The federal government announced its annual budget on November 5, 2026. PPI’s Professional Services team has prepared a summary of budget proposals. This article does not contain a complete list of proposals but outlines the ones relating to the financial services industry Executive summary The Budget contains no material changes to corporate-owned life insurance, the capital dividend account, leveraged insurance arrangements, the general capital gains inclusion rate, or the lifetime capital gains exemption. Key proposals include: the new $15-million Canada Growth Incentive, relief from Part VI.1 tax for Canadian-controlled private corporations (CCPCs), restrictions on certain trust rollouts involving non-residents, proposed corporate loss transfers, changes affecting individual pension plans, selected cross-border measures, an expanded intergenerational rollover for farm and fishing property, revised corporate holdings rules for private foundations, a common May 15 tax-filing deadline for individuals, and simplified filing requirements for certain corporate tax elections. The Canada Growth Incentive: new $15 million capital gains exemption The Budget proposes a new capital gains exemption of up to $15 million per qualifying individual, per qualifying business, for qualifying shares issued on or after November 5, 2026 and before 2037. The shares must have been newly issued directly to the individual, or to a partnership in which the individual is a member, for cash or qualifying employment services. The issuing corporation must be a CCPC when the shares are issued, and the corporation and related corporations must have no more than $100 million of aggregate asset carrying value immediately before and after issuance. The shares must be held for at least 36 months. At issuance and disposition, all or substantially all of the corporation’s value must relate to assets used in a qualifying business; during ownership, the threshold is at least 50 per cent. The exempt gain would have a 30-per-cent inclusion rate for alternative minimum tax purposes. The excluded business rules are extensive. Professional practices, consulting, insurance and financial services, real estate, accommodation and food services, arts and recreation, licensed businesses, franchises, and businesses principally dependent on employee reputation or skill do not qualify. This is not a general exemption for the sale of an owner-managed business. It appears directed primarily at founders and investors in scalable growth companies.  The previously proposed Canadian Entrepreneurs’ Incentive (CEI) appears no longer to be part of the government’s legislative agenda. The CEI would have effectively reduced the inclusion rate on up to $2 million of qualifying gains. It was never enacted and is not included in the Budget’s list of previously announced measures the government intends to pursue. The Canada Growth Incentive is a completely separate policy successor. Part VI.1 relief for CCPC taxable preferred shares The Budget proposes to exclude dividends paid by a CCPC from the Part VI.1 taxable preferred-share regime, effective for dividends paid on or after Budget Day. It also proposes increasing the general annual dividend allowance from $500,000 to $1.5 million and the prior-year dividend threshold that reduces the allowance from $1 million to $3 million, for taxation years ending after 2026. This is potentially significant for estate freezes, preferred-share reorganizations, charitable preferred share gifts, shareholder agreements and other fixed-value preferred share planning. If the payer remains a CCPC, the exemption may eliminate an issue that previously required detailed review under sections 191 and 191.1 of the Income Tax Act.  Intergenerational farm and fishing property rollover The tax-deferred rollover for qualifying farm and fishing property would be expanded to transfers to a niece, nephew, grandniece or grandnephew of the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse or common-law partner. The change would apply to transfers on or after January 1, 2027. Private foundations The excess corporate holdings regime for private foundations would be eliminated. Instead, private foundations would be prohibited from acquiring control of a corporation, consistent with the rules applicable to public foundations. The change would apply to taxation years beginning on or after January 1, 2027. Trust rollouts involving non-resident ownership The Budget proposes to deny a tax-deferred trust rollout where property is distributed to a corporation or partnership with a direct or indirect non-resident shareholder or partner. The proposal applies to distributions on or after Budget Day. Before relying on subsection 107(2) of the Income Tax Act, practitioners may need to examine the full ownership chain of a corporate or partnership beneficiary. This may be particularly relevant where a family trust or related corporate structure includes U.S.-resident family members. The breadth of “direct or indirect” ownership should be revisited when the statutory language is available. It is important to note that some types of trust rollout planning involving non-residents are currently subject to reporting under the current “notifiable transaction” rules using CRA Form RC312, Reportable Transaction and Notifiable Transaction Information Return. However, if enacted, the proposed measure now would move beyond simply disclosure to potential scrutiny under the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR). Proposed corporate-loss transfer system The government is consulting on transfers of current-year non-capital losses between a parent and wholly-owned subsidiary, or between wholly-owned sister corporations. The preliminary framework would require taxable Canadian corporations, a joint annual election and permanent establishments in only one province or territory and in the same province or territory. Transferred losses could not be carried forward or back. Pension and retirement measures The Budget proposes tighter rules for Individual Pension Plans, particularly plans involving related people, unusual investments or significantly more assets than are needed to fund the promised pensions. A seriously non-compliant registered pension plan could face a 10% tax and may be treated as a Retirement Compensation Arrangement, potentially triggering the RCA’s 50% refundable tax. The government will also consult on an “RRSP for life,” which could allow individuals to keep their RRSP after age 71 rather than converting it to a RRIF, although minimum annual withdrawals would still be required. The IPP proposals warrant attention in insured retirement, corporate-owner and business-succession files. The RRSP proposal could simplify spousal succession and post-mortem administration, but it is presently only a consultation. Cross-border and compliance measures Proposed measures include: Increase the basic Form T1135 threshold from $100,000 to $200,000 and the upper limit for simplified reporting from below $250,000 to below $500,000, for taxation years or fiscal periods ending after 2026. Reduce certain section 116 withholding rates from 25 per cent to 15 per cent, and from 50 per cent to 30 per cent for specified taxable Canadian property. Facilitate certain fully tax-deferred section 85 transfers of taxable Canadian property, generally for dispositions on or after January 1, 2027. Permit the CRA, subject to safeguards, to report tax debts exceeding $50,000 to credit bureaus. Corporate tax elections Corporations would no longer need to provide a certified directors’ resolution or authorization when filing certain tax elections or agreements with the CRA. A certified copy of the directors’ resolution is currently required when filing a capital dividend election. Removing this requirement should reduce the time and cost associated with preparing and filing the election. The change would apply to elections and agreements made on or after the enacting legislation receives Royal Assent. Individual tax-return filing and payment deadlines The T1 filing and balance-due date would become May 15 for all individuals, including self-employed individuals and their spouses or common-law partners. The change would apply beginning with the 2027 taxation year. What was not in the Budget No change to the general capital gains inclusion rate. No change to the small business deduction or the $500,000 business limit. No increase to, or restructuring of, the regular lifetime capital gains exemption. No change to corporate-owned life insurance, policy adjusted cost basis, subsection 148(1), subsection 148(7), or capital dividend account credits arising on death. No targeted measure addressing immediate financing arrangements, leveraged insurance, interest deductibility, or corporate borrowing secured by life insurance. No change to post-mortem pipeline planning, subsection 84(2), graduated rate estates, or family trust 21-year rules. This briefing is a preliminary professional summary, not legal or tax advice. The proposals may undergo revisions before becoming law, and should be confirmed against enacted legislation, including explanatory notes. 

