Canadian Underwriter

Category: News

New traffic bylaw reshapes road-use rules in Alberta municipality

Where you park your camper, whether your cattle are grazing on a road allowance and how quickly you must shovel your sidewalk — a newly passed bylaw touches on a wide range of everyday issues across the MD of Pincher Creek.

Council approved Bylaw 1365-25 on May 12, establishing updated rules governing traffic, parking, recreational vehicles, off-highway vehicles and the use of municipal road allowances.

The traffic bylaw was passed following a process that began with first reading in September 2025 and included a public open house, legal review and multiple rounds of amendments.

The bylaw is intended to give the MD clearer authority to regulate traffic, parking, vehicles, animals and pedestrian activity while supporting public safety, property protection and the orderly use of public spaces.

In its report to council, administration noted the move was driven by growth of the MD’s enforcement services department and the need to modernize existing rules to better serve and protect ratepayers.

A public hearing was not legally required — the Municipal Government Act mandates hearings for land-use bylaws and rezoning applications, not traffic bylaws. The MD chose to actively seek public feedback anyway.

The bylaw came back to council in December 2025, but administration determined further changes were needed, particularly around road allowances and clarity of enforcement and appeal processes.

A council committee reviewed the amended bylaw in January 2026 and legal counsel reviewed the road allowance provisions and two schedules attached to the document.

The changes made after the legal review included updated terminology, replacing “Lessor/Lesee” with “Grantor/Grantee.” The termination notice period for road allowance permits from three days to 30 days, in line with the Traffic Safety Act.

What the bylaw means for residents

For most residents, the bylaw’s day-to-day implications are straightforward.

Provisions include restrictions on draining vehicle fluids onto highways, placing debris or obstructions on roads and sidewalks, and creating hazards that interfere with traffic or pedestrian movement.

Property owners adjacent to sidewalks are required to clear snow, ice, dirt and other obstructions within 24 hours of accumulation. The bylaw also prohibits extension cords from being placed across sidewalks or driveways in a way that could create a hazard.

The municipality has authority to remove obstructions or impound vehicles and equipment that block highways or create unsafe conditions, with associated costs recoverable from the responsible party.

Heavy vehicles face their own restrictions. They are generally prohibited from parking in the MD’s hamlets — Beaver Mines, Lowland Heights, Lundbreck, Pincher Station and Twin Butte — unless they are actively loading or unloading, or are construction equipment parked next to a work site.

Vehicles equipped with metal cleats or tracks are barred from paved highways to prevent road damage.

The bylaw also places restrictions on recreational vehicles. Unattached RVs may not be parked on highways, while attached ones may only be parked adjacent to the owner’s residence between May 1 and Oct. 15.

Recreational vehicles parked on highways are limited to 72 consecutive hours and must then be removed for at least 48 hours before returning.

Camping or residing in recreational vehicles on highways, ditches, road allowances or other public places is prohibited outside approved campground facilities.

Off-highway vehicles, including quads and similar machines, are generally prohibited from operating on municipal highways unless used for agricultural work, snow removal or under a special permit issued by the municipality. Any off-highway vehicle operating under those exceptions must be registered and insured under the Traffic Safety Act.

One of the most detailed sections of the bylaw deals with the use of developed and undeveloped municipal road allowances, the strips of publicly owned land that run alongside or between properties in the municipality.

The bylaw prohibits residents from developing, irrigating, farming or otherwise using road allowances for agricultural purposes without municipal authorization. Fencing, corrals and barriers are also prohibited unless approved through a Temporary Road Allowance Permit.

The permit system formalizes how livestock grazing and certain agricultural uses may occur on road allowances.

Insurance requirements

Applications must identify the location, intended use and fencing plans. Permit holders must also carry at least $2 million in general liability insurance and install a public access sign at the gate.

The bylaw requires livestock on road allowances to be secured using electric fencing and gates must remain unlocked to maintain public access.

It also creates an appeal process through the Enforcement Services Appeal Board for applicants whose permits are denied or cancelled.

The bylaw outlines enforcement powers available to peace officers, including issuing municipal orders, violation tickets and towing or impounding vehicles involved in contraventions.

For unauthorized agricultural activity on road allowances, the municipality may order corrective action, remove equipment or livestock and recover costs from the responsible person if compliance orders are ignored.

