The client
An investor in Dolbeau-Mistassini was refinancing to $235,000 on a property that has nothing to do with a separate rent-dispute unit elsewhere in the same small portfolio.
Subject property
$198,000 existing @ 4.65%, refinancing to $235,000
Bureau notation
Small civil judgment
Traced to a different, unrelated unit
Combined household income
$7,200/month
Other debt
$230/mo car loan
The problem
A Tribunal administratif du logement award against a landlord, once filed and unpaid, can become a small civil judgment picked up by the credit bureau -- and a bureau notation carrying no further detail can look identical to an ordinary defaulted consumer debt to a lender who has never seen a tenancy-tribunal judgment before.
What the bureau notation actually traced to
- ▸A tenant in a completely different unit in the portfolio had won a rent-abatement award from the Tribunal administratif du logement over a maintenance dispute
- ▸The award had been filed as a civil judgment and picked up by the credit bureau, with no indication on the bureau file itself of its tribunal origin
- ▸The award had already been paid in full months before this refinance application, a fact the bureau notation alone did not show
The subject property being refinanced had never been part of the dispute. The judgment on the bureau belonged to a different unit's tenancy matter entirely, already closed.
The numbers
Once the judgment was correctly traced and excluded, qualifying the refinance was straightforward.
| Refinancing the unrelated property | Amount |
|---|---|
| Existing balance | $198,000 |
| New refinance balance | $235,000 |
| Total debt service | Figure |
|---|---|
| Payment at the qualifying rate (6.90%), 25 years | $1,631/mo |
| Property tax | $280/mo |
| Heat (lender estimate) | $110/mo |
| Car loan | $230/mo |
| Total debt service | 31.3% |
31.3% leaves considerable room, consistent with what household debt service data shows for a file with no genuine outstanding consumer default at all. The ratios were never the issue once the judgment was traced to its real, already-closed source.
The solution
A courtier hypothécaire authorized under Quebec's Act respecting the distribution of financial products and services traced the bureau notation back to its actual origin before accepting the first lender's read of it as an ordinary default.
First, obtained the Tribunal administratif du logement's own decision, identifying the award, the specific unit it concerned, and the tenant who had brought it -- none of which matched the property being refinanced.
Second, obtained proof the award had already been paid in full, months before the refinance application, closing off any question of an open, unresolved obligation.
Third, moved the file to an underwriter who correctly read a Tribunal administratif du logement award as a settled landlord-tenant tribunal matter, unrelated to the investor's ability to service any mortgage.
The outcome
The refinance funded at 4.90%, with the judgment correctly read as a settled landlord-tenant tribunal matter unrelated to the subject property, and total debt service settling at 31.3%.
Because this refinance is uninsured, CMHC's ratio maximums do not apply directly; the 31.3% figure is informational.
What to take from this file
- 01A Tribunal administratif du logement award can surface on a credit bureau file as an ordinary-looking civil judgment. Trace any judgment to its actual source before assuming it is a defaulted consumer debt.
- 02A landlord-tenant tribunal matter on one property does not reflect the borrower's ability to service a mortgage on a different, unrelated property. Keep the two entirely separate in the file.
- 03The tribunal's own decision, not the bureau notation alone, is the reliable source for what a judgment actually is. A bare bureau entry carries no context about its origin.
- 04Proof of payment closes the question decisively. A settled tribunal award, already paid, is not an open obligation, however it happens to appear on a credit report.
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.
- ▸OSFI — Minimum qualifying rate for uninsured mortgages — the minimum qualifying rate — greater of contract rate + 2% or 5.25%.
- ▸Provincial/territorial mortgage-broker legislation fetched directly (bclaws.gov.bc.ca, legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca, fcaa.gov.sk.ca, web2.gov.mb.ca, nslegislature.ca, assembly.nl.ca) plus FCNB's own site for NB and CanLII's index for PE — see notes for per-province method — provincial mortgage regulators and licence titles.
Illustrative in this file — lender-specific, not rules:
- ▸4.90% contract rate — rates move daily; not a quote.
- ▸the first lender's reading of the judgment as an ordinary consumer default — each lender sets its own policy for reading a bureau judgment; this reflects unfamiliarity with a Tribunal administratif du logement award specifically, not a published rule.
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.
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.