CFP® Cases: Retirement Planning

Try 12 focused CFP® Cases case questions on Retirement Planning, with explanations, then continue with Securities Prep.

Topic snapshot

Practice cases

These cases are original Securities Prep practice items aligned to this topic area. They are designed for self-assessment and are not official exam questions.

Case 1

Topic: Retirement Planning

Elena and Marc: retirement-income discovery file

Elena Moreau, 59, is a medical laboratory technologist at an Ontario hospital. Her spouse, Marc, 63, is a sales manager at a manufacturing firm. They want to retire within 18 months if they can spend about $76,000 per year after tax, keep their home for at least five years, and avoid leaving Elena underprotected if Marc dies first.

They have brought a mix of screenshots, statements, and assumptions to their first planning meeting.

Question 1

Elena is considering reducing to 0.6 FTE at age 60 before retiring at 62. Which missing pension detail should be obtained first?

• A. Tax withholding rate on pension payments
• B. Administrator confirmation of part-time impact
• C. Elena’s RRSP beneficiary designation
• D. Current DB plan investment holdings

Best answer: B

What this tests: Retirement Planning

Explanation: The key discovery issue is how Elena’s DB pension formula treats reduced hours immediately before retirement. Part-time work could change pensionable service, earnings used in the formula, early-retirement eligibility, and any bridge benefit, so the planner needs plan-administrator confirmation before relying on projections.

A DB pension estimate is only useful if its assumptions match the client’s intended work pattern and retirement date. Elena’s statement is old and appears to use assumptions that may not reflect a move to 0.6 FTE. The planner should verify how the plan calculates credited service, pensionable earnings, early-retirement reductions, and bridge eligibility when employment status changes near retirement. This verification should come from the pension administrator or official plan materials, not from a client screenshot or general rule of thumb. Once the pension amount and timing are reliable, the planner can integrate tax, CPP/OAS, and registered withdrawals. The main takeaway is that the pension entitlement must be confirmed before optimizing surrounding accounts.

• Plan mechanics over market detail: DB pension investments are not the client-specific variable driving Elena’s retirement-date decision.
• Estate facts are separate: Beneficiary designations should be reviewed, but they do not answer how part-time work affects the pension.
• Administration comes later: Tax withholding can be adjusted after the pension amount and start date are known.

This directly affects Elena’s pensionable service, earnings, early-retirement eligibility, and bridge-income assumptions.

Question 2

Marc assumes his employee benefits will continue after he leaves work in six months. Which group-plan information is the priority to verify?

• A. LTD taxable benefit reporting method
• B. Exact payroll dates for future matches
• C. Retiree health eligibility, premiums, and coverage
• D. Historical returns of group RRSP funds

Best answer: C

What this tests: Retirement Planning

Explanation: The most important missing group-plan fact is whether Marc will have retiree health and dental coverage, what it will cost, and what benefits will cease. This affects both their spending target and their risk-management needs immediately after employment ends.

Group benefits are often tied to active employment, and retirement can trigger coverage reductions, premium changes, conversion deadlines, or complete termination. Marc’s file specifically notes uncertainty around retiree health and dental coverage and possible life-insurance conversion deadlines. Before assuming their after-tax spending target is feasible, the planner must know what coverage continues, what premiums apply, and whether replacement coverage is needed. This is also a professional discovery issue: client assumptions about employer benefits are common and should be checked against the plan booklet or HR confirmation. The closest competing information, such as investment fund performance, does not address the immediate protection gap created by leaving employment.

• Coverage beats performance: Fund returns matter to retirement capital, but the stated assumption concerns continued employee benefits.
• Timing is not the main risk: Final matching deposits matter, but losing medical or insurance coverage can create a larger planning gap.
• LTD may not survive retirement: Tax treatment of LTD is not the priority until continued coverage is confirmed.

These details affect both retirement cash flow and the risk of losing key medical and insurance protections.

Question 3

Before comparing CPP and OAS start dates for Marc, which missing government-benefit information is most important?

• A. Elena’s DB pension indexing formula
• B. CPP contribution record and OAS residence history
• C. Employer RRSP vesting schedule
• D. Marc’s next RRSP deduction amount

Best answer: B

What this tests: Retirement Planning

Explanation: Marc’s government-benefit assumptions are not reliable without official CPP and OAS facts. His CPP estimate should be supported by a Statement of Contributions, and his OAS should be checked because he immigrated to Canada at age 41.