Read full transcript here In today’s episode, “What it really takes to move up market,” we discuss what it takes for advisors to work with business owners and affluent clients. Is it simply a matter of finding wealthier prospects, or does moving up market require something much deeper? In this episode, we’re joined by Brad Pashby, Regional Director, Advanced Markets and Business Development at PPI. Before joining PPI, Brad built a highly successful advisor practice of his own. His journey took an unexpected turn when a conversation about a relatively modest insurance need led to a multimillion-dollar business opportunity, completely changing the way he viewed his practice and the market he served. Brad challenges some of the biggest assumptions advisors have about moving up market. Is it really a gradual progression, or is it a fundamental step change in mindset, skills, and business strategy? He shares why many advisors may not be ready for that transition today, what needs to change if they are, and how advisors can start thinking more like the business owners they hope to serve. Whether you’re curious about working with affluent clients or actively looking to grow your business in that direction, this conversation will challenge your thinking and give you practical ideas to consider. So, let’s get into it. Here’s “What it really takes to move up market” with Brad Pashby. Read full transcript here

By Patrick Uzan (Vice-President, Professional Services, PPI) Note: On October 13, 2026, the Honey brothers filed a Notice of Appeal from the Tax Court of Canada’s decision in Honey v. The King with the Federal Court of Appeal. More details to follow on any relevant developments as the case progresses.  On September 15, 2026, the Tax Court of Canada released its decision in Honey v. The King, 2026 TCC 170 (“Honey”). The Court dismissed the appeals of Glenn Honey and Greg Honey and upheld the Minister’s decision to restrict interest deductions arising from their 10/8 life insurance arrangements to a rate of 4.18%, rather than the contractual rate of 10%. The decision should not have a material impact on traditional immediate financing arrangements (“IFAs”). The features that drove the Court’s conclusion in Honey are not present in a conventional IFA. The 10/8 arrangements The Honey brothers indirectly owned equal interests in Honey Bee Manufacturing Ltd. (“Honey Bee”). In 2006, each purchased a universal life insurance policy from RBC Life Insurance Company. Each policy had a $19 million base death benefit, with Honey Bee designated as beneficiary. The policies formed part of what was commonly known as a 10/8 arrangement (1). Each policy included a collateral investment account (“CIA”) that provided a guaranteed annual return of 8% on a tax-exempt basis. Each brother also entered into an investment credit facility (“ICF”) under which amounts could be borrowed at a fixed interest rate of 10%. The two components were contractually linked. The value of the CIA was required to equal the amount borrowed under the ICF, and the insurance policy and CIA were assigned to the lender as security. Each brother drew funds from his shareholder account with Honey Bee, deposited an amount into the CIA, borrowed an equal principal amount under the ICF, net of 2% partial interest paid in advance, and lent the net borrowing proceeds to Honey Bee. The brothers claimed deductions under subparagraph 20(1)(c)(i) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) for the 10% interest paid on the ICF loans. The Minister did not dispute that the borrowed money had been used for an income-earning purpose. Instead, the Minister concluded that 10% was not a “reasonable amount” of interest for purposes of paragraph 20(1)(c). CRA allowed interest calculated at 4.18% and disallowed the balance. The Court’s decision The central issue was the fourth requirement for interest deductibility identified by the Supreme Court of Canada in Shell Canada Ltd. v. Canada, 3 S.C.R. 622 (“Shell”): the amount claimed must be calculated at a reasonable rate. In Shell, the Supreme Court stated: “Where an interest rate is established in a market of lenders and borrowers acting at arm’s length from each other, it is generally a reasonable rate.” The Honey brothers argued that the relevant market was the “market” for 10/8 insurance products. Other insurers offered substantially similar arrangements with an 8% policy-account return and a 10% borrowing rate. They maintained that the availability of these products demonstrated that 10% was a market-established, and therefore reasonable rate. Justice Russell rejected that position. In the Court’s view, the 8% and 10% rates were predetermined elements of an integrated insurance product rather than rates produced by genuine lending-market forces. The Court also characterized the movement of money as circular. Funds came from Honey Bee through the brothers’ shareholder accounts, were deposited into the CIAs, supported matching borrowings under the ICFs, and were then lent to Honey Bee. Based on the circular and effectively self-funded character of the transactions, Justice Russell concluded that the arrangements did not satisfy the arm’s-length market premise underlying the statement in Shell. Finally, the decision was significantly influenced by the burden of proof. The Minister had assumed that public-market debt instruments were appropriate comparators and that 4.18% was reasonable. That rate was between ten-year benchmark yields of 4% and 4.68% and within the Crown expert’s stated range of 3.5% to 4.5%. The Court concluded that the taxpayers had not provided sufficient evidence of comparable market rates to support that the rate was an arm’s length determined rate; therefore, the Court could not conclude that any rate above 4.18%, was reasonable. Why the decision should not affect traditional IFAs A traditional IFA is materially different from the arrangement considered in Honey. First, a conventional IFA does not ordinarily provide the policyholder with a guaranteed investment return set in direct relation to the borrowing rate. The defining feature of the Honey arrangement was the coordinated 8% return and 10% borrowing rate. In a traditional IFA, policy values arise under the terms and experience of the insurance policy, while the loan generally bears an independently determined commercial rate. Second, a traditional IFA does not ordinarily require a matching deposit into a special policy account as a condition of each loan advance. In Honey, the CIA had to equal the ICF balance, and the brothers had to contribute the funds that supported the advances. Third, the pricing of a traditional IFA loan is normally connected to ordinary commercial lending conditions. The interest rate may reflect a benchmark rate, lender spread, borrower creditworthiness, collateral coverage, guarantees, loan-to-value limits and other customary lending considerations. Unlike the fixed 10% rate in Honey, the rate is not selected to complement a guaranteed return within the policy. Finally, the decision in the Honey case does not hold that borrowing secured by life insurance is inherently objectionable. Nor did the Court deny the deductions because the borrowed money lacked an income-earning use. The decision dealt with the narrower question of whether the full 10% interest charge represented a reasonable amount under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Act. and the Court allowed what was determined as reasonable (being 4.18%) based on the evidence provided. Practical implications Honey demonstrates the importance of maintaining evidence supporting the commercial reasonableness of an interest rate, particularly where insurance and financing transactions are closely connected. For traditional IFAs, the primary lesson is documentation rather than structural invalidity: The insurance need should be established independently, The loan should be subject to genuine independent commercial underwriting, and The interest rate should be supportable by customary lending factors. The arrangements should also avoid any suggestion that the policy return and loan rate have been coordinated. Subject to any appeal, the Honey decision should therefore be limited to the unique facts of the 10/8 arrangement, not as a general rejection of using insurance as collateral for a loan. The Tax Court upheld the 4.18% rate because the Honey brothers failed to demonstrate that the predetermined 10% rate was reasonable. (1) Traditional 10/8 arrangements are no longer offered in the market following the 2013 amendments to the Income Tax Act, which introduced a specific definition of a “10/8 policy” and existing arrangements were consequently unwound or restructured so that they would no longer fall within the statutory definition of a 10/8 policy. Most 10/8 arrangements that were wound up or restructured are now statue-barred (returns generally become statue-barred three years after the date that the CRA mails the original Notice of Assessment unless certain exceptions are met, for instance the taxpayer filed a waiver). This document is for general information purposes and advisor use. The information contained in this document must not be taken or relied upon by the reader as legal, accounting, taxation, financial, actuarial or other advice made to them, or to any other person or firm, by PPI or any of its affiliates. Please refer to insurance company illustrations, policy contracts and information folders regarding any insurance matters referred to in this document. Readers must seek independent professional advice with regard to the verification and use of the information contained in this document. Copying or reproduction of this document is not allowed without the express prior written consent of PPI. October 2026.

