Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
Oct 20, 2026

Ontario's standards for internet gaming say a player's withdrawal must be processed "as soon as is practicable." Five words and no number. The deposit side of the same rulebook is equally short on timing, for a reason that explains most of what follows: the regulator was never trying to set a service level. It was trying to make sure money only moved to the person it belonged to. The rules ask for less than customers now expect, and operators compete in that gap.
The standard never needed to say "instant". Interac e-Transfer settled the question of what a transfer should feel like years before any regulator wrote a rulebook for online casinos, and operators inherited that expectation whether they had built for it or not. A recent summary of Payments Canada's 2026 trends report puts it in one line: Canadians have already changed how they pay, ahead of the infrastructure meant to carry it.
On the deposit side, the industry has largely caught up. Card rails, e-Transfer and wallet payments all land fast enough that a player rarely notices the mechanism. The effect has been to move the whole competitive question to the other end of the transaction.
Deposits are a payment job. Withdrawals are really a compliance job, which is why deposits are mostly sorted and withdrawals aren't. Before money leaves a regulated Ontario site, the operator has to be satisfied that the person requesting it is the account holder, that the destination account is one the player legally holds, and, where its own risk assessment calls for it, that the source of the funds can be reasonably corroborated. Those are conditions of registration. They take time, and the time is not the same for every customer or every operator.
That variance is the competitive gap. Two operators on identical rails can deliver very different withdrawal experiences depending on how much verification they front-load at sign-up, how they batch outgoing payments, and whether a request made on a Friday evening sits until Monday. The lobby looks the same either way. By including average payout times in its casino reviews, PlayCanada gives readers a way to compare a detail that is often less visible than game selection or promotional offers: how long different operators take to return their money.
The Real-Time Rail is the development most likely to narrow that gap, but not yet. The RTR by-law took effect on August 24, 2026. Payments Canada has the system itself launching in the fourth quarter of 2026, with the migration of Interac e-Transfer clearing and settlement running through the first three quarters of 2027.
Until then, an operator promising an instant payout is promising something its own infrastructure may not deliver consistently, and one that quotes a day or two is often being accurate rather than slow. A faster rail will also do nothing to the verification step in front of it. Even with instant settlement, someone still has to decide to release the money.
Open banking tells a similar story on a longer horizon. The consumer-driven banking framework now sits with the Bank of Canada under legislation passed in March, with draft regulations published in June and no coming-into-force date yet. Payment initiation, the piece that would matter to a casino cashier, is a later phase.
Every method on a cashier page carries a cost the player never sees: interchange on cards, per-transaction fees on transfers, wallet provider margins, chargeback exposure, and the staff and software needed for fraud screening and anti-money-laundering reporting on top. Operators serving more than one market add currency conversion on both legs.
The economics push in two directions at once. Offering more methods widens the funnel and raises the cost base. Offering fewer lowers cost and loses the customer whose bank does not support the one method on the list. The usual resolution is to treat the deposit menu as marketing and the withdrawal path as risk management, and that split is why the two experiences feel so different to the person using them.
Both open Canadian markets make the gap unusually easy to see. Ontario has had registered private operators since 2022 and Alberta since July; the other provinces each run a single public platform. Operators in an open market all sit under one published standard, so what still differs between them is operational, and nothing operational is more visible to a player than how long money takes to come back.
That is why operator-level payment detail has become part of how those players choose, and why payout time has turned into a figure people compare before they sign up rather than one they discover afterwards. It's the only number on a casino site that tells you about the operator itself rather than its games supplier.
If the Real-Time Rail removes the settlement delay by late 2027, what separates a fast operator from a slow one will be entirely a matter of how each runs verification. Does payout speed stop being a marketing claim at that point, or just become a more precise one?
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
October 19, 2026 | Insight | Wealthtech Investing And Trading, Artificial Intelligence And Data, Risk Compliance And Regtech

On October 19, 2026, Global X Investments Canada and National Bank Direct Brokerage released a Canadian survey on AI and finfluencers in investing, finding that 84% of 834 surveyed self-directed investors use AI, financial influencers or both for investment research and related activities. Some 77% watch financial creators, while 56% use AI for investment research and related activities. The findings raise a new question for Canada's investment industry. Does AI help investors critically assess ideas discovered through social media, or does it reinforce the original recommendation?