CPP and OAS are separate government benefits with different discovery needs. CPP planning requires the official contribution record because the amount depends on pensionable earnings and contribution years. OAS planning requires residence history after age 18, and Marc’s immigration at age 41 makes a full-benefit assumption questionable without verification. If there are foreign social-security benefits or applicable agreements, those should also be identified before modelling retirement income. The planner can later layer on tax and withdrawal sequencing, but start-date comparisons are only meaningful when the underlying benefit estimates are accurate. The key takeaway is to verify entitlement data before optimizing timing.

• Household income is not entitlement data: Elena’s pension indexing helps projections but does not validate Marc’s government benefits.
• Tax planning is later: RRSP deductions may affect net cash flow, not the benefit amount Marc is eligible to receive.
• Employer-plan rules are separate: Vesting can change private retirement assets but not CPP or OAS eligibility.

CPP depends on contribution history, while Marc’s OAS entitlement depends on Canadian residence after age 18.

Question 4

The planner is asked to recommend a withdrawal sequence for Marc’s registered accounts. Which missing registered-account detail most affects what can be accessed and when?

• A. Locked-in jurisdiction and unlocking rules
• B. Elena’s TFSA successor-holder wording
• C. Last year’s RRSP fund performance
• D. Broker transfer-out fee schedule

Best answer: A

What this tests: Retirement Planning

Explanation: Marc’s locked-in account cannot be treated like a regular RRSP without confirming the governing legislation and access rules. Jurisdiction and unlocking provisions affect conversion options, timing, and annual withdrawal limits, making them central to withdrawal sequencing.

Registered-account discovery must distinguish flexible accounts from locked-in pension money. A regular RRSP can generally be withdrawn subject to tax, while locked-in accounts are governed by pension legislation that may restrict access, require conversion to a life income vehicle, and impose maximum withdrawals. Because Marc’s locked-in jurisdiction is missing, the planner cannot know which rules apply or whether any unlocking option is available. This information is more foundational than fees, recent returns, or estate wording when the question is what cash can be accessed during early retirement. The practical takeaway is to verify the legal nature of each registered account before building a decumulation plan.

• Access rules beat investment history: Past performance does not establish whether locked-in money can be withdrawn.
• Administrative costs are secondary: Transfer fees may affect implementation but not the main income-access constraint.
• Estate designations are a separate review: Successor-holder wording matters for death planning, not Marc’s near-term withdrawal capacity.

These rules determine whether and how Marc can draw income from the locked-in account.

Case 2

Topic: Retirement Planning

Maya and Oliver: draft retirement assumptions

Maya Singh, 59, is a hospital pharmacist in Ontario. Her spouse, Oliver, 61, is an incorporated IT contractor with uneven income and no pension. They are mortgage-free and want Maya to retire at 62, with Oliver reducing work at 63. Their combined RRSP, TFSA, and non-registered assets are about $1.15 million.

A preliminary retirement projection used the following assumptions:

Maya recently began biologic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. Her employer plan currently covers most of the cost, but she has not confirmed retiree drug coverage, premiums, or deductibles. She says her condition is manageable, though flare-ups may reduce overtime.

Maya’s father died at 63, but her mother is 88, has dementia, receives only public benefits, and already needs about 12 hours per week of Maya’s help. Public home-care hours are limited, siblings have made no written agreement, and Maya and Oliver may pay for private help to keep her mother out of a facility. Oliver’s parents lived to 92 and 96.

The couple has not obtained an updated pension estimate or current benefits booklet. They believe government programs will cover most eldercare costs if needed.

Question 5

Which draft assumption is most clearly contradicted by the discovery notes and should be adjusted before relying on the retirement projection?

• A. No ongoing parental support or caregiving costs
• B. Maya retires from active employment at 62
• C. CPP is deferred to age 70
• D. Travel spending is highest early in retirement

Best answer: A

What this tests: Retirement Planning

Explanation: The caregiving assumption is already inconsistent with known facts. Maya is currently providing substantial unpaid support, her mother has limited resources, and private care may be needed, so the projection should include time, cost, and retirement-date sensitivity for caregiving.

Retirement assumptions should be adjusted when discovery identifies a current obligation rather than a remote possibility. Caregiving can affect cash flow, available work hours, retirement timing, travel plans, and emotional capacity. Here, the draft assumes no parental support even though Maya already provides 12 hours per week and may need to fund private help because public care is limited and family support is uncertain. A better retirement model would include ranges for both direct costs and reduced earning capacity. The key takeaway is that known caregiving facts should not be treated as a zero-cost assumption.