In cases involving livestock placed on road allowances without approval, the municipality may capture and confine animals in accordance with Alberta’s Stray Animals Act.

The bylaw establishes penalties for offences ranging from parking violations to unauthorized agricultural use of road allowances.

Specified penalties start from $75 for some traffic-control offences. Fines for road allowance violations start at $375 and can reach $8,000 for failing to comply with a municipal order affecting more than 15 acres.

Across all sections of the bylaw, penalties can reach as high as $10,000 upon conviction, with repeat offenders facing doubled or tripled fines within a 12-month period.

The bylaw passed at the May 12 meeting with all attending members in favour. Coun. Tony Bruder was absent.

May 20, 2026
Is Canada’s soft commercial market shifting to small businesses?

Canada’s commercial insurance soft market remains focused on the mid-market to large market space, but the small business space is seeing some movement, speakers said last week at Insurance Brokers Association of Alberta’s Convention 2026 in Banff.

Speakers at the commercial challenges panel agreed with moderator Catherine Cake, president of Drayden Insurance, that generally, the commercial soft market has been predominately felt in the mid-market space. However, they noted that insurers have differing views of what constitutes small business versus mid-market.

“I think for some of us, mid-market happens at a different premium threshold than others,” says Rosa Nelson, vice president of sales and business development for Intact Insurance. “Where we’ve mostly seen [the commercial soft market] is in that mid-market to large market space.

“A little bit is happening in the small business space, but I would say…we haven’t really noticed it as significantly as we have in some of the larger files.”

Stacey Mills, vice president of commercial lines – mid-market at Wawanesa Insurance, agrees that “it tends to be in that [$]100,000-plus space where you’re seeing 20, 30, 40% rate reductions.”

But the small business market is seeing some changes, says Jean Gauvreau, vice president of business development and branch operations at Portage Mutual.

“From our perspective, as we play in the more small package space, it’s been interesting towards the end of last year and probably into the first quarter here,” he says. “We’re seeing very aggressive competition at that price point…and even [on] some renewal terms.

“It is picking up there, although it’s not as pronounced as what you’re seeing on the on the larger accounts,” Gauvreau adds. “But certainly, we’re seeing it as a smaller carrier, for sure.”

A question of sustainability

But the continuing soft market is not sustainable in the long term. Cake asked panellists how long they believe it could realistically continue before it’s unsustainable, and what would be early warning signs.

Panellists agreed it’s difficult to put a timeframe on the shift away from the soft market, but offered some suggestions.

“I think we’re around the two-year mark from seeing a shift,” says Chelsa Materi, chief growth officer at Sandbox Mutual Insurance. “Could be sooner, could be a little longer.”

She suggests the warning signs will be the same as “the last time the hard market came in”: pressure on pricing due to poor loss ratios, markets reducing their participation on subscriptions and markets pulling out of segments.

“I don’t think it’s going to be that far out just because personally, I feel that the rates that we’re seeing are unsustainable,” Materi says. “I think that once the loss ratios catch up to those, that’s going to drive some pressure.

“It’ll be interesting to see what happens in the reinsurance market as well.”

Nelson agrees reinsurance will be one of the indicators as well as players entering or exiting the market.

“We’ve had a number of entrants in the last year or 18 months. That increases capacity,” Nelson says. “Should those entrants decide they don’t want to be here anymore, you’re going to see a shift probably in the market happen. At that point, results are going to catch up.”

Mills says she believes how quickly the market will harden depends on what happens to insurers’ results.

“It’s funny, as an industry, we kind of forget that less than two years ago, we had four of the largest Cat events in Canada only 27 days apart,” Mills says, referring to the record 2024 Cat year that cost the industry more than $9 billion in losses. “And yet, we still chase that top line.

“If there is a big event or two, then I think it will snap back really quickly…” she says. “[In] 12 to 24 months, I think we’re due for some weather.”

May 20, 2026
How insurers can face real-world climate risks

It wasn’t your imagination, 2024 really was a climate risk turning point for insurers and reinsurers in Canada, panellists tell a session on global climate resilience at Insurance Bureau of Canada’s recent 2026 IBC InSight Summit.