The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) has already tested how investors respond to financial promotions and AI investment suggestions. The new research adds evidence that investors are using these sources together. For Canadian wealthtech firms, winning investor trust increasingly means helping customers assess investment ideas, compare options and make informed decisions before they place a trade. That creates new possibilities for research products and digital advice, along with questions about the information investors rely on.
The October survey found that 68% of finfluencer viewers also use AI for investing, compared with 14% of non-viewers. Investors use AI to check their thinking, research markets, generate ideas and summarize financial information. Among finfluencer viewers, 83% reported taking some action after consuming content, including learning financial terms (26%), increasing savings (24%) and starting to invest (18%). Not every action involved buying or selling an investment, and the survey doesn't establish that financial content caused the reported behaviour.
Earlier OSC research offers stronger evidence about how promotional content can affect investment choices. In its 2025 finfluencer research, 38% of participants exposed to promotional investment content purchased the featured asset in a simulated portfolio, compared with 8% in the control group. The OSC also tested disclosures, advance warnings and prompts encouraging investors to check accuracy. Each reduced promotional influence, although none eliminated it.
The OSC separately examined AI investment recommendations in 2024. Investors were about as likely to follow investment recommendations from AI as from human financial professionals. They were most likely to follow advice that combined both, although the difference wasn't large enough to be statistically meaningful. Even before the latest survey, investors were open to taking investment advice from AI.
The research gap is what happens when these influences meet. Consider an investor who discovers a stock through a financial creator and asks AI to evaluate it. The AI response might identify risks the creator missed. It could also repeat promotional claims drawn from the same underlying sources, giving the investor more confidence without adding independent evidence. As AI use grows, testing whether it challenges or reinforces financial promotions will seemingly become a practical investor protection priority.
AI also introduces the possibility of financial content being produced and assessed by automated systems. Digital influencers can generate investment messages, while investors may use another AI service to evaluate those messages. More personalized content could make promotions increasingly relevant to individual interests, but it could also become harder to distinguish independent analysis from repeated marketing claims.
Financial creators attract investors who actively manage their portfolios. Surveyed viewers reported an average of 9.9 portfolio adjustments a year, compared with 2.3 among non-viewers. They were also more likely to identify as aggressive investors, at 14% versus 4%. Those differences suggest that many investors consuming financial content are comfortable making decisions and looking beyond their brokerage for information.
Professional judgment still has considerable influence. Some 46% of respondents manage at least part of their investments independently while also working with an advisor. Among finfluencer viewers with an advisor, 84% said creator content had changed that relationship, often by helping them ask better questions or seek confirmation. And 96% of investors combining DIY investing with professional advice said they would pause or reconsider an AI or creator sourced investment if their advisor recommended against it.
Claude-Frédéric Robert, President of National Bank Direct Brokerage, described the challenge:
"It's understanding which sources to trust, how to validate ideas and how to turn information into informed investment decisions."
For advisors, clients who arrive with their own investment research create an opportunity for better conversations. A client may already know a company's growth story, valuation or recent performance but need help assessing portfolio concentration, risk and personal financial circumstances. The advisor's value comes from challenging assumptions and connecting an investment decision to the client's broader financial plan, not simply supplying information the client can now find elsewhere.
AI could strengthen that relationship if firms use it to make research easier to understand and prepare clients for more useful advice. It could also expose weak advice models built around access to information rather than professional judgment. The October findings support interest in combining independent research and human advice, but they don't establish that any particular hybrid model produces better investment outcomes.
AI is giving investors another place to research stocks, compare ETFs and assess investment ideas before placing a trade. The brokerage that executes a trade may not be the company that influenced the decision. As more investors turn to AI for research, investment platforms risk losing some of the customer engagement that supports trading activity and other services.
AI could also influence which investments investors discover. The sources an AI tool selects and how it compares products may affect which funds, stocks or strategies receive attention. That gives fund providers another way to reach investors while creating new competition for brokerages that traditionally attract customers through their own research and investment offerings.
Canadian wealthtech firms have an opportunity to bring that research back into their platforms. Rather than adding another chatbot, they can help customers verify investment claims against company filings, compare costs and understand portfolio risks. Reliable information and useful comparisons give investors practical reasons to return.
The business model determines how far these services can go. Execution only brokerages can offer education and general investment research without providing personalized recommendations. Registered advisors can use AI to support their work while remaining responsible for meeting applicable advice and suitability requirements. Firms combining digital tools with professional advice may appeal to investors who want to manage their own portfolios but need guidance on important decisions.
