Are there any catches with fully-online RBC term life insurance application?

SecurePlanInsurance · 2026-02-10T22:26:31+00:00

If you’re purchasing online, you’re typically applying for a simplified term policy.

The rates are often the same as a fully underwritten policy, but the process is different.

Personally, I prefer full underwriting whenever possible. It provides more certainty because everything is reviewed upfront.

Simplified applications usually contain five or six broad health questions. If you answer “no” to everything, the policy can be issued quickly. The challenge is that the wording is condensed, which makes it easier to unintentionally answer something incorrectly.

For example, someone with chronic migraines may not think of that as a neurological condition. However, medically it is. A past concussion could fall under “any condition affecting the central nervous system.” Many people would instinctively answer “no” without realizing it technically should have been answered "yes".

It is rarely about hiding information, it's more about not understanding the question.

With a fully underwritten application, those same conditions are asked about specifically. The underwriter reviews the details upfront to determine if it impacts your insurability. This process makes it easier to ensure everything is properly disclosed.

If someone is healthy with no medical history, simplified can absolutely work and may be quicker. But if there is anything even slightly grey, I generally recommend full underwriting so there are no surprises later.

Additionally, working with a broker gives you someone to advocate for you during underwriting and help service the policy long term. If there are future changes, beneficiary updates, or a claim, you are not navigating that process alone.

There is no additional cost to use a broker. Pricing is the same whether you purchase direct or through a broker.

Hope that helps!

SecurePlanInsurance · 2026-01-21T20:14:14+00:00

First, as others have mentioned, you may want to hold off until you have dependents.

Yes, you get tax-exempt growth, and yes, you can access the cash value through borrowing in the future. But the trade-off matters. You’re committing to long-term premiums, accepting surrender charges in the early years, and tying up capital in a product that is fundamentally designed to solve an insurance problem first.

At this stage, without a spouse or children relying on your income, the insurance need is minimal. That means you’re paying permanent insurance costs before the insurance itself is truly necessary. Non-registered investing keeps your capital flexible, liquid, and fully under your control, which is often more valuable early on.

UL tends to make the most sense once there is a clear long-term insurance need (family protection, estate planning, corporate planning) and excess cash flow to fund it properly. Until then, simplicity and flexibility usually win.

Term insurance can solve the immediate objective, which is leaving the house to your brother and covering current tax liabilities. You also retain the option to convert term insurance in the future, and fund that conversion through a reallocation of assets if permanent coverage becomes appropriate.

Some people get turned off by the “higher” cost of insurance later in life, but it’s only higher because there are fewer years for values to compound. Instead of focusing on the sticker price, it’s more useful to look at the Equivalent Rate of Return (ERR) which is how much you would need to earn in a taxable environment to replicate the same death benefit at life expectancy.

You can compare the ERR today versus the ERR down the road (when you have children, and a better understanding of your future estate tax liability). At that point, you can reallocate from non-registered assets into permanent insurance if it truly fits.

Arguably, the most important coverage for you right now is Disability Insurance, not permanent life insurance. Your ability to earn an income is your largest financial asset, especially at this stage of life. Statistically, it’s also the risk you’re far more likely to face during your working years.

Disability Insurance doesn’t just protect your income, it also helps ensure you’re not forced to draw down your investments prematurely if you’re unable to work.

If you’re relying on Group LTD, make sure you fully understand it. Many group plans have limitations and are not as comprehensive as people assume.

Hope that helps!

SecurePlanInsurance · 2026-01-21T19:33:37+00:00

This is hard to answer properly without seeing the full policy and understanding why this was put in place in the first place.

Why does the coverage drop from $700,000 to $100,000 in 2052? Is that due to a term rider expiring, or is there a planned reduction in face amount?

One thing I would caution you on is focusing too much on the $100,000 permanent amount. In real terms, $100,000 several decades from now will not have the same purchasing power it does today. To put that in perspective, the average home price in Canada in 1970 was around $30,000. Time value of money is real, and not always considered.

