Read the general investor planning overview
Hypothetical example: Marc-Antoine is not buying an existing business. He plans to lease an empty industrial bay near a United States distribution corridor and fit it out as a trailer repair shop: hoists, a welding bay, compressors, diagnostic equipment and a parts inventory. There is no purchase price to point to, which changes how substantiality and commitment are demonstrated and makes the sequence of spending part of the legal case rather than just a business decision.
Money spent is committed; money budgeted is not
Where a business is being built rather than bought, commitment is shown by expenditure that cannot be undone. A signed multi-year lease with rent paid and a personal guarantee given is a commitment. Equipment purchased, delivered and installed is a commitment. Leasehold improvements paid for, which cannot be removed and taken home, are a commitment. A quotation, a budget line or funds sitting in a Canadian account earmarked for the project are none of these, however genuine the intention. The practical consequence is uncomfortable but unavoidable: an applicant building a business generally has to spend before applying, which is precisely the opposite of the escrow protection available to someone buying an existing business.
Substantiality without a purchase price
The proportionality test compares the amount invested with the total cost of establishing an enterprise of this type. For a start-up that total is built from the ground up: fit-out, equipment, initial inventory, licences, deposits, and the working capital needed to reach viability. A credible estimate of that total, prepared with quotes and supported by the business plan, becomes the denominator. The applicant who has spent most of it before applying is in a strong position; the applicant who has spent a deposit and holds the rest in reserve is not, whatever the reserve amounts to. Keep receipts, invoices, delivery documents and photographs of the installed equipment, because an officer assessing a start-up wants evidence that something real exists.
Marginality is the harder test for a new business
A new enterprise has no trading history to demonstrate that it will generate more than a living for the investor and family, so the burden shifts to the plan. What helps is a hiring schedule with dates and roles, signed or letter-of-intent customer commitments, market analysis grounded in the specific location, and financial projections that a reader can trace back to assumptions. What hurts is a plan projecting rapid growth with no basis, or one whose entire revenue is the owner's own labour. If the shop's model is Marc-Antoine turning wrenches alone, marginality is a genuine problem; if it is a shop with technicians whose work he directs, the plan should say so and the projections should fund it.
What else is on your mind?
Is there one minimum investment that guarantees E-2 eligibility?Is holding money or owning an asset enough for E-2?Editorial source review: 2026-09-07. General preparation guidance, not an individual assessment.