• Current contradiction: Existing caregiving makes a no-support assumption unreliable before any retirement recommendation is made.
• Verification issue: Maya’s retirement date and pension details need confirmation, but they are not directly contradicted by the discovery notes.
• Lifestyle goal: Early travel may require stress testing, but it is a preference rather than an inconsistent assumption.
• Benefit timing: CPP deferral is a planning choice and needs analysis, not immediate correction from these facts alone.

Maya is already providing significant care and may need to pay for private help, so a zero-support assumption is not supportable.

Question 6

What should the planner verify before treating Maya’s age-62 pension income as reliable for cash-flow modeling?

• A. Maya’s recollection of the 2022 pension statement
• B. The couple’s preferred travel budget
• C. Oliver’s intended CPP start date
• D. A current administrator pension estimate and plan terms

Best answer: D

What this tests: Retirement Planning

Explanation: The planner should verify the pension using current, authoritative documentation. Maya’s projected pension is central to the retirement cash flow, and the 2022 estimate may not fully confirm bridge benefits, conditional indexing, survivor benefits, or eligibility at age 62.

Defined benefit pension assumptions should be based on current plan information, not stale estimates or client memory. A current administrator estimate can confirm the earliest unreduced date, lifetime amount, bridge amount and end date, survivor pension, indexing formula, and any conditions tied to retiring from active employment. These features materially affect retirement sustainability and survivor-income adequacy. Expense preferences and CPP timing can be modeled separately, but they do not verify the pension foundation. The key takeaway is to anchor retirement-income assumptions in current source documents.

• Source reliability: Current administrator documents are stronger evidence than an old statement remembered by the client.
• Separate income source: CPP timing is relevant but does not validate Maya’s employer pension.
• Expense planning: Travel preferences belong in spending assumptions, not pension verification.
• Stale estimate risk: A 2022 pension estimate may omit changed service, salary, indexing, or benefit conditions.

The projection relies on pension amounts, bridge benefits, survivor benefits, and indexing that should be confirmed in current plan documentation.

Question 7

Which longevity assumption change is most appropriate based on the case facts?

• A. Keep both projections ending at age 90 only
• B. Model at least one spouse living into the mid-90s
• C. Use the average age of both sets of parents
• D. Shorten both projections because Maya’s father died young

Best answer: B

What this tests: Retirement Planning

Explanation: For a couple, longevity planning should consider the chance that one spouse survives well into their 90s. The family history is mixed, but Oliver’s parents lived into their 90s and Maya’s mother is 88, so ending the projection when both are 90 is too narrow.

Longevity assumptions should address joint survival, not just an average life expectancy. In couple planning, the financial risk is often that one spouse lives a long time after the other, with reduced pension income, continued inflation, and possible higher care costs. Mixed family history should lead to scenario testing rather than a single deterministic endpoint. Modeling at least one spouse into the mid-90s helps assess survivor benefits, asset depletion, and inflation exposure. The key takeaway is to test longevity risk using survivor scenarios, not only a shared age-of-death assumption.

• Single-parent overreaction: Maya’s father’s early death is relevant but not enough to shorten both spouses’ horizons.
• False precision: Averaging parental ages may look objective but can miss survivor-risk exposure.
• Narrow endpoint: Ending both lives at 90 ignores the probability and consequences of one longer-lived spouse.
• Scenario value: A longer survivor scenario connects longevity to pension, inflation, and care-cost stress testing.

Oliver’s family history and couple-based longevity risk support testing a longer survivor period than both dying at 90.

Question 8

Which next information need is most important to assess whether the health-cost inflation assumption is reasonable?

• A. Last year’s grocery inflation for the household
• B. Retiree coverage and out-of-pocket biologic costs
• C. Oliver’s intended consulting end date
• D. The current market value of their home

Best answer: B

What this tests: Retirement Planning

Explanation: The health-cost assumption depends most on whether Maya’s expensive medication remains covered after retirement. A general 2.1% inflation factor may be inadequate if coverage changes, premiums rise, deductibles apply, or drug costs shift to the couple.

Health expenses often require separate discovery because they may be lumpy, coverage-dependent, and subject to inflation different from general CPI. Maya’s biologic treatment is currently covered mostly by her employer plan, but retiree coverage is unknown. The planner should confirm coverage, exclusions, premiums, deductibles, co-insurance, and expected out-of-pocket costs before accepting a $4,000 CPI-indexed health-cost assumption. This information also affects Maya’s retirement timing and emergency-reserve needs. The key takeaway is to verify the specific health-cost exposure rather than rely on a broad inflation assumption.