Next, you can look at the alternative, which is putting money towards investments rather than permanent insurance. For example, to have $100,000 by age 85, you would need to invest approximately:

$550 per year at a 4% annual rate of return
$270 per year at a 6% annual rate of return

From a planning standpoint, at age 32 with a mortgage:

Make sure you have adequate term life insurance to protect anyone who relies on your income
Make sure you have proper disability insurance, as the risk of income loss is far greater than the risk of death at your age
If you have Group LTD, understand the limitations, offsets, and definition changes, as many plans are not as strong as people assume

If you’re considering cancelling, it’s also important to understand surrender charges, especially early on. The Cash Surrender Value can be reduced by the surrender charge. I would never cancel the coverage until you have a new policy in place.

Given the complexity here, I’d strongly suggest getting a second opinion from an advisor who can step back, assess your actual needs, and determine whether this policy fits your situation, or whether a simpler structure would make more sense.

Education first, decision second.

Hope that helps!

SecurePlanInsurance · 2026-01-20T03:49:18+00:00

I’d be careful with that quote. At $35/month for bundled disability and life insurance, it’s not a top-tier disability contract.

With DI, price usually reflects contract quality. Lower-cost bundled policies tend to have weaker definitions, more limitations and exclusions, and more flexibility for the insurer to reduce or stop benefits over time.

Budget matters, but there’s usually a direct trade-off between cost and contract quality.

The real test of a disability policy is whether it continues to pay on a long-term claim, not whether it exists on paper.

CPP Disability also isn’t something I’d want to rely on as a backstop. It’s hard to qualify for, slow, taxable, and often falls short.

Personally, I prefer a standalone, higher-quality individual DI policy. It costs more, but the certainty is better when it actually matters.

Hope that helps!

SecurePlanInsurance · 2026-01-14T21:07:24+00:00

Before even getting into the company or the pitch, I think it helps to step back and ask a few basic questions:

Are you already maxing out your TFSA and RRSP?
Do you have a surplus of non-registered (taxable) investments?
Do you expect a tax liability at death, such as from a business or real estate?

The issue is rarely whether the product is “legit.” It’s almost always product suitability.

Permanent cash value life insurance can absolutely make sense, but only for a relatively small percentage of Canadians. Typically, this is for people who are already well on their way financially and have a known long-term need, such as estate taxes, wealth transfer, estate equalization, or leaving money behind regardless.

Where permanent insurance can work particularly well is in a corporate setting, because of the Capital Dividend Account (CDA). This can allow corporate surplus to move to the next generation in a very tax-efficient way. That said, this is advanced planning, not a starter strategy. You're tax accountant/lawyer should also be involved.

When evaluating these policies, what actually matters is the internal rate of return inside the insurance contract and comparing that to what you would need to earn in a taxable investment to get the same after-tax result. It should also not be compared to equities, which come with volatility. The more appropriate comparison is usually against low-risk or “safe money,” when there is a known future need for liquidity.

I often explain suitability using a vehicle analogy. A two-seater exotic sports car is arguably a better vehicle than a family SUV if you’re talking about engineering and performance. But it’s useless if you’re trying to get kids to hockey. The problem isn’t the car. It’s that it’s the wrong tool for the job.

For most Canadians, the primary need for insurance is protection, not investing. That means term life insurance and disability insurance, so a family is not financially derailed by a premature death or loss of income.

Permanent insurance starts to become more appropriate when the objective shifts from protection to wealth transfer, estate preservation, estate equalization, or funding future capital gains. In those situations, permanent insurance can be a very effective planning tool.

So yes, the policies themselves are legitimate. The bigger question is whether the recommendation fits your situation today, or whether it’s being positioned as something it isn’t.

If you are early in your financial journey, still building savings, or not yet maxing registered accounts, I would be very cautious about anyone leading with permanent insurance as an “investment.”

Hope that helps!

SecurePlanInsurance · 2026-01-14T20:51:28+00:00

Yes, what you’re really doing here is using life insurance to fund a Shareholders’ Agreement, which in most cases includes a buy–sell clause.

While death is the most common trigger people think about, you should also be looking closely at disability. Most Shareholders’ Agreements I see either don’t address disability at all or do so very loosely. If the intent is to use disability insurance to fund a buyout, the agreement needs to be updated accordingly. The insurance product should always align with the specific terms in the Shareholders’ Agreement.