“It kind of consolidated and brought to the forefront something that was happening over the years. And a lot of companies…were talking about this for many decades,” says Agis Kitsikis, market head for property and casualty reinsurance at Swiss Re. That ‘something’ is a trend toward multibillion dollar insured losses in Canada spurred by natural catastrophe (NatCat) events.

“This trend became really apparent in 2024,” he says. “Another key element to this is the ratio between losses that are climate related versus the peak risk of earthquake, given that we’re in Canada. [For] these secondary perils…the ratio of the contribution to this entire pool of loss moved from close to 30% in the first decade [of the 21^st Century] to 50% to 55% [in the] second decade, and now we’re close to 70%, 90% of losses coming from secondary peril.”

Risk on the ground

Bringing a client’s perspective to the discussion, Shashanka Suresh, director of sustainability and ESG at real estate developer Dream, says it’s getting harder for property developers and owners to ignore climate risk.

“In the Canadian context, the wildfires out West [have] been a little bit of a wake-up call. And even here in Toronto, wildfires in the northern part of the province have resulted in…smoky skies. That’s not something that we can ignore anymore,” he tells the conference.

“We are thinking about the value of our assets, but also the comfort of our tenants, because that becomes an important consideration for us….We’re sort of at an inflection point where climate risk is being talked about in different spheres.”

Commercial real estate firms have a close eye on how climate shifts will impact the value of certain properties, and how natural hazards directly impact real assets.

“But there’s some softer pieces that are [less tangible],” Suresh adds. “When Toronto had the extreme heat wave last summer, there were some stories of tenants legally going after their landlords because the [heating, ventilation and air conditioning] systems were not efficient enough to service them as tenants. And that’s a legal risk, that’s a reputational risk that we as real estate owners and operators need to be thinking about as an industry.”

In terms of planning, he says historical data is no longer adequate to determine risks to assets in various geographic regions.

“We’re now looking at probabilistic models, thinking through those different future scenarios [and] also looking at different time horizons,” Suresh says. “And the time horizons piece is interesting for real estate, because it can really help you strategize about your acquisitions and dispositions.”

Changing times

Looking at emerging data, Kitsikis says the key thing from an insurance and a reinsurance perspective is the underlying exposure. He notes companies’ concentration of exposure in NatCat-prone areas and economic drivers like inflation are combining to create significant cost issues.

“Forget about climate change,” he says. “If you have the same event happen today [that happened] 15 years ago, it would cost a lot more. And if you add the climate impact…it just amplifies that reality.”

Suresh says he’s seen risk amplification firsthand when visiting buildings that were constructed to building codes in place 20 or 30 years ago. Today, they cannot withstand weather patterns that have emerged in certain regions.

“When [one building I looked at] was built up to code about 23 years ago, it was taking into consideration the precipitation patterns at the time, and even after two or three extreme rainfall events, we are noticing now that…the drainage systems are not effective enough to drain all the additional water that’s now being collected on the roofs, and even this water in front of the building,” he tells the conference.

“We need to think about how climate risks are evolving [and] the pace at which they’re evolving.”

May 20, 2026
A pedestrian says he got hit by a car. Why the tribunal said he wasn’t involved in an ‘accident’
A pedestrian who claimed to be injured as a result of a vehicle backing into him and his pregnant fiancée didn’t produce or appear in any documentation showing he was involved in an “accident,” an Ontario tribunal found.

The man’s name did not appear in the police report of the accident, nor in the adjuster’s field notes, both of which noted three people were involved in the incident, including an unnamed “pedestrian,” a “driver,” and the vehicle “owner.”

“I find that the [claimant’s] name [Devante Ashman] is not mentioned anywhere in the reports and there is also no mention that there was more than one pedestrian involved in the accident,” the Ontario Licence Appeals Tribunal (LAT) ruled in a decision released May 13.

“The pedestrian, who is the [claimant’s] fiancé according to his reply submissions, provided a statement to the police at the scene which is contained in these notes. I find there is no mention in this statement that she was accompanied by the [claimant] or that he was involved in the accident….

“While I accept that there can be errors made in police reports as suggested by the [claimant], I give significant weight to the fact that there is no mention of [his] involvement in either of the police reports or the statement of his own fiancé.”

Ashman insisted that he was injured in the July 9, 2022 accident and claimed more than $4,000 in accident benefits. His auto insurer, CAA Insurance, denied the claim on the basis he could not prove he was involved in the accident.