Read full transcript here In today’s episode – “How AI is Changing the Referral Process” – we explore how AI is changing the way prospective clients evaluate advisors long before a first conversation ever takes place.   For years, advisors focused on being discoverable through search engines, websites, and social media. But increasingly, people are turning to AI tools to get answers, recommendations, and validation before reaching out to a professional. That creates a new challenge: if referrals are still the most valuable source of new business, what role does AI play in shaping the referral journey?   The questions we’re answering today are: How is AI influencing the referral process? What story are AI platforms telling about you and your practice? And how can advisors begin shaping that story?   Joining us to break this down is Geoff Evans, Vice-President of Marketing and Communications at PPI. Before launching his own businesses, Social Media Coach and The Animation Studio, Geoff spent years in the insurance industry as an advisor, sales trainer, and business coach, helping advisors build stronger practices and grow their businesses. He later dedicated much of his career to coaching advisors on how to use digital technology more effectively, giving him a unique perspective on how new technologies are adopted and where advisors often miss the bigger opportunity.  In this episode, you’ll learn how AI is changing advisor visibility, why authenticity and specialization matter more than ever, and what practical steps can help shape your digital reputation.   So, let’s get into it. Here’s “How AI is Changing the Referral Process” with Geoff Evans. Read full transcript here

By Laroux Peoples, JD (Vice-President Professional Services, PPI) Are segregated funds subject to the presumption of resulting trust? Not in Ontario according to RBC Life Insurance Company v. Masitch et al 2026 ONSC 2277. Great news for those in life insurance but recall from my last case comment, there is no Supreme Court of Canada decision and there is regional variation so check the law in your province. In this case released the day after Kunka Estate v. Giasson, a mother named one of her two sons as a beneficiary on two segregated fund contracts. She died intestate and both sons were equal beneficiaries of any proceeds falling into the estate. The brother who was not named disputed the beneficiary designations, arguing it was his late mother’s intention that his brother share the proceeds as he was holding them on resulting trust for their mother’s estate. There was no other evidence provided to demonstrate that the mother intended her two sons to be equal beneficiaries. There were some personal notes from the mother with questions for her life insurance advisors but nothing determinative. Justice Dietrich applied Mak (Estate) v. Mak (and not Calmusky v. Calmusky) and found the presumption of resulting trust did not apply to these properly designated segregated funds. The onus then shifted to the plaintiff to prove that either the donor made a beneficiary designation to simplify estate administration or provide other proof that the mother intended that the proceeds be split. With no other evidence for either provided, the beneficiary designations were confirmed. What can wealth and insurance advisors learn from this case? Thorough contemporaneous notes of client meetings can be helpful evidence to support your client’s beneficiary designations. And insist your client gets that will done. Segregated funds are not a will substitute but can be a very effective piece of the overall estate plan. For additional context, read Laroux Peoples’ interview with The Globe and Mail published on July 2, 2026: Ontario court rules seg funds belong to named beneficiary, not to estate – The Globe and Mail *We have commented on the conflicting court cases that have dealt with the issue of whether the presumption of resulting trust applies to beneficiary designations in prior articles: What a Recent Court Ruling Means for TFSA, RRSP and RRIF Beneficiaries, Beneficiary Designations – Making Sure Your Money Goes Where You Want and Beneficiary Designations and the Importance of Transparency.  

By Laroux Peoples, JD (Vice-President Professional Services, PPI) Beneficiary designations have been found not to be subject to the presumption of resulting trust – they are instead testamentary dispositions. Advisors and their clients now have one more court case to support the view that beneficiary designations are not the same as joint bank accounts or jointly owned real estate making the presumption of resulting trust that arose out of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Pecore decision and subsequent other conflicting cases* the incorrect framework to use for beneficiary designated assets like TFSAs or RRSPs and RRIFs. This is extremely important for estate planning because when the presumption of resulting trust applies, the asset is seen to be held in trust for the estate unless the person receiving the asset can show that the deceased intended to gift the property to the recipient. This is not always an easy task since the person making the transfer has often passed away. The Ontario decision of Kunka Estate v. Giasson is welcome news as clients across Canada want to ensure that their testamentary wishes come to fruition instead of ending up in estate litigation. But even though this decision provides some clarity, we can’t celebrate quite yet as the decision is a lower court decision and could be appealed, and we have yet to have the Supreme Court of Canada weigh in on this issue. In addition, please note this discussion does not apply if the account holder resides in Quebec. Recall that the presumption of resulting trust applies to gratuitous transfers from a parent to an adult child where it is unclear what the intent of the transferor was at the time of adding the adult child to a bank account or to a piece of real estate as joint owner. However, post Pecore, the presumption of resulting trust has been applied more broadly to include all types of relationships (e.g. friend-friend, great nephew-niece) and Courts have applied the presumption of resulting trust analysis beyond joint bank accounts to properly designated RRSPs, RRIFs and TFSAs and even some life insurance products. It is with welcome relief in the recent Kunka Estate v. Giasson, that the Judge found that the presumption of resulting trust should not be applied to TFSA and RRIF beneficiary designations. To come to this conclusion the Judge made the following findings: Joint accounts under Pecore do not equal TFSA or RRIF beneficiary designations. Unlike for joint accounts, an adult child does not have access to the proceeds of a TFSA or RRIF when they are named as a beneficiary during the lifetime of the account owner, it is only accessible on death. A beneficiary designated asset is only available on the death of the asset holder making the intent at the time of the designation crystal clear. When intent is unclear with jointly held assets, the presumption of resulting trust is the framework a Court can use to determine intent. The fact that the asset is only accessible on death also points very specifically to the asset holder’s intent of that asset on their death – it is the very essence of a beneficiary designation. A presumption of resulting trust analysis, in contract, is only necessary when the asset holder’s intent on what happens on their death is unclear when they add the adult child to the joint account. RRIFS and TFSAs cannot have joint ownership. While a TFSA can have a successor annuitant, this feature allows the deceased TFSA to transfer into the successor annuitants’ TFSA there is never simultaneous or joint ownership with a RRIF or TFSA, it is not technically possible. The Judge highlighted that the account holder of a TFSA or RRIF can change their mind and change or update the beneficiary designation prior to death which is a unique feature of these assets and unlike for joint assets, there is no fiduciary relationship between the asset owner of a RRIF or TFSA and their named beneficiary while the person is alive.   In addition, in cases of joint bank accounts or jointly owned real estate, it is possible for the transferor to enter into a situation where the right of survivorship cannot be changed if the Court finds that the transferor intended that the asset pass to the other joint holder on their death at time of transfer. Courts in some provinces have found that an irrevocable “gift” of the right of survivorship occurred, barring the asset holder from changing their mind. The argument that the Judge advanced that should provide comfort to life insurance colleagues is that RRIFS and TFSAs are distinguished in the decision by being separate creatures by statute. Under the Succession Law Reform Act beneficiary designation issues are properly subject to provincial legislation and not common law interpretation as is the case with joint accounts. This bodes well for anyone advancing arguments that the presumption of resulting trust analysis should not extend to life insurance products because they are governed by provincial Insurance Acts. For additional context, read Laroux Peoples’ interview with The Globe and Mail published on April 23, 2026: Ontario court rules registered plans belong to designated beneficiary, not to estate – The Globe and Mail *We have commented on the conflicting court cases that have dealt with the issue of whether the presumption of resulting trust applies to beneficiary designations in prior articles: Beneficiary Designations – Making Sure Your Money Goes Where You Want and Beneficiary Designations and the Importance of Transparency

Read the full transcript here In today’s episode – “Integrating Insurance Into a Wealth Practice” we unpack why so many wealth advisors struggle to bring insurance meaningfully into their planning—and why this challenge also creates real partnership opportunities for insurance‑focused advisors looking to grow revenue.  For a lot of advisors, the challenge isn’t belief in the value of insurance—it’s bandwidth. Insurance feels like a different world: slower processes, more conversations, more ambiguity. And many advisors who once led with protection planning years ago now find themselves out of practice, unsure how to reintroduce these conversations with clients who’ve since accumulated significant wealth. The result? Missed estate‑planning opportunities, delayed conversations, and clients who only seek insurance once health issues have already changed the landscape. The questions we’re answering today are: Why is integrating insurance into a wealth practice so difficult for advisors? How should an advisor decide whether to become the expert, build internal expertise, or partner externally? And what does effective, trustworthy partnership actually look like in practice? Joining us to break this down is Jaclyn Nemethy, Senior Director of Strategic Relationships at PPI. Jaclyn is part of a specialist team working exclusively with wealth‑focused advisors as they build—or rebuild—their insurance capability. She brings deep insight into advisor capacity, partnership models, and the real‑world habits that separate good intentions from actual implementation. In this episode, you’ll learn how to choose your lane, structure partnerships with confidence, and make simple process tweaks that finally bring insurance into the client conversation. So, let’s get into it. Here’s “Integrating Insurance into a Wealth Practice” with Jaclyn Nemethy. Read the full transcript here

