Treadstone Associates
Case File № 761 · Renewals & Switches

The exemption skips the rate, not the question

a Greater Sudbury switch during a probationary period

A Greater Sudbury mortgage matured while one borrower was still inside a new employer's probationary period, having changed jobs shortly before renewal. OSFI's straight-switch exemption skipped the stress-test rate -- it never answered whether a lender would accept the income at all while probation was still running.

OntarioUninsured · Straight SwitchFiled August 9, 20265 min read
3mo

left on the new employer's own probationary period when the mortgage matured

$268,000

mortgage balance at maturity, unchanged by the switch

32.8%

total debt service once the switch closed on the documented permanent offer

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 Greater Sudbury carried a $268,000 mortgage maturing while one borrower, having changed employers shortly before renewal, was three months into the new job's own probationary period.

Mortgage balance at maturity

$268,000

21 years remaining

Borrower's new job

3 months into probation

Changed employers shortly before maturity

Combined income

$7,100/month

Includes the new job's full salary

Other debt

$235/mo car loan

№ 02

The problem

A straight switch that leaves the loan amount and amortization unchanged is exempt, by OSFI's own 2024 policy, from the minimum qualifying rate at renewal. What that exemption does not do is answer whether a lender will accept the borrower's income at all while a new job's probationary period is still running.

Two different questions, one exemption

  • The straight-switch exemption governs which RATE the file qualifies at -- it says nothing about whether the income itself will be accepted
  • One lender's own policy blanket-declines any switch applicant currently on probation, exemption or not
  • The borrower's actual income had not changed in substance -- only the calendar status of the new job had

The switch itself was never going to trigger a fresh stress test. Whether a lender would look past the word 'probation' was a separate question entirely.

№ 03

The numbers

Once the file moved to a lender that qualified it on the contract-rate payment the exemption allows, the arithmetic itself was straightforward.

The switch, at the accepting lender's rateAmount
Mortgage balance at maturity$268,000
Total debt serviceFigure
Payment at the switch lender's contract rate (4.69%), 21 years$1,667/mo
Property tax$305/mo
Heat (lender estimate)$120/mo
Car loan$235/mo
Total debt service32.8%

32.8% is comfortably inside range for an uninsured switch -- once a lender actually priced the contract-rate payment the exemption allows, rather than declining on the word 'probation' alone, consistent with how rarely a genuine stress-test history change is really the obstacle at renewal.

№ 04

The solution

A mortgage agent licensed under Ontario's Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act treated the straight-switch exemption and the income-verification question as two separate problems, not one.

First, confirmed the exemption still applied. Because the loan amount and remaining amortization were both unchanged, the file qualified for OSFI's straight-switch exemption regardless of the employment change.

Second, obtained a written employer letter confirming the new position was permanent and full-time from the outset, with no condition on compensation or continued employment beyond the standard probationary period itself.

Third, moved the switch to a lender whose own policy reads a documented permanent offer -- not the calendar status of 'currently on probation' -- as the real test of income continuity.

Employer letter confirming permanent, full-time terms
Pay stubs since the new job started
Standard straight-switch documentation for loan amount and amortization
Written confirmation the exemption itself was correctly applied
Comparison of the first lender's blanket decline against the second lender's own policy
№ 05

The outcome

The switch closed at 4.69%, with total debt service settling at 32.8%, once the second lender's policy read the actual employment offer rather than the probationary label alone.

Because this file is an uninsured straight switch, CMHC's ratio maximums do not apply directly; 32.8% is informational, showing the file was never close to a real ceiling once correctly qualified.

№ 06

What to take from this file

  • 01A straight-switch exemption governs the stress-test rate only. It says nothing about whether a lender will accept the borrower's income while a probationary period is running -- that is a separate, lender-specific policy question.
  • 02Each lender sets its own policy for a switch applicant currently on probation. A blanket decline at one lender is not evidence the file itself is unqualifiable.
  • 03A written employer letter confirming permanent, full-time terms is what actually answers the income-continuity question -- not the exemption, and not the calendar.
  • 04Ask which lenders read a documented permanent offer as sufficient before assuming a probationary period will delay a switch that otherwise qualifies cleanly.

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:

  • 4.69% switch rate — rates move daily; not a quote.
  • the first lender's blanket probation decline — each lender sets its own policy for a switch applicant currently on probation; the exemption governs the stress-test rate only, not income-verification policy, which is 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.

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.