The incorrect statement is B . Under Ontario’s Insurance Act , an injured person may sue for bodily injury damages if they have suffered permanent serious disfigurement or permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function . The uploaded Insurance Act excerpt states that protected defendants are not liable for health care expenses or non-pecuniary loss unless the injured person has died or sustained permanent serious disfigurement or qualifying permanent serious impairment. Your insured meets that threshold, so they may be entitled to sue the other driver for qualifying bodily injury damages.

A is not incorrect because economic loss tort rights are only partly protected. The Act removes liability for the first 7 days of income loss and for part of later income loss, which means some residual economic loss can still be claimed in tort.

C is also correct. Under DCPD, each insured claims against their own insurer , and payment is based on the degree to which they were not at fault . At 50/50 fault, each would recover 50% of their own vehicle damage under their own policy’s DCPD section.

D is correct because statutory accident benefits, including medical/rehabilitation and income replacement where applicable, are generally claimed under one’s own policy .

The correct answer is B. Negative Option Billing . Sonia would be changing the client’s coverage and charging an additional premium without first obtaining the client’s express agreement . In insurance practice, a broker cannot assume consent simply because the change seems beneficial or inexpensive. Coverage changes that increase limits and premium require the client’s prior authorization.

This is exactly the type of conduct captured by the concept of negative option billing : treating silence or lack of objection as acceptance of a new or upgraded product or service. Sonia’s intention may be to improve the client’s protection, but good intentions do not remove the need for informed consent. A RIBO-style compliance approach requires the broker to explain the recommendation, disclose the added cost, and obtain clear client instructions before making the change.

The other answers do not fit. PIPEDA relates to privacy and handling personal information, not unauthorized billing or unilateral coverage changes. CASL concerns commercial electronic messages, not policy amendments. The All-Comers Rule is unrelated to this insurance transaction issue.

From a RIBO perspective, this question tests client authorization, proper disclosure, and regulatory compliance . A broker must never alter coverage first and confirm later.

This question clarifies the critical regulatory role of the Principal Broker as defined under Ontario Regulation 991, Section 15.1. Every brokerage registered with RIBO must designate one person as the Principal Broker. In the Legal and Regulatory Compliance domain, the Principal Broker acts as the primary point of accountability between the regulator (RIBO) and the brokerage.

Their responsibilities include the supervision of all registered and unregistered staff to ensure that every transaction adheres to the RIB Act and the Code of Conduct. This includes overseeing the proper management of the Trust Account, ensuring that individuals do not exceed their Binding Authority, and verifying that all staff complete their mandatory Continuing Education hours. While they may delegate certain tasks to "Supervising Brokers," the Principal Broker retains ultimate responsibility for the brokerage’s compliance.

The RIBO Level 1 Blueprint expects entry-level brokers to recognize that they operate under the supervision of the Principal Broker. This hierarchical structure is a fundamental consumer protection mechanism; it ensures that there is a qualified, experienced individual overseeing the professional standards of the firm. By choosing Option C, the broker identifies that the Principal Broker's role is regulatory and ethical rather than purely commercial (A) or administrative (B). Understanding this role is essential for Professionalism, Integrity, and Ethics, as it reinforces the "Plan of Supervision" that all Level 1 licensees must follow until they achieve a higher level of registration.

The correct answer is C . In Ontario, a broker or agent is not automatically required to bind coverage immediately just because an applicant demands it, especially where payment has not been made. What the law does require is that the applicant be given access to the application process. Under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act , an agent must provide an application for automobile insurance to an Ontario vehicle owner or lessee and deal with it through the insurer process. The official Ontario statute search result specifically states that an agent shall provide an application for automobile insurance .

This fits with FSRA’s consumer guidance, which says Ontario consumers have the right to purchase auto insurance coverage , but they also have responsibilities to pay their premium in a timely fashion and complete forms promptly . That means the applicant has a right to apply, but not a right to force immediate coverage without satisfying underwriting and payment requirements.

So A and B are incorrect because there is no rule requiring a broker to grant temporary coverage for 21 days or to bind first and worry about cancellation later. D is unnecessary. The broker’s obligation is to take the application properly and forward it to an insurer , not to invent interim coverage.