Treadstone Associates
Case File № 826 · Self-Employed Income

Insured for the house that used to be there

a Drummondville addition outran its own policy

A self-employed tradesperson's home policy carries a co-insurance clause requiring coverage to a set share of rebuild cost, or claims are paid proportionally. A recent addition raised the rebuild cost, but the coverage amount never followed -- a deliberate corner-cut to keep the premium down while self-employed cash flow ran tight -- and the new lender's funding condition required it fixed before closing.

QuebecUninsured · RefinanceFiled August 9, 20265 min read
$365,000

the home's rebuild cost after the addition, per a fresh insurance valuation

$280,000

the coverage amount actually carried -- unchanged since before the addition

$12,000

the gap below the policy's own 80% co-insurance threshold

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 self-employed tradesperson in Drummondville refinanced a $215,000 mortgage with a $35,000 cash-out, at 5.20%.

Existing mortgage balance

$215,000

Cash-out amount

$35,000

Refinance

Home's rebuild cost after addition

$365,000

Per a fresh insurance valuation

Coverage actually carried

$280,000

Never increased after the addition

№ 02

The problem

A home policy's co-insurance clause requires the insured amount to reach a set share of the property's rebuild cost -- commonly 80% on this type of policy -- or any future claim is paid only in that same proportion, no matter how small the loss. It is a penalty clause, not a coverage cap.

How the gap opened

  • A recent addition raised the home's own rebuild cost to $365,000
  • The insured amount stayed at $280,000, never increased after the addition -- a deliberate corner-cut to keep the premium down while self-employed cash flow was tight
  • The policy's own 80% co-insurance threshold on the new rebuild cost was $292,000, leaving a $12,000 shortfall

No claim had ever been made against the gap. The lender's own funding condition existed precisely so nobody had to find that out the hard way.

№ 03

The numbers

Once the coverage gap was identified, closing it was a straightforward insurance fix -- the refinance math underneath it never changed.

The refinance, and the co-insurance gap it surfacedAmount
Existing mortgage balance$215,000
Cash-out amount$35,000
New refinanced balance$250,000
Total debt serviceFigure
Payment at the qualifying rate (7.20%), 25 years$1,782/mo
Property tax$275/mo
Heat (lender estimate)$100/mo
Car loan$220/mo
Total debt service37.1%

37.1% is informational on this uninsured refinance -- the ratios were never the issue. Self-employed households run tighter cash-flow margins by nature, which is exactly the pattern average new mortgage amount data reflects when it separates self-employed borrowing from salaried. The co-insurance gap, not the refinance itself, was the real risk on this file.

№ 04

The solution

A courtier hypothécaire licensed under Quebec's Act respecting the distribution of financial products and services treated the co-insurance shortfall as a funding condition in its own right, separate from the self-employed income review.

First, obtained a fresh insurance valuation confirming the $365,000 rebuild cost after the addition, rather than relying on the outdated figure the existing policy was still priced against.

Second, increased the insured amount to clear the policy's own 80% co-insurance threshold, closing the $12,000 gap with a modest, permanent premium increase the household could plan around.

Third, supplied the updated declaration page as the lender's outstanding funding condition, keeping the co-insurance question entirely separate from the income documentation that had already cleared.

Fresh insurance valuation confirming current rebuild cost
Updated declaration page showing coverage at or above the co-insurance threshold
Standard self-employed income documentation, unaffected by the insurance question
Refinance documentation for the cash-out amount and its purpose
Written confirmation the funding condition was satisfied before release
№ 05

The outcome

The refinance closed at 5.20%, with total debt service at 37.1% and the policy's own co-insurance clause no longer exposed to a proportional claim reduction.

Because this file is an uninsured refinance, CMHC's ratio maximums do not apply directly; the 37.1% figure is informational, showing the ratios were never the issue on this file.

№ 06

What to take from this file

  • 01A co-insurance clause penalizes underinsurance proportionally, even on a partial loss. It is fundamentally different from a plain deductible, and worth explaining to a client in those terms.
  • 02An addition or renovation raises rebuild cost immediately -- coverage does not follow automatically. Prompt clients to update their insurance valuation whenever the structure itself changes.
  • 03Cutting insurance costs during a tight self-employed cash-flow stretch can create a hidden gap. The corner-cut is invisible until either a claim or a lender's funding condition tests it.
  • 04Keep the insurance fix separate from the income review. A clean self-employed income file and an underinsured property are two different problems with two different solutions.

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:

  • 5.20% contract rate — rates move daily; not a quote.
  • the 80% co-insurance threshold — each insurer sets its own co-insurance percentage; there is no universal figure.
  • the TDS figure — this file is an uninsured refinance, so 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.