• Specific exposure: Medication coverage directly determines whether health costs need a separate assumption.
• General inflation data: Household grocery inflation may inform spending, but it does not test medical-cost risk.
• Income timing: Oliver’s work end date matters for retirement cash flow, not health-cost inflation.
• Balance-sheet value: Home equity is useful context, but it does not estimate ongoing medical expenses.

Maya’s biologic medication could create high, escalating costs if retiree coverage is limited or unavailable.

Case 3

Topic: Retirement Planning

Leila’s locked-in bridge-income question

Leila Singh, 59, lives in Ontario and will likely leave her hospital management role next March, the year she turns 60. She expects a $110,000 taxable severance payment in that calendar year and little or no employment income in the following year. Her target retirement spending is about $78,000 before tax annually from age 60 to 65, when she will revisit CPP and OAS timing. She also wants to pay down an $85,000 HELOC, but says it can be paid over two to three years if that is more tax-efficient.

Current assets and debt

Leila assumed she could “roll the LIRA to an RRSP” at retirement and withdraw $150,000 in the first year if markets are favourable. She is comfortable with investment risk but anxious about losing control of her cash flow.

Planner’s working notes — assume these rules apply

• A LIRA cannot be withdrawn directly or transferred to an ordinary RRSP except under permitted unlocking rules.
• Earliest Ontario LIF conversion is permitted at age 55. Once converted, a LIF has annual minimum and maximum withdrawals. For planning, assume the first full-year maximum at age 60 is 6.0% of the January 1 LIF value.
• One-time Ontario 50% unlocking may be available after transfer to a new LIF. The application must be made within 60 days of that transfer. An unlocked amount can be transferred to an RRSP/RRIF to remain tax-deferred or taken as taxable cash.
• RRSP/RRIF withdrawals are fully taxable; TFSA withdrawals are not taxable. An RRSP must be converted by the end of the year the owner turns 71; earlier RRIF conversion is optional.

Question 9

Which issue should the planner address first in responding to Leila’s assumption about using the LIRA for the first retirement year?

• A. TFSA withdrawals reduce OAS benefits
• B. RRSP conversion is required at retirement
• C. CPP must begin before LIF income
• D. Locked-in rules limit lump-sum access

Best answer: D

What this tests: Retirement Planning

Explanation: The central issue is that Leila’s LIRA is pension-origin money subject to locked-in rules, not an ordinary RRSP. Her first-year cash-flow plan may fail if she assumes she can take a large lump sum without considering LIF maximums and permitted unlocking rules.

Locked-in accounts are designed to preserve pension money for retirement income, so they generally cannot be accessed like ordinary RRSP assets. Converting a LIRA to a LIF can create retirement income, but the LIF maximum restricts annual withdrawals. Permitted unlocking may improve flexibility, but it is rule-based and time-sensitive. The planning diagnosis is therefore to separate flexible assets from locked-in assets before designing bridge income or HELOC repayment. The closest distraction is RRSP timing, but Leila’s RRSP does not have to become a RRIF when she retires.

• Treating all registered accounts alike: A LIRA and an RRSP are both registered, but their withdrawal flexibility is very different.
• Confusing retirement with conversion deadlines: Leaving employment does not trigger mandatory RRSP conversion.
• Linking unrelated programs: CPP, OAS, and TFSA rules do not remove the LIRA restrictions driving this case.

This directly addresses her mistaken belief that retirement makes the LIRA as flexible as an RRSP.

Question 10

Assume Leila transfers the full $420,000 LIRA to a new LIF at age 60 and immediately unlocks 50% to her RRSP. Using the 6.0% LIF maximum, what is the maximum LIF withdrawal from the remaining locked-in balance in the first full year?

• A. $12,600
• B. $150,000
• C. $210,000
• D. $25,200

Best answer: A

What this tests: Retirement Planning

Explanation: The LIF maximum applies only to the balance that remains locked in after the 50% unlocking. If half of the $420,000 is moved out of the LIF, the first full-year LIF maximum is based on the remaining $210,000.

The key interpretation is to distinguish the one-time unlocked amount from the ongoing LIF withdrawal limit. If Leila transfers $420,000 to a new LIF and unlocks 50%, $210,000 can move to an RRSP/RRIF or be taken as taxable cash, depending on her choice and documentation. The remaining $210,000 stays in the LIF and remains subject to the annual maximum. The calculation is: $420,000 × 50% = $210,000 remaining LIF; $210,000 × 6.0% = $12,600. The unlocked RRSP could create flexibility, but it is not part of the LIF maximum.