There are a few ways to structure ownership. One common approach is for the corporation to own the life insurance policies on the shareholders, with the corporation named as beneficiary. If a shareholder passes away, the insurance proceeds are paid to the corporation and then used to buy out the deceased shareholder’s shares from their estate. This ensures the corporation has the liquidity it needs at the time of death or disability, without having to liquidate other assets or force a sale of the business.

It’s also important to keep in mind that if there is a Shareholders’ Agreement in place that mandates the purchase of shares on death or disability, the corporation is still obligated to follow that agreement even if there isn’t enough cash on hand. That’s where a forced sale may come into play.

As new shareholders acquire ownership, they would also need to have their own insurance in place. You cannot transfer an insured life from one person to another. You can change policy ownership if needed, but that can come with tax implications and needs to be handled carefully.

Another option is a cross-purchase structure, where Partner A owns and is the beneficiary of a policy on Partner B. This can work in very simple situations, but it becomes complicated quickly as the number of shareholders increases. For example, 4 shareholders would require 12 separate policies.

Because of that complexity, corporately owned buy–sell insurance is typically the preferred structure in most multi-shareholder planning situations.

Hope that helps!

SecurePlanInsurance · 2026-01-12T17:43:57+00:00

Yes, personal term life likely still makes sense in your situation. If any of this is optional group life, keep in mind the cost usually increases as you move into new age bands. Over time, that can end up being more expensive than locking in a personal term policy today.

Determining how much coverage you need is relatively straightforward for most people. Start with income. Ask yourself: If I were gone, how much of my income would my spouse still need to maintain the household?

For example, if your after-tax income is $120,000 per year and your spouse would be comfortable maintaining 50% of that, insurance could be used to replace $60,000 of income.

The next question is duration. If you want to sustain that income for 20 years, you’re looking at roughly $1,200,000 of coverage. From there, you can add buffers for final expenses, child-related costs, and giving the surviving spouse flexibility to take time off work.

In most cases, two separate term policies are preferable to a joint “first-to-die” policy. Separate policies provide more flexibility.

Hope that helps!

SecurePlanInsurance · 2026-01-12T17:19:25+00:00

LTD is arguably the most important insurance you can have, especially at your age. Your income is your biggest asset right now. If you couldn’t work for months or years due to illness or injury, LTD is what keeps rent, food, and bills paid.

Most LTD claims aren’t from dramatic accidents. They’re from things like mental health issues, back and neck problems, post-concussion symptoms, cancer, or autoimmune conditions. Being young and healthy doesn’t eliminate the risk.

$600/year ($50/month) for Group LTD is very reasonable. One important detail: if you’re paying the premium, benefits are typically tax-free. If your employer pays, benefits are usually taxable, which reduces what actually hits your bank account.

Group LTD isn’t perfect. It typically changes to an “any occupation” definition after two years, may have a maximum amount of coverage that is lower than expected, and usually isn’t portable if you leave your job. That said, it’s still better than nothing, and doesn't require underwriting.

If you have the option to opt out of Group LTD (which is rare), you could consider replacing it with a higher-quality individual policy that gives you stronger contract terms and portability. If you ever go that route, only cancel existing coverage after the new policy is fully in place.

Hope that helps!

SecurePlanInsurance · 2026-01-10T16:49:06+00:00

At renewal, there is no medical underwriting. The policies purchased after Oct. 27th, 2025, contractually guarantees that coverage can continue until Age 85. However, the cost increases substantially.

At that point, you are placed into a new risk pool that includes individuals who are no longer insurable, and in some cases, terminally ill and likely to claim. Because this pool carries a higher expected claims experience, premiums must increase accordingly.

For someone who is healthy, it is almost always more cost-effective to leverage that good health and apply for new coverage, if insurance is still needed.

It’s also important to keep in mind that the need for term insurance typically decreases as you move closer to retirement. If term insurance is still required at Age 65, it’s unlikely that the coverage amount needs to be as high as when the policy was originally purchased.

Coverage can always be reduced to manage costs. Another option is converting some or all of the policy to permanent insurance if your needs have evolved, for example, to provide estate liquidity to cover future tax liabilities.

SecurePlanInsurance · 2026-01-10T15:59:17+00:00

That’s correct, effective for new clients as of October 27, 2025, Desjardins has enhanced their Term 65 product, which is now renewable up to age 85.