Aside from citing the police reports and adjuster’s field notes, Ashman referenced other instances of documentation that he said proved his involvement in the accident. Among them:

medical record evidence, namely the clinical notes and records of Dr. Maria Bagovich and Dr. Rahim Jessa, which he said, “identify his accident-related injuries consistent with the described mechanism of his injury,” as the tribunal paraphrased.

sworn testimony at an examination under oath on Sept. 26, 2022.

LAT found the medical records of Dr. Bagovich did not support Ashman’s claim.

Also in the news: Is insurance facing its Napster moment?

“Upon review of the medical documentation submitted by [Ashman], specifically the CNRs of Dr. Bagovich and the report dated Dec. 11, 2024, there is no mention of his involvement in an accident on July 9, 2022.

“Dr. Bagovich notes in her report her previous diagnosis of the [claimant] with axial spondyloarthritis in February 2017 and notes the [claimant’s] complaints of a flare up in his back because he missed his regular injection of Simponi in December.”

Ashman did not submit Dr. Jessa’s clinical notes for review, the tribunal noted. Likewise, he did not provide a transcript of his examination under oath.

In the absence of documentary evidence supporting his claim, Ashman said the insurer acted as though he had been involved in the accident when it adjusted his claim.

The tribunal did not agree.

“I…do not accept the [claimant’s] submission that the [insurer’s] conduct demonstrates that it treated this as an accident throughout its investigation and led him to believe that his claim was accepted,” LAT Adjudicator Melanie Malach wrote in the decision.

“I find that the correspondence of the [insurer], specifically the letters dated Sept. 16, 2022, Oct. 3, 2022, June 29, 2023, and Sept. 1, 2023, consistently advises [Ashman] that his involvement in the accident is under investigation and that [his] claim was being handled on a without prejudice basis.”
May 20, 2026
Insurers reveal more detail about their proposed quake backstop

Canadian property and casualty insurers are proposing a private-public earthquake backstop along the lines of the terrorism insurance backstop currently employed in the United States, the Insurance Bureau of Canada confirmed Tuesday.

“The industry’s proposed solution is known as the Canadian Earthquake Risk Protection Act (CERPA), and is modelled on the U.S. Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA),” IBC says in a paper published on the insurer association’s website. “TRIA has supported stability in the U.S. terrorism insurance market for more than two decades, by establishing a clear framework for sharing extreme tail risk between the government and the insurance industry.

“Although terrorism and earthquakes present different risk characteristics and market dynamics, TRIA demonstrates how a transparent, rules-based mechanism can reduce systemic risk and prevent market contagion after a catastrophic event. CERPA draws inspiration from these structural principles, while being tailored to the unique characteristics of earthquake risk in Canada.”

CERPA, like TRIA, “is designed to operate on a long-term, cost-neutral basis with no upfront public expenditure, while reinforcing insurer responsibility and preserving appropriate market incentives,” IBC says in a piece authored by Mahan Azimi, the association’s director of catastrophic and emerging risk policy team, and Christina Friend-Johnston, a communications manager at IBC.

Specifically, as in TRIA, taxpayers would be reimbursed for the government’s costs over the long term “by requiring the industry to repay any federal support through a temporary post-event premium surcharge, ensuring no upfront cost to taxpayers or consumers at the outset,” as IBC explains.

In the United States, if a terrorist attack is officially “certified” and industry-wide insured losses exceed the TRIA backstop’s trigger (currently $200 million), the US government reimburses part of insurers’ losses above their deductibles. The US government currently covers 80% of eligible losses above trigger thresholds, while insurers retain 20%. The US government recovers its outlay under a post-event premium surcharge paid by the US P&C industry.

Previously, CU reported information about the model published by the Property and Casualty Insurance Compensation Corporation. In its quarterly newsletter, Solvency Matters, PACICC CEO Alister Campbell says modelling for setting the proper ‘trigger’ would be critical.

“To the extent that any successful design will need to allow insurers ‘to fail’ (as antidote for ‘moral hazard’), there will also need to be accurate modelling to estimate how much failure the system can ‘afford,’” Campbell writes. “It seems very possible that the PACICC Systemic Risk Model (encompassing both federal and provincial insurers) will prove to be invaluable in supporting this modelling work.”

