The client
A buyer in Woodstock showed 647 on Equifax after paying down one card, but only 584 on TransUnion, where a second, unrelated card's balance had never been addressed, buying for $395,000 with $19,750 (5%) down.
Purchase price
$395,000
Woodstock, 5% down
Equifax score
647
Reflects the paid-down card
TransUnion score (before)
584
A second card, never addressed
TransUnion score (after)
611
Once the second card was identified
The problem
The client had done real, honest work paying down a credit card balance -- but the lender's policy qualifies on the LOWER of the two Canadian bureau's credit scores, not an average and not whichever one happens to be shown first. The paydown had, by pure chance, only touched the card reporting to Equifax; a second, unrelated card with a high balance kept reporting to TransUnion untouched, leaving the file's actual gating number exactly where it started.
Nothing here was wrong, disputed, or misattributed
- ▸Both scores were entirely accurate reflections of two real, correctly reported credit files -- no error to fix, no dispute to file
- ▸Equifax and TransUnion routinely diverge simply because different lenders and creditors report to different bureaus, or on different cycles
- ▸The lender's own policy -- qualify on the lower of the two -- decided which score actually mattered, and the client's own instinct (fix the score you can see) wasn't wrong, just aimed at the wrong bureau
This wasn't a credit-repair problem. It was a diagnostic one: knowing which of two accurate numbers the lender was actually going to use before deciding where to spend the effort.
The numbers
Once the correct bureau was identified, the rest of the file was routine -- a standard insured purchase at a standard down payment.
| The insured purchase, once TransUnion cleared the floor | Amount |
|---|---|
| Purchase price | $395,000 |
| Base mortgage | $375,250 |
| CMHC premium — 4.00% at 90.01-95% LTV | +$15,010 |
| Total insured mortgage | $390,260 |
Qualifying payment at 6.95% (MQR on a 4.95% contract rate): $2,721/mo. GDS ($2,721 + $280 tax + $120 heat) ÷ $8,200 income = 38.1%. TDS (GDS numerator + $245 car loan) ÷ $8,200 = 41.0%. Both inside CMHC's 39% and 44% maximums, once the file was qualified on TransUnion's corrected 611 rather than a score that was never the one gating it.
The solution
A mortgage agent pulled both bureau files side by side rather than relying on the one score the client had already been shown.
First, confirmed the lender's specific adjudication policy -- qualify on the lower of Equifax and TransUnion -- before assuming the Equifax improvement would be the number that mattered.
Second, identified the specific second card dragging the TransUnion score, distinct from the one the client had already paid down.
Third, had the client pay that second card's balance down directly, rather than repeating the same paydown on the account that was already fine.
The outcome
TransUnion rose to 611 once the second card was addressed, clearing the lender's floor on the bureau that actually mattered. The file funded at 4.95% with GDS 38.1% and TDS 41.0%.
Each lender sets its own policy for which bureau, or which of the two, governs adjudication; not every lender uses the lower-of-two convention.
What to take from this file
- 01Two accurate bureau scores can point in different directions for reasons that have nothing to do with an error. Different creditors report to different bureaus, on different cycles.
- 02Know which bureau the lender actually qualifies on before advising a client where to focus. A real, honest paydown effort aimed at the wrong bureau doesn't move the number that matters.
- 03Pull both bureau files, not just the one the client already has. The gating account is often not the one anyone has been watching.
- 04This is not a credit-repair or dispute file. Nothing was wrong with either bureau's report -- the only issue was knowing which one the file would actually be judged on.
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.
- ▸CMHC — Purchase (Mortgage Loan Insurance) — default-insurance premium schedule by LTV band (25-year amortization).
- ▸CMHC — CMHC Home Start — minimum down payment tiers (5%/10%) and the $1.5M insured price cap.
- ▸OSFI — Minimum qualifying rate for uninsured mortgages — the minimum qualifying rate — greater of contract rate + 2% or 5.25%.
- ▸CMHC — CMHC Reviews Underwriting Criteria — GDS 39% / TDS 44% maximums and the 600 credit-score floor for insured files.
- ▸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:
- ▸4.95% contract rate — rates move daily; not a quote.
- ▸qualifying on the lower of the two bureau scores — each lender sets its own policy for which bureau, or which of the two, governs adjudication; not every lender uses the lower-of-two convention.
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.