The client
A keeping spouse in Sept-Îles refinanced a $215,000 buyout, with income from a long-held primary job plus a second, part-time job started only fourteen months earlier, after separation.
Buyout owed to departing spouse
$215,000
Set by the separation agreement
Primary job income
$4,200/month
Long-held, unaffected by the separation
Second job income
$1,450/month
Started 14 months after separation, to make ends meet
Other debt
$220/mo car loan
The problem
A lender's ordinary convention for supplemental income -- a second job held alongside a primary one -- generally asks for at least two years of history before counting a dollar of it. The keeping spouse's second job had existed for fourteen months, started specifically because separation had reduced the household to one income.
What excluding the second job actually meant
- ▸On the primary job's income alone, total debt service reached 49.1% -- well past what any lender would approve
- ▸The second job had a real, documented pattern since it started: same employer, steady hours, no gaps
- ▸A rigid two-year rule would have blocked a buyout the household could genuinely afford, on income that was genuinely being earned
The primary job could not carry the buyout alone. The second job could -- if a lender was willing to look at fourteen months of steady pattern instead of counting the calendar.
The numbers
The primary job's own payment math never changed. Only which income figure a lender was willing to add to it did.
| Qualifying the buyout | Amount |
|---|---|
| Buyout refinance amount | $215,000 |
| Total debt service | Primary job alone | Both jobs combined |
|---|---|---|
| Payment at the qualifying rate (6.85%), 25 years | $1,486 | $1,486 |
| Property tax + heat | $355 | $355 |
| Car loan | $220 | $220 |
| Total debt service | 49.1% | 36.5% |
49.1% on the primary job alone would have sunk the file outright, well above what average mortgage payment data would suggest a single-income household of this size could carry; 36.5% once the second job's $1,450/month was allowed to count is comfortably workable for an uninsured buyout refinance. Nothing about the payment itself changed -- only whether fourteen months of steady second-job income was treated as real.
The solution
A courtier hypothecaire licensed under Quebec's Act respecting the distribution of financial products and services documented the primary job's own strength first, then built the case for the second job's own income and its shorter history separately.
First, showed that the primary job's income alone already covered most of the file's ratio math -- the second job was closing a real gap, not carrying the whole file on its own.
Second, requested a shorter-history exception for the second job, supported by pay stubs showing steady hours with the same employer every pay period since it started.
Third, framed the second job's timing honestly -- started after separation, out of financial need, not as a speculative or temporary arrangement -- since a lender's own exception policy generally turns on whether the pattern looks likely to continue.
The outcome
The buyout refinance funded at 4.85%, with total debt service settling at 36.5% once the second job's fourteen months of steady income were allowed to count.
Because this is an uninsured buyout refinance, CMHC's ratio maximums do not apply directly; the 49.1% and 36.5% figures are informational, showing exactly what the second job's income changed.
What to take from this file
- 01A lender's two-year convention for supplemental income is a policy, not a universal rule. A shorter, well-documented history can still qualify for an exception at the right lender.
- 02Show how much of the file the primary job already carries on its own. A second job that closes a modest gap is an easier exception to grant than one asked to carry the whole file.
- 03Document the second job's own steady pattern from day one -- same employer, consistent hours, no gaps -- rather than treating it as a placeholder income source.
- 04Explain the timing honestly. A second job started after separation, out of genuine need, is a normal and explainable fact pattern, not something to obscure from an underwriter.
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.
- ▸OSFI — Minimum qualifying rate for uninsured mortgages — the minimum qualifying rate — greater of contract rate + 2% or 5.25%.
- ▸Provincial/territorial mortgage-broker legislation fetched directly (bclaws.gov.bc.ca, legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca, fcaa.gov.sk.ca, web2.gov.mb.ca, nslegislature.ca, assembly.nl.ca) plus FCNB's own site for NB and CanLII's index for PE — see notes for per-province method — provincial mortgage regulators and licence titles.
Illustrative in this file — lender-specific, not rules:
- ▸4.85% contract rate — rates move daily; not a quote.
- ▸the shorter-history exception for the second job — each lender sets its own minimum history for supplemental income; a fourteen-month exception reflects one lender's own policy, not a published rule.
- ▸the TDS figures — this is an uninsured buyout refinance, so there is no CMHC ratio ceiling -- the numbers are 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.
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.