Read the full transcript here In today’s episode – “Networking with Intent” – we dig into why so many advisors feel stuck, uncomfortable, or simply ineffective when it comes to networking, and how a more intentional, strategic approach can completely change the experience. Advisors often walk into events hoping to “meet the right people,” but without a clear objective or plan. Others rely on outdated tactics—collecting business cards, rushing conversations, or defaulting to sales-focused follow‑ups. And for introverted advisors, the pressure to perform in a crowded room can make networking feel draining or inauthentic. The questions we’re answering today include: What does a thoughtful, strategic networking plan actually look like? How can advisors start more natural conversations—both in person and online? And what does meaningful, memorable follow‑up really require? Joining us to break this down is Kendall Harris, Director of Strategic Growth at PPI. Kendall has spent years in both inside and outside sales across the insurance industry, where networking isn’t just part of the job—it’s part of her everyday life. She not only excels at building relationships; she genuinely loves creating new connections, which makes her the perfect person to guide this conversation. In this episode, you’ll learn how to approach networking with a clear plan, engage people in authentic conversations, and build deeper, more meaningful relationships that continue long after the event ends. So, let’s get into it. Here’s “Networking with Intent” with Kendall Harris. Read the full transcript here

In November, we shared an update on FSRA’s proposed MGA licensing framework, including the introduction of a new “Tier 3 MGA” definition that could impact some Ontario-licensed advisors and small corporations.  At that time, FSRA indicated its intention to finalize the rule and implement it effective June 1, 2026. The proposal outlined three tiers of MGAs, with Tier 3 potentially capturing smaller corporations that may not typically consider themselves MGAs and that could be subject to new licensing and oversight requirements.  Good news update  Since November, industry partners – including Barb Leighton, PPI’s Vice-President, Chief Compliance and Privacy Officer – have been actively advocating on behalf of advisors and the broader industry with the Ontario Ministry of Finance. This work has focused on clearly communicating potential unintended consequences of the proposed rule and ensuring advisor perspectives were well understood.  As of February 18, 2026, the government has confirmed that it will not proceed with the June 1, 2026 implementation of FSRA’s Life & Health MGA Rule at this time. This pause will allow for further consideration of stakeholder feedback and alternative approaches, while maintaining a focus on appropriate regulation and strong consumer protection.  The government has also reaffirmed its commitment to implementing an MGA licensing framework in Ontario and has indicated that further updates and next steps will be shared by the Ministry of Finance and FSRA in due course.  We will remain actively engaged in ongoing discussions, continue to monitor developments closely, and keep you informed as more information becomes available. In the meantime, no action is required as a result of the previously announced June 1 implementation timeline.  If you have questions or concerns about how future MGA licensing changes may affect your business, please don’t hesitate to reach out to your PPI contact.   

Read the full transcript here In today’s episode, “Buying a Book of Business”, we’re shifting the spotlight to a side of succession planning we haven’t fully unpacked yet: what it takes to become the buyer. Over the past few episodes, we’ve spent time examining the sell side—preparing for unexpected health events, ensuring continuity, and finding ways to strengthen the long term value of a practice. But acquiring a book comes with its own set of challenges, opportunities, and blind spots. And for many advisors, knowing how to approach a purchase can be just as important as knowing how to eventually transition out of one. Today we’re tackling key questions like: Where do you uncover real opportunities to purchase a book of business? What groundwork should you lay before making an offer? How do you determine a fair price? And what exactly should you be assessing before you commit? Providing us with real-world insights is someone who’s lived the buying process more than most advisors will in an entire career. Before turning 40, Kelsie Lenton, a successful advisor based in Saskatoon, purchased three separate books of business—each dramatically accelerating the growth of her practice. She even chose to walk away from a fourth opportunity after recognizing warning signs around fit and values. Through these experiences, Kelsie has gained deep insight into what makes an acquisition worthwhile, what makes it risky, and what makes it transformative. So, let’s get into it. Here’s “Buying a Book of Business” with Kelsie Lenton. Read the full transcript here

Read the full transcript here In today’s episode – “Maximizing the Value of Your Practice” we explore the ins and outs of selling your book of business. If you’re a financial advisor, sooner or later you’ll reach the point where you need—or choose—to sell your practice. Even if you plan to run your business well into retirement, life happens. Changes in your health, your family’s priorities, or the evolving needs of your clients can all bring you to a moment where selling becomes the right decision. The questions we’re answering today are: How far in advance should you start preparing for the sale? And what strategies can help you maximize the value of your business? Joining us to break this down is Tim McWhinney, PPI’s Regional Vice President in Ontario, where he partners with leading advisory firms to optimize their business performance and drive growth. With years of experience as both a financial advisor and a business coach, Tim has been deeply involved in brokering buy–sell deals – coaching advisors through every step of the process. He understands what advisors look for in a book of business, what they should avoid, and what can be done to enhance the value of a practice before it goes to market. In this episode, you’ll learn what makes a practice more attractive to buyers — and the practical steps you can take long before you’re ready to sell. So, let’s get into it. Here’s “Maximizing the Value of Your Practice” with Tim McWhinney. Read the full transcript here

Step into the world of PPI’s Advisor Talk podcast where independent, insurance-focused advisors in Canada can discover strategies and insights to propel their practice and strengthen client relationships. Take a look back at our first four episodes, where we explored Succession Planning, Generative AI, Underwriting, and Coaching. 🎧 Listen on your favourite podcast apps, including Spotify and Apple Podcasts, or stream directly in the Insurance Compass app. Visit www.advisortalk.ca to learn more!

Unlocking Your Team’s Talent In today’s episode – “Unlocking Your Team’s Talent” – we uncover the most common mistakes leaders make, and explore practical coaching methodologies designed to bypass emotional triggers and cultivate real change. For many financial advisors and firm leaders, developing talent is one of the greatest and most frustrating challenges. Whether you’re building your existing team’s skills or developing the capabilities of your future successor, when it comes to coaching or delivering performance feedback, it often feels like you’re navigating a minefield. You try to be direct—you point out what went wrong—but instead of getting the desired fix, you’re met with resistance, defensiveness, or a breakdown in motivation. The question we’re going to explore today is: How do I give feedback that actually works. Today, we’re incredibly fortunate to be joined by a leadership expert who has spent over 15 years directly supporting financial advisors in both the carrier and independent channels. Not only does she understand your business and your challenges, she understand the path to building deep, productive relationships. Our guest is Amal Masri, the CEO of Fix the Broken Rung, a leadership accelerator that helps companies rapidly develop high-potential talent. Amal is a specialist in organizational development and performance focused on helping leaders bridge generational, cultural, and gender differences to maximize team impact. In this episode, Amal will transform your approach to coaching. So, let’s get into it. Here’s “Unlocking Your Team’s Talent” with Amal Masri.

The Art of Advanced Underwriting In today’s episode—“The Art of Advanced Underwriting”—we’re diving into the critical skills that give advisors more influence over their client’s underwriting outcomes. Let’s be honest—it’s frustrating when you have a deserving client, but the initial medical evidence suggests health issues that could lead to a significant rating or an outright decline. The question we’re going to explore today is: Rather than accepting a frustrating underwriting outcome, how can you actively manage the narrative of your client’s health and truly advocate for them? To help us answer that, we’re joined by Romeo Vitagliano— Insurance industry veteran. Romeo began his career as an advisor 44 years ago, transitioned to a roll as an underwriter and later served as the Chief Underwriter at Met Life, giving him a unique perspective from both sides of the insurance application. Today, Romeo brings that same passion and expertise to the field. He works in an Advanced Underwriting capacity, helping advisors evaluate and position insurance applications in the most favourable way. And that’s where today’s conversation begins. In this episode, we’ll explore: Why an advisor’s field underwriting is the most powerful tool for securing a competitive offer before a rating or decline is even considered, and The strategies for uncovering ‘context’—the crucial details that help humanize a medical case for the carrier’s underwriter. So let’s get into it. Here’s “The Art of Advanced Underwriting” with Romeo Vitagliano.

