Treadstone Associates
Case File № 083 · Renewals & Switches

Variable at maturity

quantifying the payment shock on a Calgary straight switch

A five-year variable mortgage taken near the bottom of the rate cycle matured into a straight switch to fixed. The payment shock was real and sizeable — but because it was an exempt straight switch, the new lender never had to apply the full stress test.

AlbertaUninsured · straight switchFiled August 7, 20265 min read
+$978

monthly payment increase, five-year-old contract to today’s fixed rate

48.0%

TDS if the full stress test applied — over the 44% benchmark

42.8%

actual TDS under the straight-switch exemption

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 Calgary-area household took a five-year variable mortgage near the bottom of the rate cycle, locking in a deeply discounted contract rate of 1.65%. Five years on, with the term maturing into a materially higher-rate environment, they wanted certainty and asked their mortgage associate to shop a fixed-rate switch to a new lender rather than simply renew variable again.

Original mortgage

$500,000

5-year variable at 1.65%, opened five years ago

Original payment

2,034/mo

25-year amortization at the time

Balance at maturity

$430,000

Per the lender’s payout statement

New lender’s offer

5.79% fixed, 5-year

20 years remaining amortization

Household income

9,500/mo

Car loan 600/mo

Structure

Uninsured straight switch

No increase in loan amount or amortization

№ 02

The problem

Switching lenders at renewal has, in the recent past, meant re-qualifying at the full minimum qualifying rate — the same stress test applied to a brand-new mortgage. Run that way on this file, the numbers looked uncomfortable.

The full-stress-test arithmetic

  • Qualifying rate if treated as a standard switch: 7.79% (new contract rate + 2%)
  • Payment at the qualifying rate: 3,508/mo
  • TDS: 48.0% — above the 44% benchmark most A-lenders use.

The client’s actual payment shock — from 2,034/mo five years ago to 3,012/mo today, a $978 increase — was already the headline number the household had to absorb. Requiring the file to also clear a hypothetical, higher qualifying payment on top of that would have made an already-real rate increase into a qualification problem as well.

№ 03

The numbers

This is a straight switch: an existing uninsured mortgage moving to a new federally regulated lender at renewal, with no increase in loan amount and no increase in remaining amortization.

The payment shock, in fullAmount
Payment five years ago (at 1.65%, 25-year amortization)2,034
Payment today (at 5.79% fixed, 20 years remaining)3,012
Payment shock+$978

Effective November 21, 2024, OSFI no longer requires federally regulated lenders to apply the minimum qualifying rate on an uninsured straight switch at renewal, provided the loan amount and remaining amortization don’t increase — lenders must still underwrite using sound B-20 principles, just not the prescribed stress-test rate.

With the exemption vs. without it

TDSFull stress test (hypothetical)Actual, exempt switch
Qualifying rate applied7.79%5.79% (contract rate)
Monthly payment used3,5083,012
TDS48.0%  ✗42.8%  ✓
№ 04

The solution

The mortgage associate structured the switch to fit squarely inside the November 2024 exemption, rather than assuming a switch automatically triggers the stress test.

Confirmed the loan amount would not increase beyond the payout balance and that the new amortization — 20 years remaining — would not exceed what remained on the original schedule.

Placed the file with a federally regulated lender, the exemption’s condition, and underwrote to the actual new payment rather than a hypothetical qualifying-rate payment, while still documenting income and debts to sound B-20 standards.

Current payout statement showing the maturity balance
Confirmation of remaining amortization from the outgoing lender
Income documentation and debt obligations, standard file
New lender’s commitment confirming no increase in loan amount
№ 05

The outcome

Switched to the new lender at 5.79% fixed, with the qualifying decision made on the real payment, not the stress-tested one. Closing costs at Alberta’s Land Titles Office run on a sliding per-value registration fee rather than a percentage-based transfer tax, so no dollar figure is quoted here — the fee schedule is a different animal entirely from provincial land transfer tax.

The $978 payment increase is real and the household will feel it every month — the exemption changed how the file qualified, not how much it costs to carry.

№ 06

What to take from this file

  • 01A straight switch and a full re-qualification are not the same test. Confirm the loan amount and amortization aren’t increasing before assuming the stress test applies.
  • 02Quantify the payment shock in dollars, not just percentage points. A $978/mo increase is the number the household actually budgets against.
  • 03The exemption doesn’t remove underwriting — lenders still apply sound B-20 principles to the actual payment; it removes the prescribed stress-test rate specifically.
  • 04Alberta’s closing costs are a registration fee, not a transfer tax. Don’t quote a percentage-based figure where none exists.

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:

  • 1.65% original variable rate and 5.79% new fixed rate — rates move daily; neither is a quote.
  • 20-year remaining amortization — a straight switch cannot increase amortization, but the exact remaining term is file-specific.

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 7 August 2026Rules last verified 7 August 2026Next scheduled review 7 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.