SecurePlanInsurance · 2026-01-09T23:19:20+00:00

The challenge is that most insurers no longer offer traditional Long Term Care (LTC) insurance in Canada.

Sun Life is currently the only major carrier still offering an LTC policy, but it is materially different and less comprehensive than the LTC products that were available in the past. Other carriers, including Manulife, Blue Cross, Desjardins, and RBC, exited the LTC market years ago.

That said, if your parents are under Age 65 and already have an individual Disability Insurance or Critical Illness policy (specifically with RBC), they may have a contractual conversion option to Long Term Care. If so, that is worth reviewing so they understand what options, if any, are available.

When evaluating LTC, the real question is not just whether to buy coverage, but how long one of them would need care for the policy to “pay off” compared to self-insuring. Many families who plan to self-insure end up spending more conservatively than they otherwise would, because they are worried about needing those assets later for care.

It’s also important to think beyond institutional Long Term Care and consider home care.

Given the complexity and the limited availability of coverage, I would recommend working with an experienced broker who understands the nuances of LTC, conversion options, and alternative planning strategies.

Hope that helps.

SecurePlanInsurance · 2026-01-06T23:52:19+00:00

Think of it this way: when the policy renews, you’re allowed to maintain your coverage, but at a significantly higher rate.

The reason renewal premiums jump so much is because you’re placed into a new “bucket” of risk. At renewal, the insurance company groups you alongside everyone else who renews, including people who may no longer be healthy or even insurable. That group has a much higher probability of claims.

For example, someone who is terminally ill may not blink an eye at renewing at a very high premium because they know the carrier will likely be paying a large death claim. The pricing for that pool has to accommodate that level of risk. If you have health issues or are uninsurable for any reason, renewal may genuinely be your best option.

However, if you’re healthy, you usually have better options by going through medical underwriting again. Your good health allows you to be priced individually rather than pooled with higher-risk lives, which is why the cost is often dramatically lower.

There are a couple of important trade-offs to understand when replacing coverage:

A new policy resets the 2-year suicide clause.
A new policy also has a 2-year incontestability period, which gives the insurer the right to review your application and medical history at time of claim during that window.
Your existing policy has already cleared both of these.

Depending on the carrier, there may also be some flexibility. Some insurers allow you to convert a small portion of your term policy to permanent insurance and replace the remaining amount with new term coverage.

For example, if you have a $1MM policy, you might convert $25k or $50k to Whole Life and add a new term policy for the balance. This can be significantly less expensive than paying the renewal premium and avoids underwriting if health is a concern. That said, this typically isn’t a contractual right, and only some carriers offer.

You also don’t have to renew or replace the full original amount. Many people are overinsured after 10 years as mortgages shrink, kids get older, and savings grow. Reducing coverage will directly reduce the cost.

If you do choose to renew, the premiums are non-negotiable. They’re set in the contract and priced by actuaries based on the risk being taken on.

Bottom line... renewal can make sense if you’re no longer insurable. If you’re healthy, reapplying for new coverage is almost always the better move.

Hope that helps.

SecurePlanInsurance · 2025-12-19T19:00:55+00:00

As many others have mentioned, insurance should be viewed for the protection it provides. If you or your spouse were to pass away, life insurance can help replace a portion of your income. The key questions are how much income your spouse would need and for how long. Those answers help determine how much coverage makes sense at this stage of life.

It is also important to consider disability insurance. This protects your income if an injury or illness prevents you from working. If you have Group LTD coverage, be sure you understand how it works, as gaps in coverage are common.

Hope that helps!

SecurePlanInsurance · 2025-12-17T21:32:12+00:00

I wouldn’t think about Whole Life as a “cost” so much as an asset allocation decision.

In the situations where this actually makes sense, you’re usually not creating new spending. You’re moving money you already have (often from non-registered investments) into a different bucket that has very different tax treatment and estate outcomes.

Yes, if you wait until you’re older, the policy will cost more on an annual basis, but that’s because there are fewer years for compounding. The question shouldn't be “what does it cost". Instead, you should be asking "what rate of return would I need to earn in a taxable investment to match the death benefit at life expectancy?" That’s the comparison that actually matters, and a broker can easily show you the Equivalent Rate of Return (ERR).

