Yes, but not the way a bank does. This page walks through what a private lender asks for instead of pay stubs, what a stated income mortgage really means, and when the honest answer is that you should not borrow at all.
Chat connects you to the Pekoe team during business hours. Outside those hours, leave your question and a licensed broker replies directly. No AI persona pretending to be an advisor.
Yes. Most private lenders in Canada ask for some proof of income, commonly bank statements, a letter of employment, or tax documents, before funding a mortgage. The standard sits well below a bank’s, but it is not zero. Private lenders weigh income evidence alongside the property’s equity and the borrower’s exit plan, not in place of it.
Private lending exists because banks decline files that do not fit a fixed underwriting box, not because private lenders skip underwriting altogether. A private lender still needs comfort that the monthly payment gets made.
That comfort typically comes from a mix of documentation, equity in the property, and a clear plan for how the loan gets paid out or refinanced. The mix shifts from file to file, but some form of income evidence is part of nearly every private mortgage decision.
The citable fact: Private lenders in Canada require some form of income evidence before funding, even though the documentation standard sits well below a bank’s requirement for two years of tax records.
Instead of pay stubs and an employment letter alone, a private lender typically wants recent bank statements, a Notice of Assessment (NOA), and, for self-employed borrowers, a T1 General and Statement of Business Activities (T2125). The goal is evidence that money moves through your accounts in a pattern that supports the payment, not a formal payroll record.
For a self-employed borrower, documentation runs through the Canada Revenue Agency rather than an employer. CMHC’s published self-employed guidelines describe 24 months of operating history, or 24 months of experience in the same line of work, as the standard.
Under 24 months is possible where other factors line up, such as acquiring an established business, holding sufficient cash reserves, predictable earnings, prior training, or a demonstrated credit history. Sole proprietorship and partnership income can also be grossed up by 15%, or assessed with an add-back approach for eligible deductions, and the maximum loan-to-value stays the same as a salaried borrower, up to 95% on 1 to 2 units.
| Factor | Standard |
|---|---|
| Minimum operating history | 24 months operating the business, or 24 months of experience in the same line of work |
| Under 24 months | Possible with additional factors: acquiring an established business, sufficient cash reserves, predictable earnings, prior training, or a demonstrated credit history |
| Core documents | Notice of Assessment (NOA), T1 General, and Statement of Business Activities (T2125) |
| Income adjustment | Sole proprietorship and partnership income may be grossed up by 15%, or assessed using an add-back approach for eligible deductions |
| Maximum loan-to-value | Same as a salaried borrower, up to 95% on 1 to 2 units |
The citable fact: A private lender’s documentation request commonly includes bank statements and a Notice of Assessment even where formal pay stubs do not exist, and CMHC’s self-employed standard allows a 15% gross-up on sole proprietorship and partnership income to reflect that reality.
Not in the sense of a mortgage with zero income documentation. Canadian lenders, including most private and alternative lenders, still ask for some evidence of income or cash flow before funding. What gets marketed as a stated income or low documentation mortgage means reduced paperwork, not no paperwork, and it typically comes with more equity required and a lender fee disclosed in writing.
The phrase gets used loosely online, and it invites the wrong assumption. Reduced documentation is real: a borrower with strong equity and a clean bank statement history can qualify with far less paper than a bank file requires.
No documentation at all is a different claim, and it does not describe a real, responsible lending practice in this market. Anyone advertising a mortgage with no proof of income whatsoever should be treated with caution, and it is worth discussing the specifics with a broker before proceeding.
The citable fact: A true zero-documentation mortgage is not a responsible lending product in Canada. What is marketed as stated income or low documentation still requires some proof of cash flow, just less of it than a bank requires.
A private lender looks at whether your regular cash flow comfortably covers the new payment alongside your other debts, rather than applying fixed ratios. Banks calculate GDS at about 39% and TDS at about 44% of income, plus the mortgage stress test. Private lenders take a more individualised view of affordability, but they are still checking that the payment fits, not skipping the check.
