RRSP maturity is age-based. In general, an RRSP must be converted to a retirement income option, such as a RRIF or annuity, by the end of the calendar year in which the annuitant turns 71. Minimum RRIF withdrawals begin the following year if a RRIF is selected. Option B confuses eligibility for some retirement benefits and pension planning milestones with RRSP maturity. Option C is wrong because employment status does not eliminate the conversion requirement. Option D is not required and may be tax-inefficient; a full cash withdrawal could trigger substantial taxable income. A planner should treat conversion as a planning decision, not an administrative afterthought. The client's spouse's age, required income, tax bracket, pension splitting, investment mix, estate goals, and OAS exposure may influence whether to use a RRIF, annuity, or combination. The correct exam answer is the age-71 year-end deadline. References/topics: RRSP maturity, RRIF conversion, annuities, retirement income planning.

Spousal RRSPs support retirement income splitting, but the attribution rules prevent short-term deduction-and- withdrawal planning. If the annuitant spouse withdraws amounts from a spousal RRSP within the attribution period, recent contributions may be included in the contributing spouse's income rather than the annuitant's income. Option A is wrong because RRSP withdrawals are taxable unless a specific program or offset applies.
Option C is wrong because RRSP withdrawals are ordinary income, not capital gains. Option D misstates the mechanics; RRSP contribution room belongs to the contributor and is affected by contributions, but spousal RRSP room is not a separate permanent account destroyed by one contribution. A planner should review timing, contribution history, expected retirement brackets, pension income, and cash flow needs before recommending withdrawals. The strategy works best when used for longer-term retirement income planning rather than immediate tax arbitrage. References/topics: spousal RRSP, attribution rules, retirement income splitting, taxable withdrawals. Timing records are essential because attribution depends on recent contributions.

After acknowledging Jonathan's concern, Carla should revisit his goals, objectives, and risk tolerance. A complaint about negative returns may indicate normal market volatility, unsuitable risk exposure, changed circumstances, or misunderstanding of the investment plan. The planner should not immediately recommend replacement investments before confirming whether the current portfolio still fits the client's KYC profile.
Simply reminding Jonathan that investing is long term may sound dismissive and does not address suitability.
Repeating that investments involve volatility may be accurate but incomplete. The first professional step is to re-open the planning conversation, confirm objectives, time horizon, liquidity needs, risk tolerance, risk capacity, and expectations, then determine whether any portfolio change or complaint process is required.
AFP practice emphasizes review and documentation when a client expresses dissatisfaction with investment outcomes. Study Guide focus: client review meetings, complaints, risk tolerance, portfolio suitability, and relationship management. The review may show that no product change is required, but that conclusion must be supported by updated facts.

A term survivorship life insurance policy is the most cost-effective fit for the Andersons' objective. They are a young working couple with children and want to increase estate value and reduce the tax burden at death for the benefit of the children. Survivorship coverage pays on the second death, which is when final estate transfer costs and taxes commonly become due for the next generation. Term coverage keeps the premium lower during the working years compared with permanent insurance. Naming the estate as beneficiary of registered plans can increase probate exposure and does not reduce tax. Permanent individual policies may be useful for lifetime estate liquidity, but they are usually more expensive than required for a cost-sensitive young family. A joint savings account does not create immediate estate liquidity if both parents die early.
Study Guide focus: survivorship insurance, estate liquidity, family protection, term insurance, and cost- effective risk management. The policy should be coordinated with wills, guardianship arrangements, registered plan beneficiaries, and expected final tax exposure.

Interest deductibility depends on purpose and traceability. If borrowed money is used for the purpose of earning income from a business or property, interest may be deductible, provided the legal requirements are met and the borrowing can be traced to the income-producing investment. Option B is false because individuals may deduct interest in qualifying leveraged investment arrangements. Option C is wrong because leverage does not change the tax character of investment income; interest, dividends, and capital gains remain taxable according to normal rules. Option D is incorrect because borrowing to contribute to a TFSA generally does not create deductible interest, since TFSA income is not taxable. A planner should not treat deductibility as the only issue. Leverage increases downside risk, magnifies losses, creates cash flow obligations, and may be unsuitable for clients with low risk capacity. Documentation, account segregation, investment mandate, and repayment ability are essential. References/topics: interest deductibility, leveraged investing, taxable income, suitability.