Treadstone Associates
Case File № 989 · Rental & Investment

The bill that was still owed while it was being disputed

a Medicine Hat rental’s pending tax appeal

A city-wide reassessment nearly doubled the property tax on a Medicine Hat rental refinance, and the owner had filed an Assessment Review Board complaint disputing the new figure. The complaint doesn’t defer or reduce what’s currently owed while it’s pending, so the broker underwrote the file against the higher, current billed amount rather than a hoped-for reduction — the only defensible way to size the file.

AlbertaUninsured · Cash-out refinanceFiled August 11, 20265 min read
60 days

the deadline under Alberta’s Municipal Government Act to file an Assessment Review Board complaint against a property assessment

s.460

the Municipal Government Act provision governing the complaint

29.6%

total debt service, underwritten against the current billed tax figure rather than a hoped-for reduction

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 landlord in Medicine Hat applied for a cash-out refinance to fund renovations on a rental duplex, shortly after a city-wide reassessment sharply increased the property’s assessed value and its tax bill.

Current appraised value

$380,000

Existing mortgage balance

$255,000

Cash-out requested

$20,000

Rent

$1,750/month, signed lease

№ 02

The problem

The owner, convinced the reassessment overstated the property’s value against comparable rental properties nearby, filed a formal complaint within the deadline. The mortgage application arrived on the broker’s desk while that complaint was still unresolved.

What a pending complaint does, and doesn’t, change

  • Alberta property owners can file an Assessment Review Board complaint under Municipal Government Act s.460 within 60 days of the assessment notice, disputing the assessed value
  • A complaint against the assessed value does not exempt the owner from paying the tax as billed, and it does not defer or reduce the amount currently owed while it is pending
  • There was no guarantee, and no timeline certainty, on whether or when the complaint would succeed — qualifying the file on a reduction that might never happen would have been a guess dressed up as underwriting

The old, pre-reassessment tax figure was still sitting in some of the file’s early paperwork. Using it would have understated the borrower’s real, current carrying cost — the complaint changes what the borrower might eventually owe, not what they owe right now.

№ 03

The numbers

The refinance had LTV room to spare. The only real question was which tax figure the file should actually be built on.

Sizing the cash-out refinanceAmount
80% LTV ceiling$304,000
Existing balance$255,000
Cash-out requested+$20,000
New mortgage balance$275,000
Total debt serviceUsing the stale, pre-reassessment figureUsing the current, appealed figure
Mortgage payment (qualifying rate)$1,986$1,986
Property tax$290$410
Heat$140$140
Income used (incl. 50% rent credit)$8,575$8,575
Total debt service28.2%29.6%

Both figures clear the ceiling here, which made it easy to do the right thing rather than the convenient one: the file was underwritten against the higher, currently billed property tax figure, with the complaint noted as a pending matter that could improve the borrower’s position later, not one the file was allowed to depend on now.

№ 04

The solution

A mortgage associate regulated by RECA treated the pending complaint as a fact to disclose, not a number to build the refinance around.

First, confirmed the complaint had been filed within the Municipal Government Act’s 60-day deadline and obtained the Assessment Review Board file reference.

Second, confirmed with the municipality that the current, higher figure remained payable and would continue to be billed regardless of the complaint’s outcome, pending a decision.

Third, qualified the file conservatively against the current billed amount, disclosing the pending complaint to the lender as context rather than as a reason to use a lower number.

Assessment Review Board complaint filing confirmation and reference number
Current municipal tax notice showing the reassessed, billed amount
Signed lease and rent documentation
Qualifying calculation built on the current, not a projected, tax figure
№ 05

The outcome

The cash-out refinance funded at 5.35%, uninsured, 80% LTV, underwritten against the current, appealed property tax figure, at 29.6% total debt service.

Because this is an uninsured 80% LTV refinance, CMHC’s ratio maximums do not apply directly; the 29.6% figure reflects this lender’s own ceiling.

№ 06

What to take from this file

  • 01A pending Assessment Review Board complaint does not defer or reduce the tax currently owed. The complaint changes what might be owed later, not the current bill.
  • 02Always qualify a file against the current billed tax figure, never a hoped-for reduction. Underwriting on a possible future outcome is a guess, not a calculation.
  • 03Alberta’s 60-day complaint deadline, under Municipal Government Act s.460, is worth confirming on any file where an owner mentions disputing an assessment. A late complaint carries no weight at all.
  • 04Disclose a pending complaint to the lender as context, not as leverage for a smaller qualifying number. It’s a fact about the file, not a discount on it.

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:

  • $290 / $410 monthly property tax figures — this property’s own tax notices before and after reassessment, not a province-wide table.
  • 5.35% rate — rates move daily; not a quote.

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 11 August 2026Rules last verified 11 August 2026Next scheduled review 11 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.