In today’s episode – “Flourishing in the Age of AI” – we’re diving into one of the most pressing and complex topics facing advisors today: the rise of artificial intelligence. Let’s be honest – AI is changing everything. It can process data faster than any human, analyze patterns with astonishing precision, and even generate client-ready reports in seconds. If you’re feeling uncertain – or even a little fearful – about what AI means for your role, your relationships, and your relevance, you’re not alone. Many advisors are asking: Where do I fit in a world where machines can do so much? To help us answer that, we’re joined by Edmund Chien – a public speaker and coach for financial professionals who specializes in applying the principles of behavioural finance to help advisors elevate their success in the affluent market. Edmund brings a unique perspective. He’s built and managed a $70 million book of business comprised of multi-millionaire households, focused mainly on multiple generational family portfolios. His philosophy is simple but powerful: genuine care, emotional goodwill, and understanding the human journey are the keys to thriving – not just surviving – in the age of AI. And that’s where today’s conversation begins. In this episode, we’ll explore: How behavioural finance can help advisors deepen client relationships in an AI-driven world Why emotional intelligence is more valuable than ever And how you can position yourself not just as a data interpreter—but as a trusted guide in your clients’ financial lives So let’s get into it. Here’s “Flourishing in the Age of AI” with Edmund Chien.

In today’s episode – “The Succession Wake-Up Call” – we’re diving into a story that every advisor in Canada needs to hear. It’s heartbreaking. It’s disturbing. And it’s eye-opening. This is not just a cautionary tale – it’s a call to action. I was recently introduced to a story involving three advisors, three chapters, and one uncomfortable truth: too many advisors are unprepared for the unexpected. Chapter 1 begins with a veteran advisor in his 70s, diagnosed with terminal cancer. With time running out, he scrambles to put a succession plan in place. Chapter 2 follows the younger advisor who steps in to take over the business – only to pass away unexpectedly himself, leaving not one but two practices without a clear plan. Chapter 3 introduces into the story our guest today – Mike Mollica, an independent advisor in Vancouver, BC. Mike stepped up to take over the business. But without a Will or any formal succession plan, the transition was long, painful, and riddled with legal and privacy challenges. For months, client information was inaccessible. Questions couldn’t be answered. Needs couldn’t be met. In this episode, we’ll explore: Why succession planning is not optional – even for younger advisors How privacy laws can complicate transitions without proper documentation And what steps you can take today to protect your clients, your business, and your legacy So let’s get into it. Here’s “The Succession Wake-Up Call” with Mike Mollica.  

As global travel rebounds post-pandemic, it now reaches historic highs: 1.45 billion international tourist arrivals in 2024, representing an 11.5% increase over the previous year [1]. This sprawling mobility landscape—over 50-fold higher than the mere 25 million arrivals in 1950 [2]—demands careful risk assessment in underwriting. A leading threat: road traffic injuries remain a major cause of traveler mortality. The WHO reports approximately 1.19 million global annual deaths from road crashes [3]. They are notably the top cause of death among travelers aged 5–29, with particularly high fatality rates in low- and middle-income regions [4][5]. Geopolitical risk profiles over time further shape travel underwriting. Colombia, once a high-risk destination in the 1980s–90s due to political conflict, is now largely stable. Conversely, countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Haiti continue to be red flags due to enduring instability. Israel, historically considered with caution—especially concerning travel to the West Bank and Gaza—has seen heightened scrutiny since October 2023, reflecting shifting security dynamics. To manage such multifaceted risks, advisors should consistently gather travel histories spanning the past 1–2 years and future plans up to 24 months ahead. Detailed inquiries regarding geographic regions, accommodation types, security conditions, and access to emergency medical care are invaluable. In an ever-changing world, underwriting guidelines must be treated as provisional, continuously updated to reflect current realities. In short, the sheer volume of modern global travel—especially in light of road-safety trends and geopolitical fluctuations—underscores the importance of detailed risk evaluation. Well-informed advisors and underwriters should remain dynamic, tailoring assessments to both past behavior and emerging travel landscapes to secure accurate, responsible underwriting outcomes. References 1. World Tourism Rankings – Wikipedia, 2025. 2. Overtourism – Wikipedia (historical arrivals data). 3. WHO Global Status Report on Road Safety 2023. 4. CDC – Global Road Safety. 5. Patel D. et al., Injury and Death during Travel. PubMed, 2022.

As RRSP season approaches, we have curated a few articles and tools to help guide conversations with your clients to help them make informed financial decisions. The client article, “Navigating the RRSP Season: Your Essential Resources,” highlights three key resources: an RRSP calculator to maximize contributions, a video comparing RRSPs and TFSAs, and another video discussing segregated funds as a secure investment option. These resources can help your clients understand how to boost their savings and make strategic decisions for their financial future. Empower your clients with the knowledge they need to succeed this RRSP season! Would you like to share this client article via your own branded website? Sign up for Your Link Between today and start sharing your branded content via email and social media.

The insurance landscape is constantly evolving, presenting advisors with a unique set of challenges. From understanding the tax implications of different policies to staying abreast of provincial wills and estates law, the need for reliable and up-to-date information is critical. Add to that the complexities of underwriting, product knowledge, and ever-changing regulations, and it’s clear that advisors need a trusted resource to help them navigate these complexities. INTRODUCING ADVISOR TALK Advisor Talk is a free, one-stop collection of digital resources designed to empower insurance advisors with the knowledge and tools they need to succeed. Advisor Talk is backed by PPI, a leading name in advanced insurance planning since 1978. With nearly five decades of experience, PPI has a proven track record of providing expert guidance and support to independent advisors across Canada. EMPOWERING INSURANCE ADVISORS Advisor Talk recognizes the unique challenges faced by insurance advisors in today’s market. Our platform provides insurance-focused advisors with free access to a wealth of information on a wide range of topics, including: Insights from top insurance advisors in the industry Planning tips from our advanced planners, tax planners, and underwriters Tax regulations and implications Provincial wills and estates law Underwriting guidelines and best practices Client-friendly insurance focused calculators COMING IN 2025 In 2025 we’ll be launching a variety of new resources for insurance-focused advisors including: The Advisor Talk Podcast, Advisor Talk TV by PPI, and a one-of-a-kind Insurance App designed exclusively for advisors. Join our Advisor Talk mailing list to get notified as soon as each resource becomes available to independent Canadian advisors: GET NOTIFIED  

Client Relationship Management (CRM) systems are invaluable for enhancing client interactions and streamlining operations. By centralizing client information, CRM systems provide a unified view of each client, which is crucial for delivering consistent and personalized service. This centralization allows you to track client interactions and preferences, enabling you to tailor your advice and improve client satisfaction. Moreover, CRM systems enhance communication within your practice by providing a platform where client data is shared, allowing different team members to collaborate more effectively. Marketing efforts can benefit from insights gathered by you and your team, creating targeted campaigns, while your client service team can access a client’s history to resolve issues more efficiently. Additionally, CRM systems can automate routine tasks, saving time and reducing the risk of human error, allowing you to focus on more strategic activities. CRM systems also play a crucial role in ensuring compliance. They centralize client information, automate documentation, and provide detailed audit trails, which are essential for compliance audits and reporting. By analyzing client data, these systems can identify trends, measure the effectiveness of strategies, and make data-driven decisions. This not only helps in managing potential compliance risks but also fosters stronger client relationships by understanding their preferences and behaviors, ultimately leading to improved client satisfaction and loyalty. Exciting News! PPI has identified three CRM vendors willing to offer PPI Advisors exclusive discounts. This is a fantastic opportunity to consider adopting a CRM system and elevating your practice to the next level. Visit PPI’s Advisor website to learn more about these vendors and their discounts.

