A mutual insurer can keep talking to policyholders even after its broker walks away, an Ontario court has ruled.
In a decision filed January 2, 2026, Justice Papageorgiou, of the Ontario Superior Court, dismissed BrokerLink's motion to stop The Commonwell Mutual Insurance Group from reaching out to customers following the end of their business relationship.
The case offers a glimpse into what happens when a broker and insurer part ways — and who gets to keep the conversation going with customers caught in the middle.
BrokerLink had sold Commonwell products since 2014. But in September 2025, the broker gave notice it would end the arrangement effective January 1, 2026. What followed was a tug-of-war over 12,600 policyholders.
Shortly after receiving the termination notice, Commonwell sent letters to 700 customers whose policies were up for renewal. The message was straightforward: your broker is leaving us, but you do not have to. The letters encouraged policyholders to consider staying with Commonwell through a different broker and pointed them to a list of alternatives.
BrokerLink cried foul, arguing the outreach violated their agreement. The broker pointed to a clause that assigned it "full responsibility for advising each insured at least forty-five days prior to the expiry date of their coverage" when terminating the deal. Another provision gave the broker ownership over expiration records and barred Commonwell from using that data for marketing.
The insurer pushed back. Its lawyers argued the agreement never actually prohibited Commonwell from talking to its own policyholders — it simply outlined who had to notify them about the termination. The court agreed, noting the contract "does not contain any language prohibiting Commonwell from communicating with policyholders."
If the parties had wanted a gag order, Justice Papageorgiou wrote, "it would have been a simple matter" to spell that out.
The court also weighed regulatory obligations. Guidelines from the Financial Services Regulatory Authority and the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators require insurers to give customers clear information about their policies. As a mutual company, Commonwell had an added wrinkle: its policyholders are also member-owners with voting rights and a stake in surplus distributions.
BrokerLink's case for irreparable harm fell flat. Out of 12,600 affected customers, only five had actually left the broker by the time of the hearing — and there was no evidence Commonwell's letters caused those departures. The court found any losses could be calculated through lost commissions.
The balance of convenience tipped toward Commonwell. Blocking the insurer's communications, the court noted, would let BrokerLink continue sending its own messages — some of which, the evidence showed, failed to tell customers they could stay with Commonwell.
Commonwell was awarded $107,044 in costs.
For brokers and insurers negotiating distribution agreements, the lesson is plain: if you want exclusive access to customers after a breakup, say so explicitly in the contract.
