Pass the CSI Canadian Securities Course FP2 Questions and answers with ExamsMirror

The doctrine of non est factum, literally meaning “it is not my deed,” may provide relief where a person signs a document while fundamentally mistaken about the nature or legal character of the document being executed. Accordingly, option B captures the essential contractual principle.

The doctrine is narrower than ordinary mistake or misrepresentation. It is not enough that a party misunderstood a particular contractual term, underestimated the financial consequences, or later regretted signing. The error must concern the document's essential nature or effect. Canadian jurisprudence also imposes an important diligence requirement: a person who carelessly signs a document without taking reasonable steps to understand it may be prevented from relying on non est factum, particularly where an innocent third party relied on the signed instrument. The Supreme Court of Canada applied this principle in Marvco Colour Research Ltd. v. Harris.

Option A describes misrepresentation. Option D describes common mistake, where both parties share a fundamental erroneous assumption. Option C may involve mistake concerning the existence of subject matter or impossibility, not non est factum.

FPII reference/topic: Financial Planning Practice — contract law; validity and enforceability of contracts; mistake; misrepresentation; non est factum.

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

Diana's principal tax concern is the tax payable on qualifying spousal support payments that she receives.

Under Canadian income-tax rules, periodic spousal support paid pursuant to a qualifying court order or written agreement is generally deductible by the payer and taxable to the recipient. CRA therefore requires a recipient to include the taxable portion of qualifying spousal support in income.

Child support is treated differently. Under the current regime applicable to post-April 1997 arrangements, child support is generally not deductible by the payer and not taxable to the recipient. CRA expressly distinguishes the two forms of support on this basis.

Because Diana is receiving both forms of support, she should distinguish them carefully and plan for the income-tax liability associated with taxable spousal support. Depending on the amount received and the withholding arrangements, she may need to retain sufficient cash to satisfy tax instalments or the balance due when filing her tax return.

Option A concerns Bruce's potential deduction rather than Diana's tax liability. Options B and C incorrectly treat ordinary child-support payments as deductible or taxable.

FPII reference/topic: Family Law — taxation of support; spousal support; child support; payer deductions and recipient income inclusion.

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

Both a RRIF and a LIF provide retirement income and are subject to prescribed minimum annual withdrawals. The distinguishing feature of a LIF is that it contains pension money that remains subject to locking-in legislation. Consequently, in addition to the minimum required withdrawal, the amount that may normally be withdrawn from a LIF is subject to an annual maximum.

The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions confirms that federally regulated LIFs have minimum and maximum annual withdrawal limits. The minimum is governed by income-tax rules, while pension standards legislation determines the maximum.

A conventional RRIF does not impose this pension-based maximum withdrawal limit. Once the required minimum has been taken, the annuitant may generally withdraw additional amounts, although those amounts remain taxable.

Option A is incorrect because there is no universal rule requiring all LIF holders to purchase a life annuity at age 80. Option B incorrectly describes the permitted source of LIF assets; LIFs are primarily funded from locked-in pension arrangements, not simply retirement compensation arrangements. Option D is also incorrect because taxable RRIF withdrawals do not become tax-free merely because they represent the prescribed minimum.

FPII reference/topic: Retirement Planning — RRIFs; LIFs; locked-in pension assets; minimum and maximum retirement withdrawals.

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

The strongest indicator in this scenario is that Joshua and Marie share the net profits, making option B the appropriate answer.

A partnership does not require a formal written partnership agreement. Canadian partnership analysis focuses on whether the parties are carrying on a business in common with a view to profit. CRA guidance, drawing on Supreme Court of Canada partnership jurisprudence, confirms that documentary evidence is relevant but the surrounding facts and actual conduct of the parties can establish the relationship.

Mere co-ownership of an asset does not automatically create a partnership. Two individuals can jointly own real estate without conducting business as partners. The important distinction is whether their activities demonstrate a common profit-making business. CRA guidance specifically distinguishes simple co-ownership from partnership and notes that sharing profits is a material partnership factor, whereas simply receiving each co-owner's portion of gross returns does not necessarily create one.

Their family relationship and non-arm's-length status also do not prevent a partnership from existing.

Accordingly, the combination of joint operation and equal sharing of net profits supports the partnership characterization.

FPII reference/topic: Financial Planning for Small Business — partnerships; creation of partnerships; co-ownership versus partnership; profit sharing.

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

Life insurance policies generally provide a 10-day rescission or “free-look” period after the policy is received. During this period, the policyholder can review the contract and cancel it without the ordinary consequences associated with surrendering an established policy.

Canadian consumer guidance describes the standard life-insurance free-look period as usually 10 days, while some policies provide a longer period. Ontario's financial-services regulator similarly states that life-insurance consumers must generally be given at least 10 days, and in certain cases 20 days, to reconsider the purchase.

Using the 10-day period specified by the examination framework and counting ten days after Wednesday, June 6, the period ends on Saturday, June 16.

The rescission right differs from ordinary cancellation or surrender after the free-look period. During rescission, the policyholder is normally entitled to have the contract unwound and premiums refunded according to the governing policy and applicable law.

Therefore, of the dates presented, Saturday, June 16 is correct.

FPII reference/topic: Insurance Planning — insurance contracts; policy delivery; rescission rights; free-look period; consumer protection.

