The client
A newcomer couple bought a $455,000 condo in Montreal at 10% down, funding their $45,500 down payment with an international wire from the sale of their previous home abroad.
Purchase price
$455,000, Montreal
10% down, insured
Down payment
$45,500
Wired from the sale of a foreign property
Combined income
$8,900/month
Both salaried, employer letters on file
Wire sent
12 business days before closing
By the couple's own estimate, comfortably early
The problem
Any Canadian financial institution that initiates or receives an international electronic funds transfer of $10,000 or more has its own, separate obligation to report that transfer to FINTRAC. The couple's $45,500 wire cleared that threshold several times over, and the receiving bank's own anti-money-laundering review -- the same process that produces the FINTRAC report -- is what actually decided when the funds became usable, not anything the mortgage lender asked for.
What the reporting obligation actually triggers
- ▸The receiving bank must report the transfer to FINTRAC on its own timeline, independent of the mortgage file
- ▸The same internal review that produces that report is what the bank runs before treating a large incoming wire as cleared, available funds
- ▸A newcomer account opened only months earlier gave the bank's own risk review little transaction history to measure the wire against
The mortgage file's own documentation -- the sale agreement on the foreign property, the couple's identification, their employment letters -- was complete and consistent throughout. None of it could shorten a bank-side compliance review the mortgage broker was never part of.
The numbers
Once the funds actually cleared, sizing the mortgage itself was ordinary arithmetic.
| Sizing the insured mortgage | Amount |
|---|---|
| Base mortgage (90% of purchase price) | $409,500 |
| CMHC premium (3.10% at 90% LTV) | +$12,694 |
| Total insured mortgage | $422,194 |
| Ratio check at the qualifying rate | Figure |
|---|---|
| Payment at the qualifying rate (6.79%), 25 years | $2,903/mo |
| Property tax | $310/mo |
| Heat (lender estimate) | $110/mo |
| GDS and TDS alike | 37.3% |
37.3% left real room inside CMHC's ratios, consistent with the down payment levels shown in down payment statistics for insured newcomer purchases -- the wire's own clearing timeline, not the file's qualifying math, was the entire story here.
The solution
A courtier hypothecaire licensed under Quebec's Act respecting the distribution of financial products and services treated the wire's own clearing timeline as a fact to plan around, not a problem to solve.
First, asked the couple's bank, in writing, roughly how long its own review typically ran for a wire of this size from this sending country -- not a guarantee, but a working estimate to build the closing date around.
Second, had the wire sent two full weeks ahead of closing, deliberately building in room for a bank-side review neither the broker nor the lender controlled.
Third, kept the lender informed that the funds had arrived and were moving through the bank's own review, rather than letting an unexplained gap in the down-payment confirmation read as a problem with the file itself.
The outcome
The bank's own review cleared nine business days after the wire arrived -- inside the runway the broker had built, though longer than the couple had first assumed -- and the mortgage funded on schedule at 4.79%, GDS and TDS both landing at 37.3%.
Both ratios sit comfortably inside CMHC's 39% GDS and 44% TDS maximums; Quebec's welcome tax on the $455,000 purchase came to $4,936.
What to take from this file
- 01A large international wire triggers the receiving bank's own FINTRAC reporting obligation. That review runs on the bank's timeline, not the lender's and not the broker's.
- 02Ask the receiving bank for its own working estimate of a review timeline before setting a closing date, not after. It is not a guarantee, but it beats guessing.
- 03Build the wire into the file weeks early, not days. A complete mortgage file does not shorten a bank-side compliance review it was never part of.
- 04A delay confirming down payment funds is not automatically a documentation problem. It may simply be the bank's own process running its course.
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.
- ▸Gouvernement du Québec — Droits sur les mutations immobilières — Quebec's transfer duties ('welcome tax') — 2026 indexed brackets.
Illustrative in this file — lender-specific, not rules:
- ▸4.79% contract rate — rates move daily; not a quote.
- ▸the nine-business-day bank review — each institution's own AML review timeline varies by sending country, wire size and account history; not a published standard.
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.