Treadstone Associates
Case File № 214 · Rental & Investment

The appraiser couldn't get in

a Selkirk rental refinance and the tenant's right to notice

A Selkirk rental refinance stalled twice because the appraiser could not inspect the interior. The tenant had been given a phone call, not the written notice The Residential Tenancies Act requires, and was entitled to say no. Served correctly under section 54, the inspection went ahead, the appraisal came in at $289,000, and the refinance funded at 80% loan-to-value with total debt service of 35.7%.

ManitobaRefinance · tenanted detached rentalFiled August 7, 20266 min read
24h

Minimum written notice a Manitoba landlord must give before entry — and no more than two weeks

$60,200

Equity released once the interior inspection was finally completed

35.7%

TDS with 80% of the lease rent offset against the rental’s own carrying cost

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

An Interlake couple owned one rental — a detached bungalow in the Selkirk market, tenanted continuously since 2022 — and wanted to release equity from it at maturity rather than simply renew. Income was strong, the lease was written and verifiable, and the borrowers had done this before. The entire file rested on one outstanding condition: a full interior appraisal of a home that somebody else lives in.

Property

$289,000 appraised, Selkirk

Detached bungalow, tenanted since 2022

Existing mortgage

$171,000

At maturity; refinanced rather than renewed

Lease

$1,650/month

Written 12-month lease, third consecutive term, same tenant

Borrowers' own housing cost

$2,050/month

Principal residence, P&I + tax + heat

Household income

$8,900/month

Two salaried incomes, both over five years

Other debt

$410/month

One vehicle loan

№ 02

The problem

The appraiser attended on a Tuesday morning, was refused at the door, and left. The landlord had telephoned the tenant four days earlier and been told “that should be fine”; nobody had put anything in writing. Under The Residential Tenancies Act, C.C.S.M. c. R119, s. 54(1), a Manitoba landlord may not enter an occupied rental unit at all except in the listed circumstances — and a verbal maybe is not one of them.

What makes this worth knowing is that the Act names this exact errand. Section 54(1)(f)(iii) permits entry “to permit a mortgagee or insurer or prospective mortgagee or insurer to inspect the unit when a mortgage or insurance coverage is being arranged or renewed on the residential complex” — but only where the landlord “gives written notice in accordance with subsection (3).” The legislature contemplated the appraiser. It also decided the tenant gets notice first.

What section 54 actually requires

  • Entry for a prospective mortgagee’s inspection is a permitted purpose — s. 54(1)(f)(iii), no tenant consent needed
  • The notice must be in writing, and must specify the purpose and the time or times of entry
  • It must be given not less than 24 hours and not more than 2 weeks before the time of entry — s. 54(3)
  • The time must be reasonable. The Act sets no fixed hours, contrary to a persistent internet myth
  • Under s. 54(4) the tenant may object — but only by specifying reasonable alternative days and hours, not by refusing outright

The second attempt failed too, because the borrower then sent a text message naming a day but no time. The lender, meanwhile, would not substitute an exterior-only report: on a non-owner-occupied refinance it required a full interior inspection, full stop. There was no cheaper path around the front door.

№ 03

The numbers

Once the appraisal was completed the file was ordinary. The rental is not the borrowers’ home, so its rent is netted against its own carrying cost and only the shortfall reaches the ratios.

At a 5.65% contract rate (illustrative), the minimum qualifying rate is 7.65%.

The refinanceAmount
Appraised value$289,000
New mortgage at 80% loan-to-value$231,200
Existing balance repaid$171,000
Equity released$60,200

The rental’s own carrying cost

Monthly cost of the rentalMonthly
P&I on $231,200 at the qualifying rate$1,713
Property tax$215
Heat estimate$110
Total carrying cost$2,038

Rent offset, then the ratio

OffsetAmount
Lease rent$1,650
Credited at 80%$1,320
Net cost of the rental carried in TDS$718
TDS lineMonthly
Borrowers’ own housing cost$2,050
Vehicle loan$410
Rental shortfall after offset$718
TDS on $8,900 income35.7%  ✓
№ 04

The solution

A mortgage broker licensed under The Mortgage Brokers Act, C.C.S.M. c. M210, whose licences are issued by the Registrar and overseen by the Manitoba Securities Commission, stopped treating this as an appraisal problem and treated it as a notice problem — which is what it was.

First, drafted the notice of entry for the borrower over the statute: purpose stated as an inspection for a prospective mortgagee, a named date, a two-hour window on a weekday afternoon, delivered eight days ahead so it sat inside the 24-hour-to-2-week corridor rather than at either edge of it.

Second, booked the appraiser after the notice was served rather than before, so the appointment was built around the notice instead of the notice chasing the appointment. Sequencing this the right way round is most of the fix, and it is covered in our guide to coordinating an appraisal through to funding.

Third, told the borrower in advance what s. 54(4) does and does not give the tenant: an objection has to come with reasonable alternative days and hours. When the tenant asked to move it to the Thursday, that was the section working as designed, not a fresh obstacle.

Written notice of entry naming the purpose and the time or times
Proof of service and the date it was given
Appraisal instructions specifying a full interior inspection
Current written lease and evidence of rent received
Existing mortgage statement showing the balance and maturity date
Property tax statement for the rental

With the report in hand the income side was routine: the file used a standard rental offset, netting most of the lease rent against the property’s own costs rather than adding it to income.

№ 05

The outcome

The appraiser inspected on the tenant’s alternative date, valued the property at $289,000, and the refinance funded at 80% loan-to-value, releasing $60,200. Total elapsed cost of the two failed attempts: eleven days and two appraisal call-out charges the borrower paid twice for the same report.

№ 06

What to take from this file

  • 01A tenanted property needs a notice before it needs an appraiser. Manitoba's Act expressly permits entry for a prospective mortgagee's inspection, but only on written notice given not less than 24 hours and not more than two weeks ahead.
  • 02A phone call is not notice, and neither is a date without a time. The statute requires the purpose and the time or times of entry to be stated, so a text message naming only a day fails on its face.
  • 03A tenant's objection is not a veto. Section 54(4) lets a tenant object only by proposing reasonable alternative days and hours — tell the borrower that before they concede a week.
  • 04Do not assume an exterior report will save the file. Many lenders will not accept a drive-by on a non-owner-occupied refinance at any loan-to-value, so access is not a nice-to-have.

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:

  • 5.65% contract rate — rates move daily; not a quote.
  • an 80% rental offset — each lender publishes its own offset percentage.
  • an 80% loan-to-value ceiling on this refinance — an uninsured refinance is capped at 80%, but individual lenders set lower caps on non-owner-occupied property.
  • $215/mo property tax and $110/mo heat estimates — lender-standard estimates for the subject property, not rules.

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 10 August 2026Next scheduled review 10 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.