When the board chair of a non-profit housing society in Lethbridge, Alberta opened her email on a Thursday afternoon in late September 2025, she found a forwarded demand letter from the organization's secured lender—a regional credit union holding a general security agreement against all present and after-acquired personal property. The letter had been sitting in the executive director's inbox for three weeks before being passed along. The credit union's position was straightforward: a lease-to-own arrangement worth $487,000 for new boilers and rooftop heat pumps, executed by the executive director five months earlier, either constituted replacement collateral automatically captured by the GSA's after-acquired property clause or represented a competing security interest that required prior written consent under section 7.4 of the agreement. Either way, the credit union saw a covenant breach. The demand gave the board thirty days to respond at the governance level—not through management, but through the directors themselves. For an eleven-member board that included two lawyers, three accountants, and six community members with housing-sector expertise, this was an unwelcome discovery: not merely that a significant equipment acquisition had occurred without board authorization, but that the organization had no documented process for screening operational decisions against the restrictive covenants embedded in its primary lending arrangement.