IBC says it’s 30% likely that Canada will see a Magnitude-8 or greater earthquake (“the Big One”) striking in Vancouver within the next 50 years. Plus, Montreal lies within Quebec’s most active seismic zone, which has experienced past earthquakes including a Magnitude-5.8 earthquake in 1732.

IBC cites a damage estimate suggesting a major earthquake in Canada could cause $52.6 billion in catastrophic damage. That’s 11 times greater than Canada’s current record-holding disaster, the 2016 wildfire that burned through Fort McMurray in Alberta.

Also in the news: Is insurance facing its Napster moment?

In previous reports, PACICC has said a damage loss exceeding $35 billion could create a “tipping point” after which multiple P&C insurers could fail.

To put that in perspective, MSA Research says Canada’s P&C insurance industry currently has approximately $66 billion in capital. That breaks down into $23.2 billion of minimum required capital, plus about $42.8 billion in excess capital.

“It’s important not to interpret the full $66 billion as capital available to absorb a single event,” MSA Research CEO Nevina Kishun tells CU. “The majority of this capital is already supporting ongoing risks across all lines of business, and insurers are required to maintain the minimum capital level.

“In practice, the [roughly] $43 billion of excess capital is the closer proxy for loss-absorbing capacity — but even that is not fully deployable without regulatory and market consequences.”

The industry has been calling for an earthquake backstop to prevent P&C insurance company failures for longer than a decade. In its 2025 budget, the federal government included a promise to consult with the industry on a quake backstop. Currently, the industry is calling for federally and provincially licensed insurers to be included in the discussion.

“Canada is the only G7 country with a significant earthquake risk that lacks a formal government-backed financial backstop for earthquake,” says Liam McGuinty, IBC’s vice president of federal affairs at the time the federal government released its budget. “Without a federal backstop, a major quake could trigger widespread financial instability.”

May 19, 2026
Where auto thefts are highest in Ontario

It’s likely no surprise Toronto, Brampton and Mississauga continue to hold the titles for Ontario’s Top 3 cities for car theft claims in a new ranking from Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC).

Their report uses final full-year claims costs dollar figures for 2025 (as well as data from a 2017 report) compiled by the General Insurance Statistical Agency.

Toronto racked up $114.5 million in auto theft claims costs in 2025, a 253% increase from IBC’s 2017 report of over $32.4 million in claims costs. Runner-up Brampton accumulated $43.2 million in claims costs, which is far smaller that Toronto but is also 565% higher than the nearly $6.5 million in claims seen in the 2017 survey.

The slowest rate of increase within the Top 3 is Mississauga, which posted $31.5 million in claims costs, 216% above $9.9 million in 2017.

Rounding out the Top 5, Ottawa shifts up from sixth to fourth place, with $19.8 million in claims, up 363% from just under $4.3 million in 2017. And Hamilton jumps four spots to fifth place with $19.4 million in claims costs. That’s 221% ahead of $6 million in 2017.

Related: Two years later: Auto theft after the national summit

Province-wide auto theft claims costs were $485 million in 2025. That’s down from $723 million in 2024, but losses are still 330% above 2017’s report.

Of the remaining Top 10 Ontario cities, four are within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) orbit. Markham saw theft claims climb 642% from $2.4 million in 2017 to $17.8 million in 2025. Meanwhile, Vaughan jumped 371% from $3.6 million in 2017 to $17.1 million last year, while London rose 250% to nearly $11.7 million, and Richmond hill soared 700% to $8.1 million.

IBC is pleased with efforts from municipal governments, law enforcement and insurers to curb auto theft, says Amanda Dean, vice president for Ontario and Atlantic, but stresses there is more work to be done. “Ending auto theft requires a sustained, coordinated and whole‑of‑society approach,” she says in the report.

IBC and other insurance groups are advocating for finalization of the proposed amendments to Canada’s Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. They include replacing outdated vehicle immobilization standards and making improvements to Canada’s vehicle export system to prevent stolen vehicles from leaving the country.

Related: Recovery | Injury claims will reveal limitations of Ontario auto reforms

Although auto thefts remain concentrated in larger cities, claims costs are rising in smaller communities.

Looking at large percentage rate increases in Ontario, Bowmanville-Clarington experienced a 1,261% jump to $2.7 million between 2017 and 2025, Whitchurch-Stouffville saw a 1,014% rise to nearly $1.8 million, and Peterborough saw a 987% theft claims increase to $2.4 million.