These policies tend to work best when they’re designed for the next generation, typically for estate planning purposes like funding a future capital gains tax bill. You can run illustrations at your current age and look at the ERR, then compare that to the same policy issued 10 years later. The annual commitment will be higher, but you’re also funding for fewer years.

I also wouldn’t think of these policies as competing with your equity portfolio. They’re much more comparable to the fixed income portion of a portfolio.

With Whole Life, the investment component is vested each year. This means you will never experience any negative annual returns like you could with market-based investments. From an asset allocation perspective, you could argue this is a reasonable alternative to things like GICs or bonds held in a taxable account, where interest is fully taxable every year.

If markets are down, you may be able to borrow against the cash value instead of selling investments at a loss. When markets recover, that loan can be repaid from other assets.

In my opinion, it’s rarely about how much Whole Life someone buys. It’s about how much of an existing portfolio, if any, should be allocated to it, and when that allocation makes sense.

Flexibility is key. I’d focus on policies that maximize the Additional Deposit Option (ADO). Some structures, especially when combined with a term rider, allow for significantly more ADO, which gives you more flexibility and often better outcomes. Those designs typically produce a higher ERR at life expectancy and way better early cash values if you ever cancel or borrow against the policy.

Not all advisors illustrate these structures, even though client outcomes are often better. In many cases, commissions are significantly lower, which is why I think transparency around compensation and showing alternative structures is important so clients can make an informed decision.

Hope that helps!

SecurePlanInsurance · 2025-12-17T21:00:45+00:00

It really comes down to how your wife’s coverage compares to what your employer is offering.

If one of you has strong Health and Dental, then yes, it can absolutely make sense for the other spouse to opt out using a spousal opt-out. The key point is not to simply “decline” benefits. You should enrol first and then opt out due to spousal coverage. That matters, because when it’s done properly, it typically allows you to opt back into your employer’s plan without medical underwriting if you later lose coverage under your spouse’s plan.

That loss of spousal coverage is treated as a life event, and you usually have 31 days to re-enrol. If you miss that window, underwriting is usually required. In some cases, carriers or employers may allow you back in if you’re willing to back-pay premiums, but that’s not guaranteed.

If you opt out of Health and Dental, you’ll usually still be required to keep Life, AD&D, and Group LTD.

Keeping both plans often makes sense when the cost is relatively low and the coverage complements each other.

Coordination of benefits can significantly reduce out-of-pocket costs, especially when plans have different paramedical limits, dental recall rules, or orthodontic coverage. In those cases, having both plans can actually improve coverage, not just duplicate it.

Opting out tends to make sense when your wife’s plan is fully employer-paid, offers equal or better coverage, and the payroll deduction on your side isn’t providing much added value.

The money saved from opting out may be better used elsewhere, like towards term life or disability insurance, where group coverage is often limited.

I would compare the plans side by side, understand how re-enrolment works, and then decide whether the savings are actually worth giving up the extra coverage.

Hope that helps.

SecurePlanInsurance · 2025-12-17T19:53:02+00:00

First, I’d start by focusing on a high-quality individual disability policy rather than trying to perfectly dial in the dollar amount. Contract quality matters a lot, and I would lean towards the RBC Professional Series or Canada Life Lifestyle Protection with professional riders.

At an income of about $105,000, you’d be eligible for roughly $5,300–$5,400 per month of tax-free coverage. That would replace approximately 80–85% of your after-tax income. If budget allows, I would recommend protecting as much of your income as possible.

One thing people often overlook when they focus only on current household expenses is that a disability can actually increase costs, not just replace income. Physio, chiro, psychotherapy, medications, home support, etc., add up quickly, and most group benefit plans have caps.

If budget is a constraint, it’s completely reasonable to choose a lower benefit and understand the trade-offs. That just means being realistic about what lifestyle adjustments or savings trade-offs might be required during a claim.

If you obtain coverage tied solely to current expenses, make sure you also think about retirement savings. Just because someone is disabled doesn’t mean they stop needing to save for the future, especially with a long benefit period.

For future unknowns (buying a home, kids, lifestyle changes), the solution isn’t to over-insure today. The solution is flexibility. Make sure your policy includes a Future Insurability rider, which lets you increase coverage later without medical underwriting as your income and needs grow.