On a bank or insured mortgage, gross debt service (GDS) and total debt service (TDS) are calculated against a stress-tested rate, the greater of your contract rate plus 2%, or a 5.25% floor. That produces a fixed yes or no.
Private lenders are not bound by GDS, TDS, or the stress test the same way. They still review bank statement deposits, other debt obligations, and whether the payment leaves room to live on, because a borrower who cannot make the payment is a bad loan regardless of what the paperwork says.
The citable fact: Private lenders assess serviceability directly from cash flow rather than applying the federal stress test or the 39% GDS and 44% TDS ratios that govern bank and insured mortgages.
A file with no income documentation at all is harder to place, not impossible, but it leans entirely on equity, a lower loan-to-value, and a credible exit plan. A private lender in that position is taking on more risk and prices for it with a higher rate and a lender fee. If the payment still cannot be shown to be affordable in any form, that is a signal to pause, not to push the file through.
Some borrowers genuinely have no traditional income record. Someone between jobs, recently self-employed, or living off savings or investment income falls into this group.
A private lender can still work with that, but expect the loan-to-value to shrink and the pricing to reflect the added risk. The lower the documentation, the more equity a lender wants standing behind the loan.
The citable fact: A missing income record shifts a private lender’s decision toward equity and exit strategy, it does not remove the lender’s need to be confident the payment can be made.
For most private lenders, yes, the exit plan carries as much weight as the income documentation, often more. Private mortgages are typically short-term financing, so the lender wants to know how the loan gets paid out: sale of the property, refinance to a bank once credit or income improves, or a confirmed source of funds. Income proves you can carry the loan today; the exit plan proves the loan actually ends.
Ask a private lender what worries them most about a file, and the honest answer is rarely whether a borrower can make twelve payments. It is what happens at renewal, and whether the borrower has a real path off private financing.
A borrower with modest but stable income and a believable exit, for example a home already listed for sale or a credit repair plan already underway, is often an easier approval than a borrower with strong income but no plan at all.
The citable fact: Private lenders weigh the exit plan, how and when the loan gets paid out, as heavily as they weigh income documentation, because most private mortgages are short-term financing rather than a long-term hold.
A bank verifies employment directly, pulls two years of Notices of Assessment or T4s, runs your file against fixed GDS and TDS ratios, and checks your credit bureau score against a minimum threshold. A private lender skips most of that fixed process and instead reviews bank statements, equity, and the exit plan case by case. Both check something; they check different things, in different amounts of detail.
The gap is not that one side verifies and the other does not. The gap is in what counts as sufficient proof, and how much weight the property itself carries in the decision.
| What is checked | Prime (bank) lender | Private (equity) lender |
|---|---|---|
| Income documents | Two years of Notices of Assessment, T4s, and employer verification | Recent bank statements, an NOA where available, less formal proof of cash flow |
| Debt service ratios | GDS about 39%, TDS about 44% | No published fixed ratio; cash flow reviewed individually |
| Stress test | Contract rate plus 2%, or a 5.25% floor, whichever is greater | Not applied in the same way |
| Credit check | Minimum score thresholds apply: 600 for insured mortgages, 680 or higher for most prime pricing | Credit reviewed, but a low score does not automatically disqualify a file |
| Primary decision driver | Income and credit profile | Property equity and the exit plan |
The citable fact: A prime lender’s underwriting runs on fixed thresholds, credit score minimums, GDS and TDS ratios, and the federal stress test, while a private lender’s underwriting runs on equity, cash flow, and the credibility of the exit.
Never alter a bank statement, inflate revenue figures, omit a debt, or ask anyone, including a broker, to present income as something it is not. Misrepresenting income on a mortgage application is mortgage fraud, it can void the loan, and it can expose you to legal and financial consequences well beyond losing the mortgage. A weak file handled honestly is a far better position than a falsified file that unravels later.