Richmond Hill (with a 700% rise to over $8.1 million in 2025) was one of only three smaller cities (all in the GTA) to record auto theft claims exceeding $1 million in the 2017 report. And Barrie, just under $1 million in 2017 posted a 679% rise to $7.1 million in claims.

Rounding out the Top 10 for auto claims cost growth in smaller cities, Whitby climbed 667% to almost $5.6 million, Oakville rose 659% to $12.7 million, Pickering jumped 644% to $4.8 million, Markham was up 742% to $17.8 million, and Milton rose 621% to $6 million.

May 19, 2026
Are client supplier cyberattacks increasing in Canada?
Nearly two-thirds (65%) of Canadian companies that suffered a cyberattack in the past 12 months indicate a supplier was involved, according to research from business insurer QBE. That’s up from 58% last year.

In Canada, 57% of businesses experienced one or more cyber events over the past 12 months, slightly higher than last year (53%), QBE Canada says in a press release Tuesday. Among affected businesses, 65% suffered at least one cyberattack that was related to a supplier and 58% experienced revenue loss (up from 51%).

For the study, market research firm Opinium surveyed 400 decision-makers handling IT, administration or insurance at businesses with between 100 and 2,000 employees in Canada. The survey was fielded from March 31 to April 20, 2026. The 2026 global survey covered 15 countries, with a total sample of more than 6,000 businesses.

Canadian Underwriter has heard cyberattacks involving suppliers have been increasing. At the Insurance Brokers Association of Alberta (IBAA) Convention 2026 last week, BOXX Insurance president Jonathan Weekes anticipated this trend would continue. Supply chain or infrastructure-related breaches will increase in Canada as organizations shift toward cloud-based solutions or standardized software platforms to run their business, he says.

And, at its 2025 Insurance Conference in Toronto last November, KPMG said it was seeing more ‘hybrid’ cyberattacks targeting both first and third parties.

Cyber insurance take-up increases

The good news from a cyber insurance perspective is that more Canadian businesses are purchasing cyber coverages. Seventy-two percent now have cyber insurance, compared to 67% last year.

QBE also reports Canadian businesses are taking various steps to safely roll out artificial intelligence (AI) within their operations, from training staff on responsible AI use, to checking data quality or monitoring outputs for bias. However, these businesses worry their vendors might not be taking similar measures. Indeed, 63% of Canadian businesses are concerned about potential risks arising from how their suppliers use AI.

“AI risk doesn’t stop at the internal perimeter,” Kyle Gray, underwriter team lead at QBE Canada, says in the release. “Organizations need the same level of discipline and oversight across their third-party ecosystem, because weaknesses in the supply chain can quickly become risks to the business itself.”

To mitigate third-party vulnerabilities, QBE suggests businesses should:

Implement strong identity and access management (IAM) protocols, which control who can access technology resources and what they’re allowed to do once granted access

Run regular configuration audits

Encrypt sensitive data across all cloud environments

Evaluate the security posture of third-party providers

Establish clear protocols for managing supply chain exposure.

Emerging AI threat

According to QBE’s research, one in three Canadian businesses (33%) also experienced cyber incidents in the past 12 months that they believed leveraged AI, with phishing among the most frequent methods.

And 16% of polled Canadian businesses experienced a cyber event in the last 12 months that resulted in business interruption of one working day or more (down from 18% in last year’s study).

The research found two in three respondents (65%) are concerned about cyber threats their business may experience over the next 12 months, a smaller proportion than last year (78%), but still prompting investment.

Most Canadian businesses say their IT cybersecurity budget is going to increase over the coming year (31% say these investments will be in line with inflation and 31% say it will exceed the inflation rate). More than eight in 10 (83%) have an incident response plan, up from 79% in last-year’s survey.

AI is becoming ubiquitous in the Canadian economy, with 97% of businesses using it (83%) in 2026 or looking into using it (14%), up from 94% last year.

Increasing operational efficiency and productivity are among the top motivations for deploying AI, with more than half of businesses rolling out the technology mentioning these objectives.