The federal government announced its annual budget on November 5, 2026. PPI’s Professional Services team has prepared a summary of budget proposals. This article does not contain a complete list of proposals but outlines the ones relating to the financial services industry Executive summary The Budget contains no material changes to corporate-owned life insurance, the capital dividend account, leveraged insurance arrangements, the general capital gains inclusion rate, or the lifetime capital gains exemption. Key proposals include: the new $15-million Canada Growth Incentive, relief from Part VI.1 tax for Canadian-controlled private corporations (CCPCs), restrictions on certain trust rollouts involving non-residents, proposed corporate loss transfers, changes affecting individual pension plans, selected cross-border measures, an expanded intergenerational rollover for farm and fishing property, revised corporate holdings rules for private foundations, a common May 15 tax-filing deadline for individuals, and simplified filing requirements for certain corporate tax elections. The Canada Growth Incentive: new $15 million capital gains exemption The Budget proposes a new capital gains exemption of up to $15 million per qualifying individual, per qualifying business, for qualifying shares issued on or after November 5, 2026 and before 2037. The shares must have been newly issued directly to the individual, or to a partnership in which the individual is a member, for cash or qualifying employment services. The issuing corporation must be a CCPC when the shares are issued, and the corporation and related corporations must have no more than $100 million of aggregate asset carrying value immediately before and after issuance. The shares must be held for at least 36 months. At issuance and disposition, all or substantially all of the corporation’s value must relate to assets used in a qualifying business; during ownership, the threshold is at least 50 per cent. The exempt gain would have a 30-per-cent inclusion rate for alternative minimum tax purposes. The excluded business rules are extensive. Professional practices, consulting, insurance and financial services, real estate, accommodation and food services, arts and recreation, licensed businesses, franchises, and businesses principally dependent on employee reputation or skill do not qualify. This is not a general exemption for the sale of an owner-managed business. It appears directed primarily at founders and investors in scalable growth companies.  The previously proposed Canadian Entrepreneurs’ Incentive (CEI) appears no longer to be part of the government’s legislative agenda. The CEI would have effectively reduced the inclusion rate on up to $2 million of qualifying gains. It was never enacted and is not included in the Budget’s list of previously announced measures the government intends to pursue. The Canada Growth Incentive is a completely separate policy successor. Part VI.1 relief for CCPC taxable preferred shares The Budget proposes to exclude dividends paid by a CCPC from the Part VI.1 taxable preferred-share regime, effective for dividends paid on or after Budget Day. It also proposes increasing the general annual dividend allowance from $500,000 to $1.5 million and the prior-year dividend threshold that reduces the allowance from $1 million to $3 million, for taxation years ending after 2026. This is potentially significant for estate freezes, preferred-share reorganizations, charitable preferred share gifts, shareholder agreements and other fixed-value preferred share planning. If the payer remains a CCPC, the exemption may eliminate an issue that previously required detailed review under sections 191 and 191.1 of the Income Tax Act.  Intergenerational farm and fishing property rollover The tax-deferred rollover for qualifying farm and fishing property would be expanded to transfers to a niece, nephew, grandniece or grandnephew of the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse or common-law partner. The change would apply to transfers on or after January 1, 2027. Private foundations The excess corporate holdings regime for private foundations would be eliminated. Instead, private foundations would be prohibited from acquiring control of a corporation, consistent with the rules applicable to public foundations. The change would apply to taxation years beginning on or after January 1, 2027. Trust rollouts involving non-resident ownership The Budget proposes to deny a tax-deferred trust rollout where property is distributed to a corporation or partnership with a direct or indirect non-resident shareholder or partner. The proposal applies to distributions on or after Budget Day. Before relying on subsection 107(2) of the Income Tax Act, practitioners may need to examine the full ownership chain of a corporate or partnership beneficiary. This may be particularly relevant where a family trust or related corporate structure includes U.S.-resident family members. The breadth of “direct or indirect” ownership should be revisited when the statutory language is available. It is important to note that some types of trust rollout planning involving non-residents are currently subject to reporting under the current “notifiable transaction” rules using CRA Form RC312, Reportable Transaction and Notifiable Transaction Information Return. However, if enacted, the proposed measure now would move beyond simply disclosure to potential scrutiny under the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR). Proposed corporate-loss transfer system The government is consulting on transfers of current-year non-capital losses between a parent and wholly-owned subsidiary, or between wholly-owned sister corporations. The preliminary framework would require taxable Canadian corporations, a joint annual election and permanent establishments in only one province or territory and in the same province or territory. Transferred losses could not be carried forward or back. Pension and retirement measures The Budget proposes tighter rules for Individual Pension Plans, particularly plans involving related people, unusual investments or significantly more assets than are needed to fund the promised pensions. A seriously non-compliant registered pension plan could face a 10% tax and may be treated as a Retirement Compensation Arrangement, potentially triggering the RCA’s 50% refundable tax. The government will also consult on an “RRSP for life,” which could allow individuals to keep their RRSP after age 71 rather than converting it to a RRIF, although minimum annual withdrawals would still be required. The IPP proposals warrant attention in insured retirement, corporate-owner and business-succession files. The RRSP proposal could simplify spousal succession and post-mortem administration, but it is presently only a consultation. Cross-border and compliance measures Proposed measures include: Increase the basic Form T1135 threshold from $100,000 to $200,000 and the upper limit for simplified reporting from below $250,000 to below $500,000, for taxation years or fiscal periods ending after 2026. Reduce certain section 116 withholding rates from 25 per cent to 15 per cent, and from 50 per cent to 30 per cent for specified taxable Canadian property. Facilitate certain fully tax-deferred section 85 transfers of taxable Canadian property, generally for dispositions on or after January 1, 2027. Permit the CRA, subject to safeguards, to report tax debts exceeding $50,000 to credit bureaus. Corporate tax elections Corporations would no longer need to provide a certified directors’ resolution or authorization when filing certain tax elections or agreements with the CRA. A certified copy of the directors’ resolution is currently required when filing a capital dividend election. Removing this requirement should reduce the time and cost associated with preparing and filing the election. The change would apply to elections and agreements made on or after the enacting legislation receives Royal Assent. Individual tax-return filing and payment deadlines The T1 filing and balance-due date would become May 15 for all individuals, including self-employed individuals and their spouses or common-law partners. The change would apply beginning with the 2027 taxation year. What was not in the Budget No change to the general capital gains inclusion rate. No change to the small business deduction or the $500,000 business limit. No increase to, or restructuring of, the regular lifetime capital gains exemption. No change to corporate-owned life insurance, policy adjusted cost basis, subsection 148(1), subsection 148(7), or capital dividend account credits arising on death. No targeted measure addressing immediate financing arrangements, leveraged insurance, interest deductibility, or corporate borrowing secured by life insurance. No change to post-mortem pipeline planning, subsection 84(2), graduated rate estates, or family trust 21-year rules. This briefing is a preliminary professional summary, not legal or tax advice. The proposals may undergo revisions before becoming law, and should be confirmed against enacted legislation, including explanatory notes. 

