Treadstone Associates
Case File № 694 · Renewals & Switches

The gap the old lender never checked

a Victoriaville refinance needed the co-owner’s own deductible coverage first

Refinancing to a new lender surfaced a gap the previous lender never checked: the syndicate’s own certificate of insurance showed a large deductible its by-laws pass back to co-owners on a common-area loss, and the borrower carried no coverage for that share at all.

QuebecUninsured · RefinanceFiled August 9, 20265 min read
$25,000

the syndicate’s master policy deductible, passed back to co-owners under the building’s own by-laws

0

years of supplemental coverage the borrower had carried for that specific deductible share, until this refinance

33.5%

total debt service on the completed refinance

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 condo owner in Victoriaville refinanced a $232,000 balance to a new lender.

Balance at refinance

$232,000

19 years remaining

Syndicate deductible

$25,000

Passed back to co-owners under the building’s by-laws on a common-area loss

Combined income

$7,100/month

Other debt

$230/mo car loan

№ 02

The problem

As part of the new lender’s file review, the syndicate’s own certificate of insurance — not just the condo fee statement the borrower had always provided — showed the building’s master policy carries a $25,000 deductible. The declaration’s own by-laws pass that deductible directly back to individual co-owners if a common-area loss ever triggers it, and the borrower had never carried any supplemental insurance for that specific exposure.

What the certificate of insurance actually showed

  • The syndicate's master policy deductible sat at $25,000 per occurrence on common-area losses
  • The building's own by-laws allocate that deductible among co-owners in proportion to their share of the common portions
  • The borrower's own home insurance policy had never included coverage for this specific pass-through exposure

Nobody had done anything wrong. The previous lender's file simply never asked for the certificate of insurance that would have surfaced the gap.

№ 03

The numbers

The refinance itself was never complicated arithmetic; the deductible gap it surfaced was the actual work.

The refinance, qualified on the existing balanceAmount
Balance at refinance$232,000
Remaining amortization19 years
Total debt serviceFigure
Payment at the qualifying rate (6.60%), 19 years$1,776/mo
Property tax + heat$375
Car loan$230
Total debt service33.5%

33.5% leaves comfortable room and was never in doubt, in line with how renewal payments typically move across Canada. The refinance closed on schedule once the supplemental coverage was in place -- the deductible gap was a documentation and insurance question, not a ratio one.

№ 04

The solution

A courtier hypothecaire licensed under Quebec’s Act respecting the distribution of financial products and services requested the syndicate’s own certificate of insurance directly, rather than relying on the condo fee statement the file had always used.

First, obtained the certificate of insurance from the syndicate and confirmed the specific deductible-sharing clause in the building’s own by-laws. The exposure was real and building-specific, not a generic condo-ownership risk.

Second, had the borrower’s insurance broker add a supplemental co-owner’s policy sized to the $25,000 deductible share. This closed the gap before the new lender would fund, not after.

Third, flagged for the file that this specific check — requesting the syndicate’s certificate of insurance, not just the condo fee statement — should be standard on every Quebec condo refinance going forward.

Syndicate’s certificate of insurance obtained directly, not inferred from the condo fee statement
Building’s own by-laws reviewed for the specific deductible-sharing clause
Supplemental co-owner’s insurance policy added, sized to the deductible share
Standard refinance documentation for income and existing balance
File note confirming the deductible-adequacy check ahead of any future renewal
№ 05

The outcome

The refinance closed at 4.60% and 33.5% total debt service, with the supplemental deductible coverage in place before funding.

This is an uninsured refinance, so there is no CMHC ratio ceiling; the 33.5% figure is informational, showing the file had ample room throughout.

№ 06

What to take from this file

  • 01A syndicate’s master policy deductible can be passed back to co-owners by the building’s own by-laws. A standard home insurance policy does not automatically cover that specific exposure.
  • 02Request the syndicate’s certificate of insurance directly, not just the condo fee statement. The fee statement says what is owed monthly; the certificate says what could be owed if something goes wrong.
  • 03This kind of gap can sit unnoticed for years. A previous lender not asking the question is not the same as the exposure not existing.
  • 04Closing a documentation and insurance gap does not require touching the ratios at all. This refinance’s numbers were fine throughout; the fix was entirely about coverage.

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:

  • 4.60% contract rate — rates move daily; not a quote.
  • the $25,000 syndicate deductible and the by-law passing it back to co-owners — each syndicate's own declaration and by-laws set its own deductible-sharing terms; there is no universal amount or formula.
  • the TDS figure — this is an uninsured refinance -- 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.