“As new technologies such as AI become embedded in operations, effective risk management remains fundamental to ensuring sustainable and resilient growth,” Gray says.
May 19, 2026
Inflation rises to 2.8% in April but Iran war impact limited to gas pumps for now

OTTAWA – Higher gas prices driven mainly by the war in Iran pushed inflation higher in April but some economists argue the conflict’s looming costs haven’t been fully captured in the latest price data.

Inflation rose to 2.8 per cent in April, Statistics Canada said Tuesday — the highest annual inflation rate since May 2024.

StatCan’s April report marks a jump from March’s inflation rate of 2.4 per cent, though a Reuters poll of economists had expected inflation would accelerate even more to top three per cent.

StatCan said the cost of gasoline was 28.6 per cent higher year-over-year last month as conflict in the Middle East disrupted global oil shipments, sending costs soaring at the gas pumps. April also marked the switch to more expensive summer gasoline blends at gas stations in Canada.

The federal government’s decision to remove the consumer carbon price a year earlier, meanwhile, skewed the annual price comparison higher in April.

Nixing the carbon price took roughly 18 cents off the price of a litre of gas in April 2025. While that move took some steam out of the headline inflation rate over the past 12 months, that reduction has now fallen out of the annual comparison — pushing inflation higher rather than depressing it.

Moderated effects

StatCan noted Ottawa’s move to suspend the fuel excise tax mid-month helped moderate the April price increase. That pause, which removes an estimated 10 cents from a litre of regular gas and four cents per litre of diesel, is scheduled to last until Labour Day.

StatCan said an 11 per cent annual price drop for travel tours in April and a slowdown in rent inflation nationally helped offset rising energy costs. Rent hikes have especially eased in British Columbia as its population shrinks; StatCan noted the province was the only one that didn’t see its inflation rate accelerate in April.

CIBC senior economist Andrew Grantham said in a note to clients Tuesday that higher prices for airfares tied to spiking fuel costs were not captured in the April inflation data, because those transactions are recorded when the flight is taken — not when the ticket is purchased. He said he expects to see those pressures show up more in the summer inflation readings.

Food inflation also eased to 3.5 per cent in April, down from four per cent in March, as grocery items such as chicken, fresh vegetables, coffee and tea saw their pace of price hikes slow following sharp increases earlier in the year.

Benjamin Reitzes, managing director of Canadian rates and macro strategist at BMO, said consumers’ grocery bills might not be spared the impact of the Iran war. Spiking energy prices and disruptions to the global supply of fertilizer are likely to hit store shelves if the conflict persists, he warned.

“Hopefully we can get more declines, but that is difficult to see if fertilizer prices are pushing higher, energy prices are pushing higher,” Reitzes said. “All of that does point to higher food prices over time. We will see how long it takes for those to pass through.”

The April figures mark the Bank of Canada’s last look at inflation data before the bank makes its next interest rate decision on June 10.

Policy rate holds steady

The central bank has held its policy rate steady at 2.25 per cent in its last four decisions.

TD senior economist Leslie Preston said in an analysis note that knock-on effects from the Iran war oil shock are not yet showing up in non-energy segments of the consumer basket.

The Bank of Canada’s closely watched core inflation metrics cooled more than expected in April, Preston said, offering “little argument” for rate hikes from the central bank.

Officials at the Bank of Canada have explained that the energy price shock from the Iran war puts them in a bind. Responding to this inflationary impulse with rate hikes risks hampering an already soft Canadian economy, but lowering the policy rate could add more fuel to price increases.

Bank of Canada governor Tiff Macklem has said the bank is willing to look through the initial energy price spikes from the conflict but will act to ensure inflation doesn’t become entrenched.

Reitzes said that April’s inflation report was good news for monetary policy-makers, because it “puts exactly no pressure on them” to raise interest rates.

He said the Bank of Canada is likely clear to remain on hold through the summer and early fall at this rate, but rate hike talk could pick up if the central bank starts to see a string of bad inflation reports where energy pressures are spreading to other elements of the consumer basket.

“But that’s just not where we are right now,” Reitzes said.

Grantham said the soft core inflation readings suggest there’s slack in the Canadian economy, which will continue to keep a lid on inflation even if higher gas prices start to work their way through other components in the months ahead.

“Because of that, we continue to see the Bank of Canada holding interest rates steady at their current level throughout 2026,” Grantham said.

