Ontario is shifting toward a more choice-driven accident-benefits landscape. With greater optionality comes a higher premium on advice—particularly from brokers who help clients navigate limits, exclusions, endorsements, and elective coverages. This piece complements my earlier analysis of the upcoming changes to the accident benefits regime in  “The 2026 SABS Pivot: What Ontario’s No-Fault Overhaul Means for Personal Injury Practice”^[1]. Here, I look ahead to where broker-negligence litigation may grow.

My thesis is simple. As the number and consequence of client choices increase, so does the scrutiny on whether brokers discharged their advisory duties with the care the law demands.

The Legal Baseline: Duty, Standard, and the “Intelligent Insurance Agent”

Ontario law has long recognized that brokers (and agents) can be liable when clients are left uninsured or underinsured for foreseeable risks the broker undertook to address.

The modern starting point is Fine’s Flowers Ltd. v. General Accident Assurance Co. of Canada, 1977 CanLII 1182, ONCA^[2]. There, the insured asked for “full coverage”, the agent placed a policy that didn’t respond to the loss that materialized, and the Court of Appeal affirmed liability in contract and negligence. The case is frequently cited for the “intelligent insurance agent” idea that a broker who undertakes to arrange coverage must identify foreseeable risks, obtain appropriate insurance, or clearly warn of gaps.

The Supreme Court of Canada reinforced the advisory dimension in Fletcher v. Manitoba Public Insurance Co., 1990 CanLII 59, SCC^[3]. Although Fletcher arose in a public-auto context, the Court recognized a “stringent” duty in appropriate private-broker settings to inform and advise, including pointing out material gaps and the availability of optional coverages where the client signals a desire for robust protection. The through-line is reliance. When a client looks to the broker for guidance, the standard of care rises with the sophistication of the advice and the stakes involved.

How Ontario Courts Have Applied the Principles

Recent Ontario authority shows courts are exacting but not absolute. In 2049390 Ontario Inc. v. Leung, 2018 ONSC 5759^[4], the claim against a commercial broker failed at trial where contemporaneous documents and testimony showed the broker had flagged the risk of underinsurance and recommended a professional valuation. The Court of Appeal later dismissed the appeal in 2049390 Ontario Inc. v. Leung, 2020 ONCA 164^[5]. The pair underscores two familiar battlegrounds. First, whether there was a breach of the standard of care, and second, whether the plaintiff can prove that, but for the alleged breach, they would have purchased different coverage that would have responded to the loss.

Ontario courts also scrutinize how well a broker translated optionality and exclusions into client-level understanding. In Bronfman v. BFL Canada Risk & Insurance Services Inc., 2013 ONSC 5372^[6], a homeowner’s contents loss exposed a material shortfall relative to the insureds’ lifestyle and asset profile. The Superior Court found the broker negligent for not adequately probing needs and advising on appropriate limits and endorsements. The case is often cited for the proposition that “mechanical” renewals and generic form letters will not save a broker when the client’s circumstances call for a more tailored advisory engagement.

Another useful illustration is Giangrande v. Secure Insurance Solutions Group Inc., 2019 ONSC 5826^[7], where the Court considered the broker’s obligations against the factual matrix of the insured’s risk profile and the communications at renewal.

While outcomes turn on the record, the constant is that reasonableness measured against a prudent broker’s conduct in context drives both breach and causation analysis.

Why 2026 Optionality Likely Increases Exposure

The coming SABS redesign puts more forks in the road. When accident-benefit choices proliferate, the probability rises that a claimant who later faces a shortfall will argue they were not properly advised about what was available, what it cost, and what was at stake.

Courts will ask the familiar questions. What did the broker undertake to do, what did the client reasonably rely on, what was actually explained, and what would the client have done if properly advised? In a world of more client choice, the evidentiary value of a broker’s paper (or digital) trail—quotes, option grids, declinations, renewal conversations memorialized in writing—goes up, not down.

That is as true for personal lines as it is for commercial risks.

Practical Implications for Plaintiffs and Defendants

Plaintiffs should expect to prove more than disappointment with an outcome. They will need to anchor the duty to the relationship, show a concrete shortfall at the point of placement or renewal, and, critically, establish the “but-for” test, namely that they would have purchased the missing protection and that it was available on reasonable terms.

Defendants, for their part, will live and die by contemporaneous records, proportional tailoring of advice to the client’s sophistication, and credible evidence that key options, exclusions, and trade-offs were explained. Fine’s Flowers demands intelligent, risk-aware brokering. Leung and later cases remind us that the standard is reasonableness in context, not perfection.

Mediation: Where the Facts Get Tested

In my experience, broker-negligence files are fact-dense by nature, which makes them well-suited to mediation. Causation almost always turns on what a reasonable client would have done if properly advised—something courts decide, but mediations can test in a lower-cost, privileged setting.

Early exchanges of the broker’s file notes, renewal emails, quote sheets, option grids, and any signed declinations can narrow the delta quickly. Where expert evidence (on pricing, availability, or reconstruction values) is in play, a mediator with insurance experience can help parties translate technical disagreement into practical settlement ranges.

Because reputation and relationships matter in this niche, confidentiality and creative structures often make more sense than a public fight to a binary judgment.

Closing

As optional benefits become the norm and product design shifts, expect more disputes about who said what, when, and with what effect on the coverage ultimately purchased. The law doesn’t require omniscience. It requires prudent, documented advice calibrated to the client and the risk. That is the Fine’s Flowers/Fletcher baseline, tempered by later Ontario authority like Leung and Bronfman.

In a 2026 era of increased optionality, disciplined process is not just good practice. It is the best defence.