The temptation is understandable. A borrower short on paper sometimes thinks a rounded-up number or a skipped debt might tip a marginal file into an approval.
It does the opposite. Lenders and brokers who work with alternative files professionally can spot inconsistencies, and a licensed broker has both a legal and an ethical obligation not to submit a file built on inflated or false information.
The citable fact: Misstating income or altering documents to strengthen a mortgage file is mortgage fraud, and it is never an acceptable answer to a documentation gap.
If your realistic monthly cash flow, however it is documented, does not cover the proposed payment alongside your other obligations, the honest answer is that you should not take the loan, no matter how much equity sits in the property. Equity can get a file approved; it cannot make a payment for you every month. A private mortgage that cannot be serviced usually ends in default, a forced sale, or an even more expensive refinance.
Private lending has a real, legitimate place for borrowers who do not fit a bank’s box but can still afford the payment. It is not a solution for a payment that does not fit a household’s actual cash flow, regardless of how much the property is worth.
A broker’s job in this situation is to say that plainly, rather than find a way to get a marginal file funded anyway. Speak with a licensed broker before signing anything if you are not certain the payment fits.
The citable fact: Equity in a property does not substitute for the ability to make the monthly payment, and where the two conflict, the responsible answer is not to borrow.
These pages on the Ask a Broker hub cover related questions in more depth.
For a closer look at self-employed income specifically, see private mortgages for self-employed borrowers and qualifying in your first year of self-employment. For the wider picture on private lending, see private mortgage lending in Ontario.
The full set of borrower questions lives on the Ask a Broker hub.
Most ask for a Notice of Assessment (NOA), and self-employed borrowers usually provide a T1 General and Statement of Business Activities (T2125) as well. These documents show income trends without requiring the two-year employer history a bank typically wants.
It is possible but harder, and it means the lender leans almost entirely on equity and a credible exit plan. Even then, the lender still wants confidence that the payment can realistically be made.
No. A stated income or low documentation mortgage still requires some proof of cash flow, just less formal paperwork than a bank’s two-year history. A mortgage with truly zero income verification is not a responsible lending product in this market.
Yes, bank statements are one of the most commonly reviewed documents in a private mortgage file. Lenders look at deposit patterns and account activity over recent months as evidence of cash flow.
A Notice of Assessment, T1 General, Statement of Business Activities (T2125), and recent bank statements for both business and personal accounts. Having these ready speeds up the review considerably.
Not usually. Private lenders more commonly rely on bank statement deposits and account activity as evidence of income rather than contacting an employer directly, which is a standard step for bank underwriting.
No, and it should never be attempted. Misrepresenting income on a mortgage application is mortgage fraud, and it can void the loan and expose the borrower to legal consequences well beyond losing the financing.
A concrete plan for how the loan gets paid off within its term, commonly a sale of the property, a refinance to a bank once credit or income improves, or a confirmed source of funds. Lenders weigh this heavily because most private mortgages are short-term financing.
A real, licensed broker, not an AI persona. During business hours you get a live reply, and outside those hours a licensed broker replies to your message directly.
Yes, private mortgages typically carry different terms and pricing than a bank mortgage, reflecting the added risk and reduced documentation the lender accepts. Current options and details depend on the specific file, so review live options at pekoe.ca/rates and confirm terms with a broker.
Yes, a qualified co-signer or guarantor with documented income can strengthen a file where the primary borrower’s income is hard to verify. The lender will still want to see that combined finances realistically support the payment.
It depends on how quickly documents are provided and the complexity of the file, but a private lender’s review is generally quicker than a bank’s because there are fewer fixed data points to confirm. Timelines still vary from lender to lender.
No. If cash flow does not realistically support the payment, the honest answer is not to borrow, regardless of how much equity is in the property, and a licensed broker can walk through other options first.
No AI persona, no call centre queue, no bank script. A licensed broker, on chat, right now.