May 19, 2026
Re-entry expected to begin after wildfire in rural Alberta county holds steady

EDMONTON – Some residents who were forced out of their homes this week by a wildfire northwest of Edmonton could be allowed back today.

Officials with Woodlands County say on social media that re-entry will only be for residents of Zone 1, and the rest will remain out.

People in the area are asked to fill out a waiver, which the county says is necessary because there is still an active fire.

About 140 people were told to leave their homes on Monday due to a wildfire near the town of Whitecourt.

Alberta Wildfire says the fire is about 51 hectares in size and not expected to grow beyond its current boundaries.

The county has said one residence was lost in the fire.

May 15, 2026
Is insurance facing its Napster moment?

Artificial intelligence (AI) is the canary in the coal mine for the insurance industry, and the industry needs to prepare for what’s coming, speakers said May 11 at Insurance Brokers Association of Alberta’s Convention 2026 in Banff.

“This is the insurance Napster moment,” says Pete Tessier, president of MGA Taycon Risk and the Canadian Association of Managing General Agents (CAMGA), referring to the music sharing service that faced a copyright infringement lawsuit and was shut down in 2001.

“All of you in your offices have clients, that’s your music library,” Tessier says while moderating a Carrier CEO Panel at the conference. “You’re going to have to decide if you’re going to let AI come and take it from you, or if you’re going to own the AI and the technology.

“That’s the mistake the music industry made, and now they give away a million streams, and they get 12 cents for it.”

As an example, Tessier says he helped build an AI underwriting assistant, which took 28 minutes and could compare inspection reports against submission forms to see what was accurate.

“And if you put your heads in the sand and ignore it, there are going to be changes that you don’t want happening,” Tessier says. “It’s coming…it scares me a lot, because I don’t think we get the wave of this…”

Number 1 topic

Evan Johnston, president and CEO of Wawanesa, says he was in Europe about two weeks ago, talking to approximately 20 insurance company CEOs about what was happening in the industry and what we could probably expect to see in Canada. The topics ranged from talent to climate change and others, but the Number 1 topic was AI, Johnston says.

“It’s very clear to me that AI is going to change this industry, and it’s certainly going to change our organization,” Johnston says. “And when I talked to that group of leaders…there were some that were way ahead of us [and] some that were completely denying that this was happening.”

He adds Wawanesa hasn’t really used AI to “change customer experience, but that’s coming.

“The examples and the models that we saw just completely blew my mind,” Johnston says. “So to deny this is going to change our industry, I think, is negligent.”

Louis Gagnon, CEO of Canada for Intact Financial Corporation, recommends the industry use AI as much as possible — “test it, call places where you know that they’re using AI, look at what they do, how they do it, if the experience is good or the experience is not good…

“Ask your accountant to do a little exercise on how much he’s going to charge you, and do it on AI to see what’s the outcome,” Gagnon says. “And I’m not teasing here.”

Full transformation

Within five years, Gagnon predicts AI will transform the ways consumers are shopping. It will also transform the industry through claims and broker relationships, as well as provide industry professionals a chance to spend more time on value-added activity, he suggests.

“I think it’s also going to cut jobs,” Gagnon says. “I think it’s going to reduce the number of people in [an] organization…and it’s going to transform the workforce.

“So, I really think we cannot put our head in the sand and just think that, ‘Well, we’re going to be okay. Things are going to be a bit different. We’re going to be better,’” he says. “I think it’s going to be a bigger change than that.

“So, I think it’s fundamental that we test it, we try it, we play with it, and we try to see in our business where we can implement it,” Gagnon says, adding that some things will go wrong with AI.

“I also think that people in general are going to be very hungry and thirsty for human contacts,” he says. “They are going to be very, very happy to talk to people, to shake hands, to [look] people in the eyes. There’s going to be also that aspect that will not go away.”

Nav Dhillon, CEO of Aviva Canada, agrees the relationship element of insurance will not disappear.

“When a customer has just gone [through] a devastating event and wants to talk to somebody and ensure that their most-loved possessions are back with them or their home [is] rebuilt, [that] won’t go away.”

Dhillon also doesn’t see an end of the industry because of the core purpose of insurance — to help get people back on track.

“This industry has been around for centuries,” he says. “Aviva has been around for over 325 years. It will be around for another 325 or more.”

May 15, 2026