“Two days ago, my mortgage holder (a Credit Union, no less) called and told me that after 22 years, I was no longer an “A-list” borrower, and they would not renew my mortgage. I have no credit cards, never late with a payment, never late with utilities, taxes, etc., etc., BUT, because of the ‘new’ mtg. rules, they could not renew my mtg. because two years ago (as a result of a series of family crises), I took a small 2nd mtg. (ridiculous rates, but I’ve met EVERY payment, etc. – the credit union wouldn’t ‘help’). My total debt is only the two mtgs. against the property and, together, they are less than 1/2 of my equity (compared to the assessed value).
My son (who is on disability) lives with me and takes care of me (as I do him), and we share our expenses with our two limited incomes. I’ll be 73 in a couple of weeks, am not well, have been isolated at “home” since the beginning of March. None of that ‘counts’.
Nor does it ‘count’ that for over 50 years, I’ve been involved in environmental and social justice issues, worked pretty much full time my whole life (never collected EI, even!), contributed to my community (have received awards), raised a family, supported many others in crisis.
In a month, I, and my son, could be homeless. I don’t even have the strength to champion my own personal needs.
To those of us that are experiencing the REALITY of the NOW – those living in corrupt care homes, or homeless, or helplessly addicted, or victims of genocide or poverty, or racism, what it’s “called” is moot.
— from commenter ‘dda’ 30 May 2020, under the article, ‘Normal Is The Problem’, by Andrew Nikiforuk, The Tyee, 30 May 2020
Also see:
A Confluence of Whammies: A Single Realtor (& Airbnb-host) with a dependent child, an elderly dependent parent, two lost tenants, and dwindling business is forced to sell their house (presumably at a loss) and take a $30,000 mortgage penalty.
TD Bank charges $30,000 mortgage penalty to woman forced to sell home due to pandemic – 1 Jun 2020, CBC News.
Your banker may seem like a friendly guy, but the banks will always look after themselves – first and last. – ed.
Vancouver Real Estate Anecdote Archive 
I am sad to hear of someone losing his home.
A few gaps in the story though.
-22 years paying on a mortgage and only 50% paid off
-took out a second mortgage in retirement to access capital at a high interest rate
-has owned a single family home (he explains this elsewhere in the comments) for 22 years — presumably seen price increases since the 90’s
-took on a mortgage at age 51 with no aggressive, or even reasonable plan to pay it off
-wants to borrow presumably hundreds of thousands from the bank at age 73 with effectively no income
-feels entitled to be deeply in debt, and be written this massive cheque, at 73 because he works for charitable causes
-no mention of what the equity position is. If he sells the SFH he’s had for 22 years and has >50% equity on, can’t he just buy something more modest for retirement?
It’s a very sad story until you ask yourself if this is exactly, precisely what the rules are intended to prevent? Someone taking on a massive debt encumbrance that they have no ability or intention of repaying.
If he is mad at anyone, he should be mad at the loan officer who allowed him to renew every 5 years and get into this tragic position in the first place.
He was supposed to know that you only borrow something if you expect to repay it as agreed. But the lender was supposed to know that this person was slowly destroying his financial future at the altar of owning a home he could not afford, and refuse to help.
Further:
I’m sorry he’s in a pickle, but he got himself there. And his bank helped every time they authorized a renewal for the past 10 or 15 years.
At least they finally realized what they were helping him do to himself and took off the band aid.
His comment does not exactly sound like he is taking ownership of his decisions. He sought out this loan and anyone who has gone through grade 2 knows if you borrow money you have to pay it back.
The unwritten subtext was that he planned to die and never pay back the money.
He would have left the problem of his debt to his estate or his disabled adult child, or simply charged it to the bank’s insurers. Again, ridiculous.
No way is he the blameless and helpless victim that he paints himself as.
In a followup comment, he writes:
“I’ve actually worked as a mortgage accountant, and even as a housing advocate. Finding it hard to find the energy.
My small house and large yard have been my refuge for the past 22 pretty stressful years.”
Large property owned for a quarter century by a one time self-described “mortgage accountant”…who is shocked (shocked!) to find that you can’t be borrowing hundreds of thousands if you are age 73 and have no income. No matter what social causes you support.
I’m no fan of Canada’s oligopolistic banks, but Burnabonian is right.
I agree with both of you.
Every single one of these stories is going to be a tear-jerker. The best are yet to come. Then the petitions and protests and letters to the editor are surely next. Followed by threats of lawsuits. Then real lawsuits. Because nobody needs to exercise personal responsibility anymore.
Poor me….poor me!!! (LOUD SOBBING noises go here)
That’s the whole idea. To gain our sympathy so that the negative feelings generated by these stories get directed at the lenders. But I have no such feelings for this pathetic wretch who carries two mortgages in her 70’s while scraping by on a pension. I have so little sympathy with this narrative it irritated me just enough I was going to skip the comment section altogether.
Glad I stayed to read Burbonians comments