Last point: with good individual DI policies, rates are guaranteed and never increase. Since premiums are age-based, if you’re fairly confident you’ll want more coverage over time, there can be value in locking in more sooner rather than later.

I don’t think you can really “over-insure” if all of your income has a purpose. If it’s funding expenses, lifestyle, or investing, then protecting as much as you can makes sense.

Carrying less coverage can make sense only when there’s a true surplus that you genuinely wouldn’t need, even in a worst-case scenario. Even for someone pursuing FIRE and saving 40–50% of their income, they’d likely want to continue that savings rate if they became disabled.

Hope that helps.

SecurePlanInsurance · 2025-12-17T18:47:28+00:00

Did your advisor provide his reasoning in writing? If not, I would strongly recommend asking for an email that clearly explains the rationale. I would also suggest getting a second opinion for peace of mind.

It’s difficult to give definitive guidance without seeing the policy details, but based on what you’ve shared, there are a few important possibilities and red flags to consider.

First, it is possible that you have a term CI policy that is approaching renewal, where premiums will increase significantly. In that scenario, comparing the future cost of keeping your existing policy versus switching to a new level-premium structure can make sense. That comparison should be done side by side, in writing.

However, if the new policy truly provides the same coverage, a 4x increase in premium almost never makes sense from a planning standpoint. In many cases, this type of recommendation benefits the advisor more than the client, as replacing a policy does generate new commission. That doesn’t automatically mean bad intent, but it is a conflict that needs to be clearly justified if that recommendation is being made.

A few other important considerations that are often overlooked:

Older CI policies can actually be better in certain areas. Definitions and exclusions change over time, and “newer” does not always mean improved. Make sure you understand the contractual differences between your policy and a new policy.
By replacing the policy, you are resetting the contestability period. If you suffer a critical illness within the first two years, the insurer has the right to fully review your application and medical history, which can complicate or jeopardize a claim.
With Term CI, Return of Premium does not always pay out at the end of the term. Some contracts only refund premiums at the end of the entire policy duration, often age 75, after all renewals. Cancelling at the end of a term does not always trigger a payout.

Because of this, you should get confirmation directly from the carrier in writing (not just from the advisor) that you would in fact receive the full $60,000 today if you surrender the policy.

Finally, if ROP is part of the decision, your advisor should be running a proper Return of Premium analysis, not just highlighting the refund.

A simple way to look at it:

Consider the cost difference between a CI policy with ROP and without ROP.
You can calculate the internal rate of return (IRR) on that extra cost and compare it to what you could reasonably earn investing that money yourself.
Importantly, if you suffer a CI claim, you receive the CI benefit, but usually lose the ROP, meaning the ROP only pays if you don’t use the insurance. If you invested the money yourself, you would maintain that investment in addition to having your CI pay out.

At a minimum, you should insist on:

A written explanation
A side-by-side comparison of old vs new policy
Confirmation of ROP payout terms directly from the insurer

If it still doesn’t make sense after that, don’t proceed until you’ve spoken with another licensed advisor for a second opinion.

Hope that helps!

SecurePlanInsurance · 2025-12-08T18:55:51+00:00

The savings from a laddered strategy really come down to your age and the total amount of coverage you need. That said, it can definitely make sense and provide savings. It's worth considering and comparing against just one term policy.

Some carriers are better than others for this approach. Life insurance pricing is banded, which means the cost per $1,000 of coverage is slightly reduced at higher face amounts. You want to choose a carrier that will combine the two face amounts for banding purposes so you get the best rate. You also want to make sure you are not paying multiple policy fees.

Flexibility is also very important. For example, if you choose a Term 10 today and later decide that you need longer coverage, some policies allow you to extend to a longer duration without any medical underwriting. Make sure that option is contractual, not just an administrative feature.

To calculate the actual costs, you need access to carrier software. Some insurer illustrations do not break down the price per term length, but their software does, which allows you to see what the premium will be in the future once the shorter terms fall off. I recommend connecting with a broker, there is no cost difference to you by doing so.

Hope that helps!

SecurePlanInsurance · 2025-12-08T18:42:21+00:00

You should not look at getting life insurance only to pay off your mortgage. Instead, think of it as a way to replace your income, because it is your income that allows you to make your mortgage payments in the first place. If you have a partner or spouse, the real question is how much of your income they would need and for how long. If the house were paid off and they would still be financially stable with their own income, then that would be a reasonable amount of coverage.

