Treadstone Associates
Case File № 465 · Bruised Credit & Consolidation

Not a lien, just a collection

an EI overpayment misread as a title problem in Midland

An Employment Insurance overpayment referred to a collection agency reported on the applicant's bureau file as a government debt, and a first lender treated it exactly like a CRA tax lien -- demanding a title discharge statement for a debt that had never been registered against any property at all.

OntarioInsured · PurchaseFiled August 9, 20265 min read
$4,200

the EI overpayment collection -- with nothing ever registered against title to discharge

37.8%

GDS, comfortably inside CMHC's 39% cap

41.0%

TDS, comfortably inside CMHC's 44% cap

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 household in Midland bought a $385,000 home at 10% down, carrying a $4,200 Employment Insurance overpayment from a prior claim, referred to a collection agency and showing on the bureau as a government debt.

Purchase price

$385,000, Midland

10% down, insured

EI overpayment balance

$4,200

Referred to a collection agency; not registered against any property

Combined income

$7,700/month

Other debt

$245/mo car loan

№ 02

The problem

A bureau file can show a government-debt collection account without any indication of whether that debt carries a registered claim against real property. A CRA tax certificate can be registered as a lien; an Employment Insurance overpayment has no such mechanism.

What the first lender got backwards

  • The EI overpayment showed on the bureau as a government debt, referred to a collection agency
  • The first lender's underwriter treated it exactly like a CRA tax lien and demanded a title discharge statement
  • No such document exists for an EI overpayment, because nothing had ever been registered against the property to discharge

The file stalled for weeks on a document nobody could ever produce, for a debt that had never touched the title at all.

№ 03

The numbers

Once the EI overpayment was paid out from savings, the ratios themselves were never close to a problem.

The insured purchase, correctly classifiedAmount
Base mortgage (90% of purchase price)$346,500
CMHC premium (3.10% at 90% LTV)+$10,742
Total insured mortgage$357,242
Ratio check at the qualifying rateFigure
Payment at the qualifying rate (6.95%), 25 years$2,491/mo
GDS (payment + $300 tax + $120 heat) ÷ $7,700 income37.8%
TDS (GDS numerator + $245 car loan) ÷ $7,700 income41.0%

37.8% and 41.0% sit comfortably inside CMHC's 39% GDS and 44% TDS maximums, well within the range household debt service ratios typically run across Canada. The ratios were never the obstacle on this file -- the misclassification of the debt was.

№ 04

The solution

A mortgage agent licensed under Ontario's Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act separated what the EI overpayment actually was, legally, from what the first lender's underwriter assumed it was.

First, confirmed in writing with Service Canada and the collection agency that the overpayment carried no registered claim against the property. There was no title interest to discharge because none had ever been created.

Second, paid the $4,200 balance out in full from savings, ahead of closing, and obtained the collection agency's written confirmation that the account was settled.

Third, moved the file to a lender whose underwriter correctly read a government-debt collection account as an ordinary unsecured obligation, with no title implication and no lien-discharge document required.

Written confirmation from Service Canada/the collection agency of the overpayment's nature and balance
Proof of payment in full, ahead of closing
Collection agency's written confirmation the account is settled
Standard insured-purchase documentation for income, down payment and credit
Underwriter's written confirmation the debt required no title discharge
№ 05

The outcome

The purchase funded insured at 37.8% GDS and 41.0% TDS, with nothing left to discharge because nothing had ever been registered against the property in the first place.

Both ratios sit comfortably inside CMHC's 39% GDS and 44% TDS maximums; the file was never close to either ceiling once correctly classified.

№ 06

What to take from this file

  • 01A CRA tax certificate and an EI overpayment are not the same kind of debt. Only the former can be registered as a lien against real property; the latter cannot, no matter how it appears on the bureau.
  • 02A lien-discharge request for a debt with nothing registered against title is a request no one can satisfy. Recognize the mismatch early, rather than chasing a document that does not exist.
  • 03Get written confirmation of exactly what kind of debt is being dealt with, from the actual creditor, before assuming the strictest possible treatment applies.
  • 04A small collection balance paid out before closing removes the question entirely. This file's ratios were never the issue -- clearing the confusion about the debt's nature was.

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:

  • 4.95% contract rate — rates move daily; not a quote.
  • the first lender's lien-discharge request for an EI overpayment — each lender sets its own policy for reading a government-debt collection account; the request applied here does not reflect any published rule about EI overpayments.

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.