A spouse's outside job offer may help household planning, but it does not establish the investor's treaty nationality, committed capital, control or the enterprise's non-marginality. The business needs its own evidence of sufficient present or future capacity, including the applicable significant-economic-contribution alternative. Keep the spouse's employment proposal and authorization documents separate from proof that the enterprise qualifies.
Assess the enterprise on its own numbers
Prepare the financial case so it stands with the spouse's income removed entirely. If the business only supports the family because a second salary covers the shortfall, that is a signal to re-examine the investment size or the model rather than a detail to leave unmentioned. Note also that nationality is what matters here: holding Canadian permanent residence without citizenship of a treaty country does not supply the required nationality for either the investor or the enterprise.
There is a related trap worth naming. A business plan that shows the enterprise breaking even because the owners draw no salary for two years is describing a household subsidised from elsewhere, not an enterprise producing more than a minimal living. Where that is the actual plan, it should be visible in the documents rather than implied by an absence, and the investment size or the model should be revisited in light of it.
Non-marginality is assessed on the enterprise's present or future capacity, and a future capacity claim needs a stated period and evidence behind it rather than an open-ended assurance that trade will improve.