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

A trust's T3 Trust Income Tax and Information Return must generally be filed within 90 days after the trust's tax year-end. This makes option C the technically complete rule.

CRA confirms that the T3 return, together with the related information slips and summaries where applicable, is due no later than 90 days following the trust's taxation year-end. Any balance of tax owing is generally subject to the same deadline.

For most inter vivos trusts and many other trusts, the tax year ends on December 31. In those cases, “within 90 days of December 31” will normally produce the practical filing deadline. Nevertheless, option B is less precise because certain trusts—particularly qualifying graduated rate estates—can have a non-calendar taxation year. Consequently, the universal principle is based on the actual trust year-end, not automatically December 31.

The February 15 and April 30 dates relate to other Canadian tax-reporting contexts and are not the general T3 filing rule.

For estate planners, determining the trust's taxation year and status is therefore an essential preliminary step before establishing compliance and tax-payment deadlines.

FPII reference/topic: Estate Planning — taxation of trusts; T3 returns; trust tax year; graduated rate estates; filing obligations.

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

The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines establish a ceiling of $350,000 of gross annual payor income for the routine application of their formulas. Above that level, the formulas are not intended to be applied mechanically.

Justice Canada's SSAG materials explain that the ceiling and floor identify the income range for the “typical” cases in which the formulas can reliably generate support ranges. Once the payor's gross income exceeds $350,000, support must be assessed more individually; the $350,000 figure is not an absolute cap on support. A court may still award higher support after examining the parties' circumstances.

The Guidelines are relevant to married spouses and may also be used for unmarried spouses where the applicable provincial or territorial family-law legislation recognizes a spousal-support entitlement. Thus, options A and C do not identify the intended limitation.

Option B is also incorrect. Income below $50,000 does not automatically put a case outside the Guidelines. The SSAG contain a separate lower-income “floor,” historically set materially below $50,000, together with special considerations for lower-income payors.

Therefore, the high-income ceiling in option D is the circumstance identified by the FPII framework.

FPII reference/topic: Family Law — spousal support; Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines; ceilings and floors; high-income cases.

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

The applicable maximum is 50% of the payor's net amount under the ordinary support-deduction framework.

Ontario's Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act provides that the total amount deducted by an income source and remitted under a support deduction order generally must not exceed 50% of the net amount owed by the income source to the payor.

The “net amount” concept is important because the statutory limit does not simply mean 50% of gross salary. Required statutory deductions are taken into account in determining the amount available for enforcement.

The support obligation itself continues to exist even where enforcement through a particular income source is limited. Arrears can accumulate and other enforcement measures may become available. There are also specific statutory exceptions applying to certain lump-sum amounts and enforcement circumstances, so the 50% figure should be understood as the standard deduction limit tested by the question rather than an absolute limit in every possible enforcement proceeding.

Accordingly, among the four alternatives, 50% correctly represents the general maximum deduction against the payor's net income source for support enforcement.

FPII reference/topic: Family Law — child-support enforcement; support deduction orders; garnishment; limits on deductions from income.

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

Where an employee has contributed more CPP than required for the year, the excess employee contribution is ultimately refunded or credited through the individual's income tax return.

CRA specifically provides for CPP overpayments to be calculated on the applicable Schedule 8 or interprovincial CPP/QPP form. The excess is reported on the individual's tax return, and CRA will either refund it or apply it against another balance owing.

An employer that discovers an over-deduction during the same year should generally correct its payroll records and reimburse the employee directly. However, where the overpayment remains on the T4 and has not been reimbursed, CRA credits the excess when the employee files the personal return.

The excess is not transferred to an RRSP, nor is it automatically carried forward against the employee's CPP obligation for the next calendar year. CPP contribution calculations operate on an annual basis.

Option A is also incorrect because repayment of the employee's own excessive CPP deduction is not a taxable employment benefit.

Accordingly, within the circumstances presented in the question, option D is the correct treatment.

FPII reference/topic: Retirement Planning — Canada Pension Plan; maximum pensionable earnings; employee contributions; CPP overpayments and refunds.

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

A Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan is generally an unregistered deferred compensation arrangement designed to provide highly compensated employees with retirement benefits beyond limits available through registered retirement arrangements.

Where the SERP is structured as an unfunded or notional arrangement, the employer normally records the promised benefit as an obligation rather than receiving an immediate deduction for a funded registered-plan contribution. The employer's deduction generally arises when the benefit is ultimately paid and becomes taxable compensation to the executive. Canadian SERP structures commonly use this deferred-deduction treatment.

This is an important distinction from a registered pension plan. A SERP is not simply registered with CRA so that unrestricted deductible contributions may be made. Its principal purpose is precisely to supplement benefits limited by the tax rules governing registered retirement arrangements.

A funded SERP can also involve a Retirement Compensation Arrangement, which brings a separate tax regime, including refundable tax on contributions to the RCA custodian. Therefore, the precise tax consequences depend on funding structure.

For the examination scenario, option C describes the core tax consideration associated with a conventional unfunded SERP: the employer's tax deduction is deferred until the retirement benefit is paid.

FPII reference/topic: Retirement Planning — SERPs; executive compensation; deferred compensation; registered versus non-registered retirement arrangements.

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