same shape: handing a person back, in a structured and commonly used technological format, the computerised information they themselves provided is an endpoint somebody has to build, not a query an operator runs by hand. Whether Law 25 applies to you at all is a question for your counsel, and it is far cheaper to answer it in week one than in an audit.

Money is the other place a Canadian build diverges from the same product elsewhere, and when one supplier is writing the whole system the payment layer is a design decision rather than something a hosted checkout settles for you. Buyers arrive expecting the card flow from every tutorial, then find that a real share of what they need to collect arrives by Interac e-Transfer, which is a push payment. The payer initiates it, so there is no authorisation to hold and capture later, no chargeback in the card sense, and reconciliation means matching an inbound deposit notification to an open invoice rather than reading a webhook for a charge you started. That is a different state machine, and an application written around card semantics gets reworked rather than configured when e-Transfer is added later. Autodeposit changes the shape again, since the money lands without a security question being answered and the sender name and message become most of what you have to reconcile against. Request Money moves the initiation back to you but not the settlement, and the per-transfer and daily limits belong to each payer's own financial institution rather than to you, which is what decides whether e-Transfer can carry your larger invoices at all. Payments Canada's Real Time Rail, the account to account rail a lot of this would eventually sit on, has slipped more than once, so it is not something to hang a launch date on. The same caution applies upstream: a Canadian company replacing an existing system usually has an acquirer already, often Moneris or a gateway supplied by its own bank, and keeping it is normally cheaper than migrating it in the middle of a build. We would rather design around the rails you are actually on than around the ones the documentation assumes.

How we work with Canadian clients

Two things shape Canadian projects more than anything technical. The first is language: if you serve Quebec, French is a legal requirement rather than a nice addition, and the rules tightened considerably under Bill 96. The French version has to be available on equal terms with the English one, which is a design constraint from the first wireframe rather than a translation task at the end.

The second is anti-spam law. CASL is stricter than most teams expect, and the penalties are real. Consent has to be express or clearly implied, records of it have to be kept, and every commercial message needs a working unsubscribe and accurate sender identification. We build those into the product rather than leaving them to whoever configures the mailing tool later, because that is where the exposure usually sits.

Questions Canadian clients ask

Software Development: common questions

Other markets we work in