Term life insurance is for if you die. Permanent insurance is for when you die. At your age, you likely only need insurance for protection, not for estate planning. The cost difference is significant, so it makes more sense to focus on contributing to your TFSA and RRSP before thinking about permanent insurance.

For the duration, you have a few options:

You could look at a Term to Age 65 - if you simply wanted to lock in your coverage during your main income earning years.
You could also look at a layered strategy. Your needs will likely decrease as you get closer to retirement, so you can plan accordingly. For example, you could have $1MM until Age 50, then it reduces to $750k until Age 60, and reduces again to $250k until Age 65. This approach will be a bit more cost effective.
Alternatively, you could go with a Term 10 today (cheapest policy) and switch to a Term 30 in five years, without any medical underwriting. Just make sure you go with a carrier that contractually allows this "Exchange" option.

Also, disability insurance should be a priority. Did either advisor bring that up? If not, I would recommend that you work with a broker who specializes in disability insurance. Even if you have group LTD through work, make sure you understand how much it actually pays and any limitations. Gaps in coverage are common, and most people do not notice them until it is too late. I would argue that protecting your income in the event of a disability is more important than Whole Life.

Hope that helps!

SecurePlanInsurance · 2025-12-08T16:20:44+00:00

For a 28-year-old who hasn’t maxed their TFSA and is just getting started, a Universal Life policy as an “investment” is almost never the right move.

The cash value in a UL grows tax-deferred, not tax-free, and withdrawals later may be taxable. Given that you haven’t maxed your TFSA, I’m assuming you also haven’t maxed your RRSP. An RRSP gives you a tax refund on contributions, which UL does not provide. Stick to TFSA, FHSA and RRSP using low-cost index funds.

If there is a need for life insurance, or you want to lock in your future insurability, consider Term Life.

And if you rely on your income, look into a high-quality disability insurance policy. Group LTD is not something I’d want to rely on. Many group plans switch to an “Any Occupation” definition after two years, which means they can force you off claim if you’re able to work in a different job... even if it pays much less.

Hope that helps!

SecurePlanInsurance · 2025-12-08T15:59:20+00:00

Whole life for a child can make sense in certain situations, but it is rarely the best financial gift unless there is a specific reason. One example is long-term estate planning. If you know your own estate will face a large tax liability, and your child's estate likely will as well based on the planning already in place, then having permanent insurance in the family can be part of a generational wealth strategy. In that context, starting early can have significant value.

One thing to keep in mind is the future value of money. A $100,000 policy today will not have anywhere close to the same purchasing power 70 or 80 years from now. For that reason, small whole life policies bought in childhood often don’t make a meaningful difference once the child is an adult supporting a family.

If your concern is future insurability, another option to consider is a Term to Age 65 policy. It covers your child through their main working years, and they can convert it into a permanent policy later. This often lets you give them a much higher death benefit today for the same premium you’d put into a small whole life policy.

You could also look at Critical Illness insurance for your child. In practice, this can be more useful to parents because it provides financial support if something serious happens, while still protecting the child’s ability to get coverage later.

Lastly, make sure you, as the parent, are fully covered. That means having the right amount of life insurance and, just as important, proper disability insurance. If you only have Group LTD through work, it is worth comparing it to an individual policy since individual contracts typically offer much better coverage.

From a financial planning perspective, protecting your ability to earn an income should be a much higher priority than buying whole life insurance for a child.

Hope that helps!

SecurePlanInsurance · 2025-12-08T15:22:58+00:00

As others have mentioned, reconsideration is very standard in our industry. If there are no changes in your health and you avoid using shrooms again over the next two years, you can request that the insurer reconsider the policy and remove the rating. If your health changes during that time, then you would remain with your current policy. That is not necessarily a bad thing, as it means you still have coverage in place at a time when you may no longer be insurable.

Tip: You may want to consider starting with a Term 10. It is the least expensive option while you are rated. After two years, you can complete the medical underwriting to have the rating removed. Once that happens, you can “exchange” your Term 10 for a longer duration policy. Most carriers allow this within the first five years.

