Treadstone Associates
Case File № 256 · Construction & Land

The builder folded mid-build

funding the finish without reopening an insured PEI file

When the general contractor on a PEI new-build went insolvent, the replacement contractor's quote to finish the same remaining scope ran $22,000 over the original budget. Funding the shortfall in cash, rather than increasing the insured mortgage, avoided a fresh insurer submission on an already-approved file.

Prince Edward IslandInsured · Builder defaultFiled August 9, 20265 min read
$152,000

in draws already released before the original builder became insolvent

$22,000

more the new contractor quoted to finish the exact same remaining scope

37.4%

GDS once the build finished -- the mortgage itself was never re-underwritten

Anonymized illustration. The borrowers, dollar figures, and rates in this file are an illustrative composite — no real client is identifiable, and any rate shown is illustrative, not a quote. The rules are real: every regulatory figure is cited to its source in the Sources section, and the math computes exactly as shown.

№ 01

The client

A PEI family with an insured construction (draw) mortgage on a $400,000 as-complete contract value, $152,000 of which had already been drawn and paid to the original general contractor before that contractor became insolvent partway through the build and stopped work entirely -- part of the ordinary churn behind Canadian housing starts each year.

As-complete contract value

$400,000

PEI new-build

Draws already released

$152,000

To the original, now-insolvent builder

Combined income

$8,500 / month

Both salaried

Other debt

Car loan $300/mo

Unchanged through the build

What changed

The original GC became insolvent

Partway through the build, work stopped

№ 02

The problem

With the original contractor gone, the family had to bring in a new general contractor to finish exactly the same remaining scope the first one had walked away from. The new contractor's quote came to $250,000 — $22,000 more than the $228,000 left in the original budget after the $152,000 already drawn. None of that extra cost came from expanding the project; it came from re-mobilizing a new crew on someone else's unfinished work and correcting some framing the original builder had left incomplete or below standard.

Where the extra $22,000 came from

  • Re-mobilization -- a new crew starting fresh on a partially-built site costs more than a continuous build would have
  • Correcting deficient work left by the original contractor before new work could safely proceed on top of it
  • None of it was scope creep -- the finished home is the same home originally contracted for

The insured mortgage itself, $395,200, had already been approved and committed against the original $400,000 as-complete value. Increasing that committed amount to cover the $22,000 gap would have meant resubmitting the file to the insurer: a fresh appraisal, a new loan-to-value calculation, and the delay of running an already-approved insured file back through underwriting a second time.

№ 03

The numbers

The insured mortgage math itself never had to move. What changed was how the shortfall between the two contractors' numbers got covered.

The insured self-build, unchanged throughoutAmount
As-complete contract value$400,000
Minimum down payment (5%)−$20,000
Base mortgage$380,000
CMHC premium -- 4.00% in the 90.01-95% LTV band, capitalized+$15,200
Total insured mortgage$395,200
Where the $22,000 shortfall came fromFigure
Remaining budget after $152,000 in draws (of the $380,000 base mortgage)$228,000
New contractor's quote to finish the same remaining scope$250,000
Shortfall -- funded in cash, not added to the mortgage$22,000

The ratio math, never re-run

Ratio check at the qualifying rateFigure
Minimum qualifying rate on a 4.85% contract rate6.85%
Payment at the qualifying rate, 25 years$2,732
GDS (payment + $310 tax + $140 heat) ÷ $8,500 income37.4%
TDS (GDS numerator + $300 car loan) ÷ $8,500 income41.0%

37.4% and 41.0% are the same figures the file was originally approved on -- because the mortgage amount never changed, the ratio math never needed re-running either.

№ 04

The solution

A mortgage professional working a PEI insured construction file treated the builder's insolvency as a completion problem to solve outside the mortgage, not a reason to reopen it.

First, confirmed exactly what had and hadn't been paid. Reconciled the $152,000 in draws already released against what the original contract said should have been complete at that stage, so the new contractor was quoting on a clearly defined remaining scope, not a guess.