Read full transcript here In today’s episode, “What it really takes to move up market,” we discuss what it takes for advisors to work with business owners and affluent clients. Is it simply a matter of finding wealthier prospects, or does moving up market require something much deeper? In this episode, we’re joined by Brad Pashby, Regional Director, Advanced Markets and Business Development at PPI. Before joining PPI, Brad built a highly successful advisor practice of his own. His journey took an unexpected turn when a conversation about a relatively modest insurance need led to a multimillion-dollar business opportunity, completely changing the way he viewed his practice and the market he served. Brad challenges some of the biggest assumptions advisors have about moving up market. Is it really a gradual progression, or is it a fundamental step change in mindset, skills, and business strategy? He shares why many advisors may not be ready for that transition today, what needs to change if they are, and how advisors can start thinking more like the business owners they hope to serve. Whether you’re curious about working with affluent clients or actively looking to grow your business in that direction, this conversation will challenge your thinking and give you practical ideas to consider. So, let’s get into it. Here’s “What it really takes to move up market” with Brad Pashby. Read full transcript here

By Patrick Uzan (Vice-President, Professional Services, PPI) Note: On October 13, 2026, the Honey brothers filed a Notice of Appeal from the Tax Court of Canada’s decision in Honey v. The King with the Federal Court of Appeal. More details to follow on any relevant developments as the case progresses.  On September 15, 2026, the Tax Court of Canada released its decision in Honey v. The King, 2026 TCC 170 (“Honey”). The Court dismissed the appeals of Glenn Honey and Greg Honey and upheld the Minister’s decision to restrict interest deductions arising from their 10/8 life insurance arrangements to a rate of 4.18%, rather than the contractual rate of 10%. The decision should not have a material impact on traditional immediate financing arrangements (“IFAs”). The features that drove the Court’s conclusion in Honey are not present in a conventional IFA. The 10/8 arrangements The Honey brothers indirectly owned equal interests in Honey Bee Manufacturing Ltd. (“Honey Bee”). In 2006, each purchased a universal life insurance policy from RBC Life Insurance Company. Each policy had a $19 million base death benefit, with Honey Bee designated as beneficiary. The policies formed part of what was commonly known as a 10/8 arrangement (1). Each policy included a collateral investment account (“CIA”) that provided a guaranteed annual return of 8% on a tax-exempt basis. Each brother also entered into an investment credit facility (“ICF”) under which amounts could be borrowed at a fixed interest rate of 10%. The two components were contractually linked. The value of the CIA was required to equal the amount borrowed under the ICF, and the insurance policy and CIA were assigned to the lender as security. Each brother drew funds from his shareholder account with Honey Bee, deposited an amount into the CIA, borrowed an equal principal amount under the ICF, net of 2% partial interest paid in advance, and lent the net borrowing proceeds to Honey Bee. The brothers claimed deductions under subparagraph 20(1)(c)(i) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) for the 10% interest paid on the ICF loans. The Minister did not dispute that the borrowed money had been used for an income-earning purpose. Instead, the Minister concluded that 10% was not a “reasonable amount” of interest for purposes of paragraph 20(1)(c). CRA allowed interest calculated at 4.18% and disallowed the balance. The Court’s decision The central issue was the fourth requirement for interest deductibility identified by the Supreme Court of Canada in Shell Canada Ltd. v. Canada, 3 S.C.R. 622 (“Shell”): the amount claimed must be calculated at a reasonable rate. In Shell, the Supreme Court stated: “Where an interest rate is established in a market of lenders and borrowers acting at arm’s length from each other, it is generally a reasonable rate.” The Honey brothers argued that the relevant market was the “market” for 10/8 insurance products. Other insurers offered substantially similar arrangements with an 8% policy-account return and a 10% borrowing rate. They maintained that the availability of these products demonstrated that 10% was a market-established, and therefore reasonable rate. Justice Russell rejected that position. In the Court’s view, the 8% and 10% rates were predetermined elements of an integrated insurance product rather than rates produced by genuine lending-market forces. The Court also characterized the movement of money as circular. Funds came from Honey Bee through the brothers’ shareholder accounts, were deposited into the CIAs, supported matching borrowings under the ICFs, and were then lent to Honey Bee. Based on the circular and effectively self-funded character of the transactions, Justice Russell concluded that the arrangements did not satisfy the arm’s-length market premise underlying the statement in Shell. Finally, the decision was significantly influenced by the burden of proof. The Minister had assumed that public-market debt instruments were appropriate comparators and that 4.18% was reasonable. That rate was between ten-year benchmark yields of 4% and 4.68% and within the Crown expert’s stated range of 3.5% to 4.5%. The Court concluded that the taxpayers had not provided sufficient evidence of comparable market rates to support that the rate was an arm’s length determined rate; therefore, the Court could not conclude that any rate above 4.18%, was reasonable. Why the decision should not affect traditional IFAs A traditional IFA is materially different from the arrangement considered in Honey. First, a conventional IFA does not ordinarily provide the policyholder with a guaranteed investment return set in direct relation to the borrowing rate. The defining feature of the Honey arrangement was the coordinated 8% return and 10% borrowing rate. In a traditional IFA, policy values arise under the terms and experience of the insurance policy, while the loan generally bears an independently determined commercial rate. Second, a traditional IFA does not ordinarily require a matching deposit into a special policy account as a condition of each loan advance. In Honey, the CIA had to equal the ICF balance, and the brothers had to contribute the funds that supported the advances. Third, the pricing of a traditional IFA loan is normally connected to ordinary commercial lending conditions. The interest rate may reflect a benchmark rate, lender spread, borrower creditworthiness, collateral coverage, guarantees, loan-to-value limits and other customary lending considerations. Unlike the fixed 10% rate in Honey, the rate is not selected to complement a guaranteed return within the policy. Finally, the decision in the Honey case does not hold that borrowing secured by life insurance is inherently objectionable. Nor did the Court deny the deductions because the borrowed money lacked an income-earning use. The decision dealt with the narrower question of whether the full 10% interest charge represented a reasonable amount under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Act. and the Court allowed what was determined as reasonable (being 4.18%) based on the evidence provided. Practical implications Honey demonstrates the importance of maintaining evidence supporting the commercial reasonableness of an interest rate, particularly where insurance and financing transactions are closely connected. For traditional IFAs, the primary lesson is documentation rather than structural invalidity: The insurance need should be established independently, The loan should be subject to genuine independent commercial underwriting, and The interest rate should be supportable by customary lending factors. The arrangements should also avoid any suggestion that the policy return and loan rate have been coordinated. Subject to any appeal, the Honey decision should therefore be limited to the unique facts of the 10/8 arrangement, not as a general rejection of using insurance as collateral for a loan. The Tax Court upheld the 4.18% rate because the Honey brothers failed to demonstrate that the predetermined 10% rate was reasonable. (1) Traditional 10/8 arrangements are no longer offered in the market following the 2013 amendments to the Income Tax Act, which introduced a specific definition of a “10/8 policy” and existing arrangements were consequently unwound or restructured so that they would no longer fall within the statutory definition of a 10/8 policy. Most 10/8 arrangements that were wound up or restructured are now statue-barred (returns generally become statue-barred three years after the date that the CRA mails the original Notice of Assessment unless certain exceptions are met, for instance the taxpayer filed a waiver). This document is for general information purposes and advisor use. The information contained in this document must not be taken or relied upon by the reader as legal, accounting, taxation, financial, actuarial or other advice made to them, or to any other person or firm, by PPI or any of its affiliates. Please refer to insurance company illustrations, policy contracts and information folders regarding any insurance matters referred to in this document. Readers must seek independent professional advice with regard to the verification and use of the information contained in this document. Copying or reproduction of this document is not allowed without the express prior written consent of PPI. October 2026.

