For Ontario family law firms
Life insurance clauses that actually perform
We work with Ontario family law firms on the insurance side of support obligations: confirming insurability before the clause is drafted, structuring coverage to match the obligation, and verifying afterward that the policy is still in force.
The clause gets drafted before anyone knows whether it can be performed
A support obligation gets secured with a life insurance term. The amount is agreed, the designation type is chosen, the agreement is executed.
Then the payor applies, and comes back rated at double the standard premium. Or postponed. Or declined outright.
Now there is a term in a signed agreement that cannot be performed. The recipient's counsel secured a promise that will not be kept. The payor's counsel agreed to an obligation their client cannot discharge. Neither of those is a conversation anyone wants to have with a client, and both sit closer to a professional liability question than anyone would like.
The information that would have prevented it was available. It was just available three weeks too late.
A decline from one insurer is a routing result, not a verdict. The same file can be standard at one carrier and rated at another, because each has its own appetite for specific conditions, builds, and occupations. Which carrier sees the file first matters enormously, and so does whether anything goes on the record before you know the answer.
Three things we do for family law files
Your precedent software can generate the insurance clause in seconds. What it cannot tell you is whether the payor can get the policy, at what amount, and at what cost. That is the part we do: you supply the family law, we supply the underwriting answer.
Anonymous pre-check, before the clause is drafted
Before any formal application, we send a preliminary inquiry to several carriers at once: an anonymised summary of the situation (age, conditions, medications, control markers, build, occupation). No name. No application. Nothing goes on the record with the insurer or with MIB.
Each carrier returns a tentative opinion. You learn whether the coverage amount you are about to write into a draft is realistic, roughly what it will cost, and whether a rating is likely, before the number goes into the agreement.
If the answer is bad, nothing was created that has to be disclosed on a later application. That is the whole point of doing it in this order.
Coverage structured to the obligation
A support obligation that decays to zero over twelve years does not need twelve years of level coverage.
We model the obligation as a declining curve (child support to each child's assumed end age, spousal support over its duration or to the review date) and structure coverage in layered terms that track it. On most files that is a materially lower premium for equivalent protection.
The Court of Appeal has endorsed exactly this shape. In Katz v. Katz, 2014 ONCA 606, it said required insurance should not exceed the total support likely to be payable, should generally decline over time as the obligation diminishes, and should end when the obligation ends, and that courts should have evidence of the payor’s insurability and of the amount and cost of available coverage before ordering it. The obligation curve and the pre-check are that evidence.
You get the analysis as a clean exhibit you can put on the table. It shows the obligation curve, the level-versus-laddered premium difference in dollars, and the assumptions behind both. We also run it at standard, +50% and +100% ratings, so premium allocation can be negotiated with real numbers rather than argued about in the abstract.
Two things we flag every time: where the payor is relying on employer group life to satisfy the clause (group coverage terminates on job loss, is not portable on reasonable terms, and gives the recipient no visibility into whether it remains in force), and where the target signing date will not accommodate underwriting, in which case we point you at conditional language rather than letting the timing problem surface after execution.
Verification that the policy is still there
Agreements say the payor shall maintain coverage. Almost nobody checks.
Premiums stop in year four. The lapse is discovered at death, when it cannot be fixed.
We verify annually that the policy is in force, that the face amount matches what the agreement specifies, that the beneficiary designation is as agreed, and that premiums are current. Both parties and both counsel receive a signed attestation. Anomalies are stated plainly rather than buried.
Designations also get changed in breach. In Moore v. Sweet, 2018 SCC 52, the policy owner switched the beneficiary in contravention of an agreement, and it took unjust enrichment litigation all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to recover the proceeds. Annual confirmation of the designation is how a breach gets caught while it can still be fixed, rather than litigated after a death.
Typical turnaround: we give you an estimate at the
outset, as a range rather than a promise, and we tell you then whether
yours is a complex file.
What we need from you: the matter reference and an email
address for your client. A pre-check is initiated by the insured party's
own counsel; your client receives a secure link, completes the health
section directly and gives consent themselves. You never handle their
medical detail, and it never reaches opposing counsel.
Who you will work with
Nanthakumar Kathiravelu
Life Insurance and A&S Insurance Agent · FSRA licence #94022212
I work on the files other advisors avoid: rated, postponed and declined applicants, and the family law matters where those outcomes decide whether an agreement can be performed. If you want to pressure-test a clause before it is signed, send it to me.
Three drafting points that come up constantly
Irrevocable is stickier than it looks
Under sections 190 and 191 of the Insurance Act, an irrevocable beneficiary must give written consent before being removed. That consent requirement typically extends further than expected: to surrendering the policy, borrowing against cash value, and changing ownership.
When the obligation ends, the designated party is still locked in and has no particular incentive to sign anything. On many files a revocable designation paired with a contractual covenant to maintain, plus an enforceable proof-of-coverage obligation, gives the recipient what they need without freezing the policy permanently.