Second, priced the alternative to a cash top-up honestly. Increasing the insured mortgage by $22,000 would have meant a fresh appraisal, a new loan-to-value calculation, and resubmitting an already-approved file to the insurer -- weeks of delay against a family who needed the build finished.

Third, structured the cash top-up to flow alongside the existing draw schedule, not instead of it. The remaining insured holdback and draws still released against the new contractor's certified progress; the family's own $22,000 covered only the specific gap between the two contractors' numbers.

Reconciliation of draws released against the original contract's schedule
New general contractor's signed quote for the remaining scope
Proof of funds for the $22,000 cash top-up
Updated builder's risk and liability insurance for the new contractor
Confirmation from the lender that the insured mortgage amount would not change
№ 05

The outcome

The build finished under the new contractor, funded partly by the remaining insured draws and partly by the family's own $22,000, with the original $395,200 mortgage never re-underwritten. GDS settled at 37.4% and TDS at 41.0%, both inside CMHC's maximums -- exactly where the file already stood before the builder failed.

Prince Edward Island's real property transfer tax rate is currently under dispute between the statute's stated rate and an announced but unconfirmed increase, so no dollar transfer-tax figure is quoted for this file; confirm the applicable rate with the closing lawyer.

№ 06

What to take from this file

  • 01A builder's insolvency is a completion problem, not automatically a mortgage problem. If the insured amount doesn't need to change, the file doesn't need to go back to the insurer.
  • 02A new contractor's quote to finish someone else's unfinished work is rarely just the leftover line items. Re-mobilization and correcting deficient work both cost real money beyond the original remaining budget.
  • 03Weigh a cash top-up against a mortgage increase honestly. Re-underwriting an already-approved insured file costs time most families in this position don't have to spare.
  • 04Reconcile draws released against contracted progress before pricing anything. The new contractor needs a clearly defined remaining scope, not a guess at what's left.
  • 05Keep the insured draw schedule running alongside a cash top-up, not replaced by it. The family's own money covered only the specific gap; the lender's remaining draws still did the rest of the job.

Sources

Every regulatory figure in this file traces to one of these primary sources. Client details and anything that varies by lender are illustrative, as flagged below.

Illustrative in this file — lender-specific, not rules:

  • 4.85% contract rate — rates move daily; not a quote.
  • the new GC's quote — one contractor's repricing of the remaining scope; not a published cost-overrun benchmark.

Authority & provenance

How this case file was built

We publish the origin, the verification method and the reviewer for every case file, so you can judge how far to trust it before you rely on it with a client.

Where it comes from

Derived from files handled by Treadstone’s fulfillment desk and from scenarios contributed by partner brokerages. Names, employers, exact amounts and dates are changed so no client or file is identifiable.

Provenance: Composite — a pattern seen repeatedly on fulfilled files, not a single transaction.

What is verified

Every regulatory figure traces to a primary source listed above and was checked against it on the date shown. The arithmetic is recomputed by machine on every rebuild.

Anything that varies by lender is labelled illustrative rather than stated as a rule.

Who reviewed it

Reviewed for Canadian regulatory accuracy before publication, and re-checked whenever a cited rule changes.

Reviewed by: Nicholas Parson, Treadstone Associates — reviews every case file before publication.

First published 9 August 2026Rules last verified 9 August 2026Next scheduled review 9 February 2027

This case file is professional reference material for licensed mortgage professionals. It is not advice to a borrower, and it is not a lender commitment. Insurer rules, qualifying rates and provincial taxes change — confirm the current position with the insurer, regulator or lender before you rely on any figure here in a live file.

Treadstone fulfillment

Files like this are daily work for our desk.

Document collection, ratio math under multiple treatments, lender placement notes, and submission-ready packaging — for Canadian mortgage brokers who would rather be in front of clients.