The client
A newcomer in Val-d'Or buying a $365,000 home at 10% down, on $7,300/month of ordinary, unconditional salaried income.
Purchase price
$365,000, Val-d'Or
10% down, insured
Documented salary
$7,300/month
Ordinary T4-style salaried employment
MIFI evaluation
In hand
An informational comparison, not a licence
Other debt
$230/mo car loan
The problem
Quebec's Ministère de l'Immigration, de la Francisation et de l'Intégration (MIFI) issues an évaluation comparative des études effectuées hors du Québec -- a comparison between a person's foreign education and Quebec's own system. Its own governing description is explicit: it is not a diploma equivalence, and it is not a licensing prerequisite.
Who asked for what, and why it didn't apply
- ▸Her new employer asked for 'credential recognition' before finalizing her onboarding paperwork
- ▸The first lender's underwriter echoed the same request before treating her salary as fully qualifying
- ▸What she held -- the MIFI evaluation comparative -- is an informational document only; her salaried employment carried no licensing condition at all, and never had
Nobody could point to an actual licensing requirement her job needed. The MIFI document everyone was pointing at was never designed to be one.
The numbers
Once the credential question was set aside, this was an ordinary insured purchase on ordinary salaried income.
| Qualifying on documented salaried income | Amount |
|---|---|
| Base mortgage (90% of purchase price) | $328,500 |
| CMHC premium (3.10% at 90% LTV) | +$10,184 |
| Total insured mortgage | $338,684 |
| Ratio check at the qualifying rate | Figure |
|---|---|
| Payment at the qualifying rate (6.95%), 25 years | $2,362/mo |
| GDS (payment + $280 tax + $110 heat) ÷ $7,300 income | 37.7% |
| TDS (GDS numerator + $230 car loan) ÷ $7,300 income | 40.8% |
37.7% and 40.8% sit comfortably inside CMHC's 39% GDS and 44% TDS maximums. The ratios were never the issue on this file -- the misunderstanding about the MIFI document was.
The solution
A courtier hypothécaire licensed under Quebec's Act respecting the distribution of financial products and services separated what the MIFI evaluation actually is, by its own governing description, from what her employer and the first lender assumed it must be.
First, provided the MIFI evaluation itself alongside its own covering letter, which states plainly that it is an informational comparison, not a diploma equivalence or a professional licence -- the same distinction a designation is not a licence draws for other credentials brokers see mistaken for one.
Second, confirmed directly with her employer that her role carries no professional-licensing requirement at all, closing off the onboarding-side version of the same misunderstanding.
Third, moved the mortgage file to a lender whose underwriter read an ordinary, unconditional salary as exactly that -- fully qualifying income, with no credential gate attached.
The outcome
The purchase funded insured at 37.7% GDS and 40.8% TDS, with Quebec's welcome tax on the $365,000 purchase coming to $3,586 -- a file that closed on the strength of ordinary salaried income, consistent with what first-time homebuyer statistics show for a newcomer purchase at this price point.
Both ratios sit comfortably inside CMHC's 39% GDS and 44% TDS maximums; the file was never close to either ceiling once the credential question was resolved.
What to take from this file
- 01MIFI's evaluation comparative is explicitly informational, not a diploma equivalence or a licensing prerequisite. Read its own covering documentation before assuming it gates anything.
- 02An ordinary salaried role rarely carries a real professional-licensing condition. Confirm with the employer directly rather than accepting an assumed requirement at face value.
- 03A newcomer's foreign-education comparison and their income's qualifying status are two separate questions. Don't let one hold up the other without a documented reason.
- 04When an employer and a lender both repeat the same mistaken assumption, correct it once, in writing, and give both parties the same explanation.
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.
- ▸CMHC — Purchase (Mortgage Loan Insurance) — default-insurance premium schedule by LTV band (25-year amortization).
- ▸CMHC — CMHC Home Start — minimum down payment tiers (5%/10%) and the $1.5M insured price cap.
- ▸OSFI — Minimum qualifying rate for uninsured mortgages — the minimum qualifying rate — greater of contract rate + 2% or 5.25%.
- ▸CMHC — CMHC Reviews Underwriting Criteria — GDS 39% / TDS 44% maximums and the 600 credit-score floor for insured files.
- ▸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.
- ▸Gouvernement du Québec — Droits sur les mutations immobilières — Quebec's transfer duties ('welcome tax') — 2026 indexed brackets.
Illustrative in this file — lender-specific, not rules:
- ▸4.95% contract rate — rates move daily; not a quote.
- ▸the employer's and first lender's 'credential recognition' condition — each employer and lender sets its own onboarding/underwriting checklist; this reflects unfamiliarity with what a MIFI comparative evaluation actually is, not a published requirement.
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.