LLQP Exam Dumps - IFSE Institute Life License Qualification Program Questions and Answers

Comprehensive and Detailed in Depth Explanation with Exact Extract from Documents and Guides:

Under Canadian common law and insurance principles, a minor who has reached the age of 16 can enter into an insurance contract on their own life, provided they have the capacity to understand the contract. Marcel, at 16, is legally able to apply for and own a life insurance policy where he is also the insured. TheIFSE Ethics and Professional Practice Course (Common Law)emphasizes that the policy owner must have an insurable interest in the insured, which Marcel inherently has in himself. There is no requirement for the application to be signed in his province of residence (New Brunswick), nor is there a need for a parent to witness his signature or act as the policy owner, as long as Marcel consents and understands the contract. His father paying the premiums does not affect ownership, as premium payments can be made by a third party without transferring ownership. Option A is correct because Marcel can legally be both the owner and the insured.

In group life insurance plans, the employee (insured individual) is typically responsible for designating their own beneficiary. Although Premier Vibe Inc. sponsors the group plan, it is Ae-Cha, as the policyholder, who has the right to choose her beneficiary for the life insurance coverage provided under the plan​​. The employer or the insurer does not decide the beneficiary; this decision remains solely with the insured employee.

The Canadian Insurance Services Regulatory Organizations (CISRO) is responsible for administering the regulatory framework for insurance intermediaries across Canada. CISRO works with provincial and territorial regulators to ensure consistent standards and practices for insurance agents, helping maintain public trust and professional integrity within the industry​. Elizabeth is correctly referencing CISRO as the body that manages the regulatory system applicable toinsurance intermediaries​.

When a beneficiary is designated as "revocable" and predeceases the policyholder, their share of the benefit typically reverts to the surviving beneficiaries rather than the deceased beneficiary’s estate. In this case, since Michelle has predeceased Danny, her portion of the benefit is divided equally between Donna-Joe and Stephanie, the remaining beneficiaries. Therefore, each of them would receive 50% of the total death benefit, which is $500,000. If the beneficiaries had been designated as "irrevocable" or if there were specific contingent beneficiaries, different rules might apply​​.

=================

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation: Pension funds from a defined contribution plan, upon leaving employment, must follow Quebec’s Supplemental Pension Plans Act (SPPA) and federal tax rules. The $88,000 is “locked-in,” meaning it cannot be cashed out and must be transferred to a Locked-In Retirement Account (LIRA) to preserve its pension status (SPPA, Section 98). A LIRA restricts access until retirement, when it must be converted into a life annuity or Life Income Fund (LIF) by December 31 of the year the holder turns 71 (Income Tax Act, Section 146). Option D correctly identifies the LIRA and LIF/annuity options. Option A (RRSP) applies to non-locked-in funds, not pension benefits. Option B’s “RRIF” is incorrect, as locked-in funds use a LIF in Quebec. Option C (immediate RRIF withdrawal) violates locking-in rules and age requirements. The Ethics manual requires advisors to clarify locked-in fund rules for clients.

In Quebec, an irrevocable beneficiary designation remains in effect even after a divorce, unless the policyholder takes steps to change it. Because Rajbir is designated as the irrevocable beneficiary, Surjit would require Rajbir’s consent to alter the beneficiary designation. Since Surjit intends to keep Rajbir as the beneficiary, he does not need to take any additional action, as the irrevocable beneficiary status remains in force. Surjit cannot change or remove Rajbir as the beneficiary without her consent, so his current designation remains unaffected by the divorce under LLQP guidelines and Quebec civil code rules on irrevocable beneficiaries​​.

=================

Disability insurance policies generally stipulate that the insurer must pay benefits within a specific timeframe following receipt of the proof of loss, typically within 30 days. This aligns with LLQP guidelines and common insurance practices, which require that insurers act promptly upon receiving all necessary documentation related to a claim. Coraline must provide her proof of loss, after which the insurer is obligated to start the payment process. The waiting period dictates when benefits start, but the insurer must pay within the specified period after receiving the required proof​​.

=================

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation: In life insurance, a death benefit requires proof of death, typically a death certificate. Under Quebec law (Civil Code, Article 92), if a person disappears and death cannot be immediately confirmed (e.g., no body found), a court can issue a declaratory judgment of death after a waiting period—usually 7 years, or sooner with evidence of peril (e.g., forest fire). The LLQP notes that insurers delay payment until this legal determination, as premature payment risks fraud. Option D correctly states that the beneficiary could receive the face amount after this process. Option A (30-day payment) assumes immediate proof, which isn’t available here. Option B (premium refund) is incorrect, as the contract remains valid, not void. Option C (impossible payment) overstates the issue—payment is possible post-judgment. The Ethics manual mandates advisors to clarify claim processes, especially in uncertain scenarios.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation: An insurance contract under Quebec’s Civil Code (Articles 2389–2414) has distinct characteristics. It is a “contract of the utmost good faith”(uberrimae fidei), requiring full disclosure from both parties, especially the insured, about material facts (Article 2408). It is typically a “contract of adhesion,” as insurers offer standard terms with little negotiation (Article 1379), unlike mutual agreement contracts. It is “synallagmatic,” imposing reciprocal obligations—premium payment by the policyholder and coverage by the insurer (Article 1381). It is also “aleatory,” as the outcome depends on an uncertain event, like death or loss (Article 2390). Option C accurately reflects these traits. Option A’s “mutual agreement” suggests negotiation, which is rare in insurance. Option B and D incorrectly state that inaccurate statements are inconsequential—misrepresentations can void a policy (Article 2410)—and B’s “consensual” and D’s “gratuitous” misalign with insurance’s onerous nature (payment for coverage). The Ethics and Professional Practice manual emphasizes advisors’ duty to explain these legal characteristics clearly.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation: Under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA), insurance representatives must report suspicious transactions to FINTRAC (Section 7). FINTRAC guidelines list red flags: urgency without justification, disinterest in product details, and cash payments, especially if inconsistent with client profile. Option C—clients in a hurry, uninterested in long-term benefits, and insisting on cash—matches these indicators, suggesting potential money laundering. Option A (questions about controls) may indicate curiosity or caution, not necessarily suspicion. Option B (hurry and cash) is less conclusive without disinterest in benefits. Option D (interest in benefits) contradicts typical laundering behavior. The Ethics manual requires vigilance against financial crime, supporting Véronique’s duty to report option C.