Treadstone Associates
Case File № 568 · Private Lending & Exit

Written into the agreement

a Belleville payout that was higher, and correct

A Belleville private second's own loan agreement specified interest on a 360-day-year convention -- a real, contractually valid private-lending practice that produced a genuinely higher payout than the borrower's own 365-day assumption, and had to be reconciled against the agreement's actual wording.

OntarioUninsured · RefinanceFiled August 9, 20265 min read
$68,912

the payout the borrower calculated, assuming a standard 365-day year

$69,347

the actual payout the loan agreement's own 360-day convention produces, per its written terms

36.1%

total debt service on the completed consolidation, at the confirmed figure

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 homeowner in Belleville carried a $232,000 first mortgage and a private second, both to be consolidated into one new A-lender refinance.

First mortgage balance

$232,000

4.75%, 20 years remaining

Borrower's own payout estimate

$68,912

Assumed a standard 365-day year

Loan agreement's actual payout

$69,347

Per its own stated 360-day convention

Combined income

$7,900/month

№ 02

The problem

An interest-only private second's payout depends entirely on how the loan agreement itself defines a day's interest. This borrower calculated their own estimate assuming a standard 365-day year, the convention their bank mortgage had always used -- but this private loan agreement's own written terms specified interest on a 360-day-year convention instead, a real and common private-lending practice.

Why the gap wasn't an error

  • The borrower's own 365-day estimate came to $68,912
  • The loan agreement's stated 360-day convention, applied per its own written terms, actually produces $69,347
  • The private lender had not miscalculated anything -- the higher figure was exactly what the signed agreement said it would be

The borrower assumed a discrepancy meant a mistake. Reading the agreement showed the higher number was the correct one.

№ 03

The numbers

Once the correct payout figure was confirmed against the contract, consolidating it with the first mortgage was ordinary arithmetic.

Two payout figures, one written contractAmount
Borrower's own 365-day estimate$68,912
Loan agreement's actual 360-day figure$69,347
Gap the agreement's own wording resolved$435
Total debt serviceFigure
New consolidated balance ($232,000 + $69,347 confirmed payout)$301,347
Payment at the qualifying rate (7.20%), 25 years$2,148/mo
Property tax + heat$450/mo
Total debt service, consolidated36.1%

36.1% is informational -- this file is uninsured, so CMHC's ratio maximums do not apply directly. The $435 the agreement's own convention added was a rounding error next to the consolidation itself, but it had to be confirmed correct, not simply assumed to be a lender mistake.

№ 04

The solution

A mortgage agent licensed under Ontario's Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act read the private loan agreement's own interest clause before accepting either figure as final.

First, located the specific clause in the signed loan agreement governing how interest was calculated, confirming in writing that it specified a 360-day-year convention rather than the 365-day basis the borrower had assumed.

Second, recalculated the payout using the agreement's own stated method, confirming the $69,347 figure independently rather than accepting the private lender's payout statement on faith.

Third, sized the consolidation to the confirmed $69,347 figure, explaining to the borrower why the correct number was higher than their own estimate, rather than disputing a properly calculated, contractually valid figure.

The private loan agreement's own interest-calculation clause, read in full
Independent recalculation of the payout using the agreement's stated day-count convention
Written confirmation from the private lender of the exact payout figure and its basis
Standard consolidation refinance documentation for the confirmed balance
Post-closing title search confirming a clear discharge
№ 05

The outcome

The consolidation funded at 5.20% on the confirmed $69,347 payout figure, with total debt service settling at 36.1%.

Because this file is uninsured, CMHC's ratio maximums do not apply directly; the 36.1% figure is informational, showing what the consolidation itself required once the correct payout was confirmed.

№ 06

What to take from this file

  • 01A 360-day-year interest convention is a real, contractually valid private-lending practice. A higher payout under one is not automatically a lender error.
  • 02Read the loan agreement's own interest-calculation clause before disputing a payout figure. The agreement, not the borrower's assumption, is the source of truth.
  • 03Recalculate the payout independently using the agreement's own stated method rather than accepting either the borrower's estimate or the lender's statement on faith.
  • 04Explain a contractually correct but higher-than-expected figure clearly to the client. A number can be both a surprise and entirely correct.

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:

  • 5.20% consolidation rate — rates move daily; not a quote.
  • the 360-day interest convention — this is one specific loan agreement's own written term; not every private lender uses a 360-day convention, and where one applies it is a matter of contract, not universal practice.
  • the TDS figure — this file is uninsured, so there is no CMHC ratio ceiling -- the number is informational.

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.