Where irrevocable is non-negotiable, build the exit into the agreement instead: a security amount that decreases on a stated schedule as the obligation declines, and an enforceable obligation on the recipient to consent to redesignation of anything above it. That preserves the security while letting the payor recover the excess for a second family or an estate plan.
An irrevocable designation is not absolute protection
In Dagg v. Cameron Estate, 2017 ONCA 366, the payor had been ordered to designate his separated spouse irrevocably, breached the order, and after his death the designation was restored. His new partner then advanced a dependant support claim under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act, and section 72(1)(f) deems insurance proceeds part of the estate for the purposes of that claim.
Where a payor has, or may acquire, other dependants, the security is strong but not impermeable. The Court of Appeal noted that separating parties can structure their arrangements to address this. It is worth addressing expressly rather than assuming the designation settles it.
Naming a minor directly creates a problem, and naming a bare trustee creates a different one
An insurer will not pay a child. Where no adult trustee is named and the amount exceeds $35,000, the funds are paid into court and held by the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice until the child turns 18, subject to administration fees on receipts, disbursements and ongoing management.
Section 193 of the Insurance Act permits appointment of a trustee by contract or declaration. But here is the part that catches people: if a trustee is named and no trust terms are set out, the trustee may only hold and invest the money until the child turns 18, and may not spend it for the child's benefit in the meantime.
On a file where the entire purpose is supporting a child now, a bare trustee appointment defeats the object. The terms have to be specified.
The commercial arrangement, stated plainly
We do not pay referral fees. Not to firms, not to individual lawyers, not indirectly. We are aware of the conflict rules you operate under and we are not going to put you in an awkward position. What we are offering is competence on the insurance side, not a financial arrangement.
We are paid by the insurer when a policy is placed, in the ordinary way. More on how we are paid is here.
We are clear about who we act for. On most files the payor owns the policy and is our client. A pre-check for a party is initiated by that party's own counsel. We confirm in writing at the outset who we are advising and what we are not doing, so nobody has to raise it later.
Health information stays where it belongs. Your client gives consent directly and completes their own health section. You never handle it. Opposing counsel never sees it. What gets shared (coverage amount, premium, designation status, in-force confirmation) is disclosed item by item on the insured party's documented instruction, with a timestamped record of every disclosure.
You can have the audit trail. Every access is logged, and we can produce the log for your file as evidence of what was disclosed, to whom, and when.
Sessions for your firm
We run a one-hour session for family law practices covering insurability and underwriting outcomes, structuring coverage against a declining obligation, designation types and their consequences, and enforcement and monitoring.
In person across the Greater Toronto Area, Hamilton, Ottawa, London, Kitchener-Waterloo, Windsor and Barrie, or by video anywhere in Ontario.
Request a session for your firm
Common questions
Does a pre-check create a record anywhere?
No. A preliminary inquiry is not an application. No application is submitted, so nothing is created with the insurer or with MIB, and there is nothing your client has to disclose on a later application.
What is the difference between a decline and a postponement?
A postponement is not a decline. The insurer is asking to see stability first (time on a new medication, a pending test resolved) and inviting a return. Files described as declines are frequently postponements with a reapplication date attached. It is worth confirming which one your client actually received before treating it as final.
Can you tell us the cost before we draft the clause?
That is the point of the exercise. The pre-check returns tentative carrier opinions including likely rating, and we convert that into premium figures at standard and at rated outcomes.
What if the payor turns out to be uninsurable at the amount we want?
Then you know before signing rather than after, while there is still room to negotiate. We tell you what is actually placeable (a reduced amount, a guaranteed-issue base layer, alternative security) so the fallback you draft is an obligation that can be performed.
Our client has already been declined somewhere. Does that end it?
Usually not, but the sequencing changes and it matters. Formal applications and their outcomes must be disclosed on later applications that ask, and some simplified products ask specifically about recent declines. On files with a prior decline we pre-check anonymously first, secure a base layer if a further decline looks likely, and only then approach fully underwritten coverage at a carrier whose appetite fits.
How long does underwriting take?
It depends on the file and the carrier, and we will give you a range at the outset rather than a number we cannot stand behind. We will also tell you plainly if your signing date is not achievable. We can make the file arrive complete and set accurate expectations. We cannot make an underwriter move faster, and we are not going to pretend otherwise.
Do you work with mediators and collaborative practitioners?
Yes. Collaborative files are often a better fit for this work, because the structure for bringing in an outside financial specialist already exists.
What does it cost the firm?
Nothing. Pre-checks, the coverage modelling and the annual verification are not billed to you or to your client.
Send us a file
Give us a matter reference and an email address for your client, and we will send them a secure link. No name required from you, no charge, and no obligation on anything that follows.