The client
A newcomer nominated through BC's Provincial Nominee Program Entrepreneur Immigration stream had signed a Performance Agreement committing personal investment capital to a new business in Prince George -- and net worth statements that showed real money did not mean that money was available for a home.
Immigration pathway
BC PNP Entrepreneur Immigration (Regional)
Performance Agreement signed with the province
Committed investment
Minimum personal funds pledged to the business
Locked to the Performance Agreement's terms
Property
$520,000, Prince George
20% down, uninsured
Household income
$9,600/month
Early business revenue plus a spouse's salaried income
The problem
BC's Entrepreneur Immigration stream is not a simple net-worth test. Once accepted, a nominee signs a binding Performance Agreement spelling out how much they must invest, by when, and what net-worth-based qualifying standards they must meet -- with a defined window, commonly cited at up to 610 days after arrival, to actually implement the business plan.
The province discourages any investment or financial commitment ahead of that signed agreement, and the agreement itself is what the ongoing nomination depends on. The committed capital is not sitting in a general account waiting to be reassigned -- it is earmarked, on paper the family's own lawyer had reviewed, to the business the province approved.
Why the net worth statement was misleading on its own
- ▸A strong net worth figure included the investment capital pledged to the Performance Agreement
- ▸That capital was not a liquid, undirected asset -- redirecting it risked the nomination itself, not just the business plan
- ▸The residency requirement attached to the same agreement -- generally within 100km of the business -- also shaped where a home purchase could realistically sit
The numbers
Once the committed investment capital was set aside entirely, the down payment and the mortgage math were built from what was genuinely available.
| Sizing the uninsured mortgage | Amount |
|---|---|
| Purchase price | $520,000 |
| Down payment (20%), from funds outside the Performance Agreement | -$104,000 |
| Mortgage amount | $416,000 |
| Total debt service | Figure |
|---|---|
| Payment at the qualifying rate (7.49%), 25 years | $3,041/mo |
| Property tax | $310/mo |
| Heat (lender estimate) | $150/mo |
| GDS and TDS alike | 36.5% |
36.5% left comfortable room once the household's real, undirected income and savings were used -- the committed investment capital was never touched, and never needed to be.
The solution
A mortgage associate licensed under RECA treated the Performance Agreement's committed capital as unavailable from the first conversation, rather than discovering the conflict partway through underwriting.
First, obtained a copy of the signed Performance Agreement and confirmed with the family's immigration lawyer exactly which funds it earmarked and on what timeline.
Second, built the down payment from a documented, entirely separate pool of savings -- so there was never a paper trail suggesting the committed investment capital had been diverted.
Third, confirmed the purchase address sat within the Performance Agreement's own residency expectations relative to the business location, so the mortgage and the nomination were never working against each other.
The outcome
The mortgage funded uninsured at 5.49% with GDS and TDS both at 36.5%, the down payment sourced entirely outside the Performance Agreement's committed capital. The nomination, the business plan and the mortgage all stayed on separate, documented tracks.
This is an uninsured, conventional purchase, so CMHC's ratio maximums do not apply directly; the ratio is informational, showing the household had genuine room without touching the committed investment funds.
What to take from this file
- 01A strong net worth statement can include money that is not actually available. Entrepreneur-stream capital committed under a Performance Agreement is earmarked, not liquid.
- 02Get the Performance Agreement itself, not just a summary of the net worth test. The agreement is what defines what is genuinely off-limits.
- 03Keep the down payment's paper trail entirely separate from the committed investment funds. Even an appearance of diverting business capital can complicate the nomination.
- 04Check the agreement's residency expectations relative to the business location before finalizing a purchase address. The mortgage and the nomination should reinforce each other, not pull in different directions.
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%.
- ▸CMHC — CMHC Home Start — minimum down payment tiers (5%/10%) and the $1.5M insured price cap.
- ▸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:
- ▸5.49% contract rate — rates move daily; not a quote.
- ▸the $100,000 minimum investment and 610-day implementation window — figures published for BC PNP's Entrepreneur Immigration Regional stream; individual Performance Agreements can set different amounts and deadlines.
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.