Read full transcript here In today’s episode – “How AI is Changing the Referral Process” – we explore how AI is changing the way prospective clients evaluate advisors long before a first conversation ever takes place.   For years, advisors focused on being discoverable through search engines, websites, and social media. But increasingly, people are turning to AI tools to get answers, recommendations, and validation before reaching out to a professional. That creates a new challenge: if referrals are still the most valuable source of new business, what role does AI play in shaping the referral journey?   The questions we’re answering today are: How is AI influencing the referral process? What story are AI platforms telling about you and your practice? And how can advisors begin shaping that story?   Joining us to break this down is Geoff Evans, Vice-President of Marketing and Communications at PPI. Before launching his own businesses, Social Media Coach and The Animation Studio, Geoff spent years in the insurance industry as an advisor, sales trainer, and business coach, helping advisors build stronger practices and grow their businesses. He later dedicated much of his career to coaching advisors on how to use digital technology more effectively, giving him a unique perspective on how new technologies are adopted and where advisors often miss the bigger opportunity.  In this episode, you’ll learn how AI is changing advisor visibility, why authenticity and specialization matter more than ever, and what practical steps can help shape your digital reputation.   So, let’s get into it. Here’s “How AI is Changing the Referral Process” with Geoff Evans. Read full transcript here

By Laroux Peoples, JD (Vice-President Professional Services, PPI) Are segregated funds subject to the presumption of resulting trust? Not in Ontario according to RBC Life Insurance Company v. Masitch et al 2026 ONSC 2277. Great news for those in life insurance but recall from my last case comment, there is no Supreme Court of Canada decision and there is regional variation so check the law in your province. In this case released the day after Kunka Estate v. Giasson, a mother named one of her two sons as a beneficiary on two segregated fund contracts. She died intestate and both sons were equal beneficiaries of any proceeds falling into the estate. The brother who was not named disputed the beneficiary designations, arguing it was his late mother’s intention that his brother share the proceeds as he was holding them on resulting trust for their mother’s estate. There was no other evidence provided to demonstrate that the mother intended her two sons to be equal beneficiaries. There were some personal notes from the mother with questions for her life insurance advisors but nothing determinative. Justice Dietrich applied Mak (Estate) v. Mak (and not Calmusky v. Calmusky) and found the presumption of resulting trust did not apply to these properly designated segregated funds. The onus then shifted to the plaintiff to prove that either the donor made a beneficiary designation to simplify estate administration or provide other proof that the mother intended that the proceeds be split. With no other evidence for either provided, the beneficiary designations were confirmed. What can wealth and insurance advisors learn from this case? Thorough contemporaneous notes of client meetings can be helpful evidence to support your client’s beneficiary designations. And insist your client gets that will done. Segregated funds are not a will substitute but can be a very effective piece of the overall estate plan. For additional context, read Laroux Peoples’ interview with The Globe and Mail published on July 2, 2026: Ontario court rules seg funds belong to named beneficiary, not to estate – The Globe and Mail *We have commented on the conflicting court cases that have dealt with the issue of whether the presumption of resulting trust applies to beneficiary designations in prior articles: What a Recent Court Ruling Means for TFSA, RRSP and RRIF Beneficiaries, Beneficiary Designations – Making Sure Your Money Goes Where You Want and Beneficiary Designations and the Importance of Transparency.  

By Laroux Peoples, JD (Vice-President Professional Services, PPI) Beneficiary designations have been found not to be subject to the presumption of resulting trust – they are instead testamentary dispositions. Advisors and their clients now have one more court case to support the view that beneficiary designations are not the same as joint bank accounts or jointly owned real estate making the presumption of resulting trust that arose out of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Pecore decision and subsequent other conflicting cases* the incorrect framework to use for beneficiary designated assets like TFSAs or RRSPs and RRIFs. This is extremely important for estate planning because when the presumption of resulting trust applies, the asset is seen to be held in trust for the estate unless the person receiving the asset can show that the deceased intended to gift the property to the recipient. This is not always an easy task since the person making the transfer has often passed away. The Ontario decision of Kunka Estate v. Giasson is welcome news as clients across Canada want to ensure that their testamentary wishes come to fruition instead of ending up in estate litigation. But even though this decision provides some clarity, we can’t celebrate quite yet as the decision is a lower court decision and could be appealed, and we have yet to have the Supreme Court of Canada weigh in on this issue. In addition, please note this discussion does not apply if the account holder resides in Quebec. Recall that the presumption of resulting trust applies to gratuitous transfers from a parent to an adult child where it is unclear what the intent of the transferor was at the time of adding the adult child to a bank account or to a piece of real estate as joint owner. However, post Pecore, the presumption of resulting trust has been applied more broadly to include all types of relationships (e.g. friend-friend, great nephew-niece) and Courts have applied the presumption of resulting trust analysis beyond joint bank accounts to properly designated RRSPs, RRIFs and TFSAs and even some life insurance products. It is with welcome relief in the recent Kunka Estate v. Giasson, that the Judge found that the presumption of resulting trust should not be applied to TFSA and RRIF beneficiary designations. To come to this conclusion the Judge made the following findings: Joint accounts under Pecore do not equal TFSA or RRIF beneficiary designations. Unlike for joint accounts, an adult child does not have access to the proceeds of a TFSA or RRIF when they are named as a beneficiary during the lifetime of the account owner, it is only accessible on death. A beneficiary designated asset is only available on the death of the asset holder making the intent at the time of the designation crystal clear. When intent is unclear with jointly held assets, the presumption of resulting trust is the framework a Court can use to determine intent. The fact that the asset is only accessible on death also points very specifically to the asset holder’s intent of that asset on their death – it is the very essence of a beneficiary designation. A presumption of resulting trust analysis, in contract, is only necessary when the asset holder’s intent on what happens on their death is unclear when they add the adult child to the joint account. RRIFS and TFSAs cannot have joint ownership. While a TFSA can have a successor annuitant, this feature allows the deceased TFSA to transfer into the successor annuitants’ TFSA there is never simultaneous or joint ownership with a RRIF or TFSA, it is not technically possible. The Judge highlighted that the account holder of a TFSA or RRIF can change their mind and change or update the beneficiary designation prior to death which is a unique feature of these assets and unlike for joint assets, there is no fiduciary relationship between the asset owner of a RRIF or TFSA and their named beneficiary while the person is alive.   In addition, in cases of joint bank accounts or jointly owned real estate, it is possible for the transferor to enter into a situation where the right of survivorship cannot be changed if the Court finds that the transferor intended that the asset pass to the other joint holder on their death at time of transfer. Courts in some provinces have found that an irrevocable “gift” of the right of survivorship occurred, barring the asset holder from changing their mind. The argument that the Judge advanced that should provide comfort to life insurance colleagues is that RRIFS and TFSAs are distinguished in the decision by being separate creatures by statute. Under the Succession Law Reform Act beneficiary designation issues are properly subject to provincial legislation and not common law interpretation as is the case with joint accounts. This bodes well for anyone advancing arguments that the presumption of resulting trust analysis should not extend to life insurance products because they are governed by provincial Insurance Acts. For additional context, read Laroux Peoples’ interview with The Globe and Mail published on April 23, 2026: Ontario court rules registered plans belong to designated beneficiary, not to estate – The Globe and Mail *We have commented on the conflicting court cases that have dealt with the issue of whether the presumption of resulting trust applies to beneficiary designations in prior articles: Beneficiary Designations – Making Sure Your Money Goes Where You Want and Beneficiary Designations and the Importance of Transparency

Read the full transcript here In today’s episode – “Integrating Insurance Into a Wealth Practice” we unpack why so many wealth advisors struggle to bring insurance meaningfully into their planning—and why this challenge also creates real partnership opportunities for insurance‑focused advisors looking to grow revenue.  For a lot of advisors, the challenge isn’t belief in the value of insurance—it’s bandwidth. Insurance feels like a different world: slower processes, more conversations, more ambiguity. And many advisors who once led with protection planning years ago now find themselves out of practice, unsure how to reintroduce these conversations with clients who’ve since accumulated significant wealth. The result? Missed estate‑planning opportunities, delayed conversations, and clients who only seek insurance once health issues have already changed the landscape. The questions we’re answering today are: Why is integrating insurance into a wealth practice so difficult for advisors? How should an advisor decide whether to become the expert, build internal expertise, or partner externally? And what does effective, trustworthy partnership actually look like in practice? Joining us to break this down is Jaclyn Nemethy, Senior Director of Strategic Relationships at PPI. Jaclyn is part of a specialist team working exclusively with wealth‑focused advisors as they build—or rebuild—their insurance capability. She brings deep insight into advisor capacity, partnership models, and the real‑world habits that separate good intentions from actual implementation. In this episode, you’ll learn how to choose your lane, structure partnerships with confidence, and make simple process tweaks that finally bring insurance into the client conversation. So, let’s get into it. Here’s “Integrating Insurance into a Wealth Practice” with Jaclyn Nemethy. Read the full transcript here