• Applying the percentage too early: Using the original LIRA value ignores the reduction caused by 50% unlocking.
• Confusing unlocking with LIF income: The unlocked amount is a separate transfer or taxable withdrawal choice, not the annual LIF maximum.
• Letting client preference drive the rule: Her desired $150,000 first-year withdrawal is a cash-flow goal, not a permitted LIF limit.

After unlocking $210,000, the remaining LIF balance is $210,000 and 6.0% is $12,600.

Question 11

Which funding sequence best balances Leila’s income flexibility and tax coordination for the HELOC and bridge-income need?

• A. Fund the HELOC with maximum LIF withdrawals
• B. Use non-locked assets; time any unlocking carefully
• C. Start CPP at 60 to avoid withdrawals
• D. Take all unlocked cash in the severance year

Best answer: B

What this tests: Retirement Planning

Explanation: The best sequence starts with assets that are actually flexible and coordinates taxable withdrawals with Leila’s income pattern. Because the severance year is already high income and LIF withdrawals are capped, the planner should not make the locked-in account the primary source for a lump-sum HELOC repayment.

Bridge-income planning should match the timing of cash needs with the flexibility and tax treatment of available sources. Leila has non-registered savings, a TFSA, and an ordinary RRSP that can be coordinated with her lower-income year. Her HELOC repayment can also be staged over two to three years, reducing pressure to trigger a large taxable registered withdrawal in the severance year. The LIF can provide capped income and may create additional flexibility through 50% unlocking, but the conversion and unlocking should be timed deliberately. A government-benefit decision such as CPP at 60 should be assessed using lifetime income, tax, and longevity considerations, not just immediate liquidity.

• Overreliance on the LIF: Maximum LIF withdrawals are constrained and may not match her lump-sum debt goal.
• Ignoring the severance year: A large taxable registered withdrawal in the same year as severance can worsen tax efficiency.
• Using CPP as a liquidity shortcut: Early CPP may solve short-term cash flow but can create a long-term retirement-income trade-off.

This preserves flexibility, recognizes the LIF cap, and avoids forcing taxable withdrawals in the severance year.

Question 12

If Leila delays converting the LIRA to a LIF until age 64, what is the main planning implication for ages 60 to 63?

• A. RRSP conversion at age 71 is lost
• B. No LIF income or 50% unlocking before conversion
• C. CPP and OAS must both be deferred
• D. The LIRA becomes taxable each year

Best answer: B

What this tests: Retirement Planning

Explanation: Delaying LIF conversion preserves tax deferral but reduces income flexibility during the bridge period. If Leila waits until age 64, she cannot use LIF income or the 50% unlocking mechanism to support cash flow from ages 60 to 63.

Conversion timing matters because a LIRA generally remains locked and non-withdrawable until it is converted or unlocked under applicable rules. A delay may be reasonable if Leila does not need the funds, but it is inconsistent with relying on the LIRA for early retirement bridge income. Once converted to a LIF, annual minimum and maximum rules apply, and the stated 50% unlocking opportunity is tied to the new LIF transfer and its 60-day window. The key takeaway is that delaying conversion can preserve the account but shifts early cash-flow pressure to non-locked assets.

• Confusing account deadlines: RRSP age-71 conversion is a separate rule and does not solve LIRA access.
• Assuming automatic taxation: Tax deferral continues while the LIRA remains intact and no taxable withdrawal occurs.
• Overlinking government benefits: CPP and OAS timing should be coordinated, but they are not forced by the LIRA conversion date.

The LIRA remains locked until conversion, so both LIF income and the unlocking opportunity are unavailable before then.

Continue with full practice

Use the CFP® Cases Practice Test page for the full Securities Prep route, mixed-case practice, timed mock exams, explanations, and web/mobile app access.

Related focused pages

• Free CFP® Cases Full-Length Case Practice Exam
• CFP® Cases: Fundamental Financial Planning Practices
• CFP® Cases: Financial Management
• CFP® Cases: Investment Planning
• CFP® Cases: Insurance and Risk Management
• CFP® Cases: Tax Planning
• CFP® Cases: Estate Planning and Law for Financial Planning

Free review resource

Use the full Securities Prep practice page above for the latest review links and practice route.