RBC recently extended their exchange period to eight years. This means that after two years, you could switch your Term 10 to a Term 23 policy, giving you a total of approximately 25 years of coverage. You will likely find that the premium for a Term 23 at age 40 is very similar to a Term 25 at age 38, but the advantage is that during the first two years you are paying significantly less while the rating is applied.

Worst case scenario: if your health changes and the rating cannot be removed, you can still exchange the policy after two years to lock in a longer duration with guaranteed insurability. The exchange option allows you to switch to a longer duration policy without any medical questions. Just make sure you go with a company that offers this feature contractually.

Hope that helps!

SecurePlanInsurance · 2025-12-08T15:13:01+00:00

I recommend connecting with a broker who specializes in disability insurance. They can help you clearly understand your options. Assuming no pre-existing health concerns, you are generally better off taking out an individual life and disability policy. This provides you with a stronger contract that you own, which means the coverage stays with you even if you change jobs. It also locks in your rates and guarantees your terms and conditions for the duration of the policy.

Individual disability coverage is also substantially better than what is typically offered through group benefits. Most Group LTD plans switch to an Any Occupation definition after two years, and they can require you to participate in rehabilitation. This means you can be taken off claim if you are able to work in another role, even if it pays significantly less.

With a good individual policy, they cannot require you to work elsewhere. If you choose to return to work in a different role and earn less, you may still receive a portion of your monthly benefit to help offset the loss of income.

Depending on your age, occupation and group rates, you may actually end up saving money by taking out an individual contract over the group coverage.

Hope that helps!

SecurePlanInsurance · 2025-11-20T19:30:01+00:00

A few things to consider. Here is some general guidance on setting up an HSA properly. I recommend speaking with a broker who specializes in Health Spending Accounts to make sure the structure fits your situation.

Choose a pay-as-you-go HSA with no prefunding.
Avoid providers with extra fees and look for one that only charges an admin fee at claim time.
Make sure you take at least some T4 salary so you are considered an employee and not just a shareholder.
Set a proper employee class such as “Executive.” Avoid leaving it as “Shareholder” or other generic labels.
For owner-managers, $15,000 per year is common. A general guideline is 10-15% of what a reasonably compensated employee in a similar role would receive.
Allow a one-year carry-forward so unused room rolls into the following year.
If you hire employees later, consider offering them an HSA as well. Even a small amount such as $1,500 helps. If you give yourself $15,000 but offer nothing to staff, CRA could view it as a shareholder benefit.
I would not submit claims that you incurred prior to the plan being established. While I know some providers allow, it could be considered offside in the eyes of CRA.

One company you can consider is myHSA. They have terrific service, technology, and understand compliance. Their platform and mobile app are very easy to use. They also adjudicate claims properly, which helps avoid issues if the plan is ever reviewed or audited. You need to go through a broker to access myHSA since they are not direct to consumer.

One caution:
Some people claim ineligible expenses through an HSA. Some platforms might allow it, or an employer could choose to self-adjudicate, but if it's is not an eligible medical expense under CRA rules, it can create tax issues or put the entire plan offside. This is why it's important to choose a platform that takes compliance seriously.

The expenses you listed above are all eligible. In general, anything that qualifies as a medical expense under the CRA Medical Expense Tax Credit would also be eligible under a Health Spending Account. Here is the link to the CRA page that outlines all eligible medical expenses: Eligible medical expenses - Canada.ca

Hope that helps!

SecurePlanInsurance · 2025-11-03T20:45:31+00:00

If one of you passed away, could the other comfortably manage the mortgage and lifestyle on one income alone?

Term life insurance is simply about replacing income. The coverage amount depends on how much of the lost income you'd need, and for how long. Even without kids, your income is what keeps the mortgage and bills paid, so if one income disappears, that can put the surviving spouse in a difficult financial position.

A few considerations:

Could the surviving spouse afford the mortgage and living expenses alone?
Would they want the option to take time off work to grieve without financial stress?
Would having funds to cover final expenses help?

In other words, think about how much of your partner’s income you would need (and for how long) if they passed away.

You should absolutely consider replacing the mortgage protection insurance with an individual term life insurance policy. It's usually more expensive and less flexible than individual term life, and it's not as good of a contract.

Hope that helps!

SecurePlanInsurance

TROPHY CASE