Canada already has rules covering much of this activity. In December 2025, the CSA and CIRO issued guidance on finfluencers and securities law, addressing investment promotions, registration, compensation and conflicts. It also covers AI generated digital influencers. Explaining an investment is different from recommending what someone should buy based on their personal circumstances. Firms need to understand where that boundary applies to their AI products.
For fintech operators, the practical questions include where AI gets its information, how it handles misleading claims and when customers should be directed to qualified advice. These choices affect customer trust, compliance costs and the services a platform can offer.
Canada's digital investment advice review has also looked at barriers to online and hybrid advice. As AI adoption grows, investment firms could serve more customers by combining accessible research with professional guidance when needed. The opportunity is to offer something genuinely useful, not simply generate more investment recommendations.
About the survey: The Global X and National Bank Direct Brokerage survey was conducted by RKI in June 2026 among 834 qualifying Canadian DIY investors who used social media and actively sought financial information. Participants needed at least $10,000 in investable assets, or $1,000 if they were under 30. The findings apply to this surveyed group, not all Canadian investors. The earlier OSC experiments used different methods, so their results can't be used to measure changes in AI adoption over time.
AI could become a powerful second opinion on investment ideas, but a second opinion isn't necessarily an independent one. The opportunity for Canadian wealth platforms is to help investors distinguish credible research from repeated financial promotion before confidence turns into a trade.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
October 19, 2026 | Market Activity | Payments Infrastructure And Money Movement, Cross Border Payments And FX, Competition And Market Structure

On October 19, 2026, Toronto-based KORT Payments announced a definitive agreement to acquire AptPay, a Toronto payments fintech specializing in real-time transfers and payment orchestration. The deal would expand KORT's merchant processing business into account transfers, customer payouts and cross-border disbursements, giving customers more ways to collect and distribute money through one provider.
KORT is buying established technology and payment connections rather than building them from scratch. AptPay already serves merchants and financial platforms across Canada and the United States. Financial terms weren't disclosed, and the transaction is expected to close in Q4 2026, subject to customary conditions. AptPay will retain its brand, with CEO Shams Syed continuing to lead the business after closing.
KORT processes online and in-person payments for merchants and software platforms. AptPay, founded in 2019, brings access to Mastercard Send, Visa Original Credit Transactions, Interac e-Transfer, EFT, ACH, RTP and FedNow, alongside cross-border payment services. Its technology handles account collections and disbursements through a single integration, with built-in identity verification, anti-money laundering and sanctions screening.
The payment methods serve different business needs. An urgent customer payout may use a card network or instant payment rail, while routine supplier transfers can use EFT or ACH. Costs, settlement times and recipient eligibility vary by network. AptPay's orchestration technology allows businesses to manage these payment routes through one integration rather than maintaining separate connections for each service.
The combination broadens KORT's role in customer transactions. A marketplace that collects payments from buyers may also need to distribute proceeds to sellers. Financial platforms handle deposits and withdrawals, while other businesses manage contractor payments and customer refunds. KORT can potentially support more of those activities through the merchant and software relationships it already serves.
The acquisition follows KORT's decision to narrow its focus. On October 6, the company sold substantially all of Merrco's operating assets to PayFacto. Merrco served Canada's cannabis industry and other specialized merchants. KORT is now concentrating more resources on ecommerce, direct marketing, payments embedded in software and U.S. expansion.
KORT acquired Paysafe Direct's U.S. direct marketing processing business in February 2025 and has been expanding its software distribution channel through Tilled. It has also developed payment connectivity across Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Chile. The Merrco sale reduces its exposure to a specialized merchant business, while AptPay adds payment capabilities that can serve customers across multiple industries.
KORT's existing distribution network could give AptPay's services a faster route to market. Software platforms already using KORT for payment acceptance may be able to add account transfers and payouts through the same commercial relationship. That could increase transaction revenue per customer without requiring KORT to acquire an entirely new customer base for each service. The economics will depend on pricing, integration costs and adoption.
Canadian fintech Dream Payments expanded U.S. payouts through J.P. Morgan Payments, while other processors are adding embedded payment services. KORT will compete on more than the number of payment rails it supports. Pricing, uptime, settlement performance and ease of integration will influence whether software platforms consolidate more of their payment activity with one provider.
Danny Chazonoff, KORT President and Chief Operating Officer:
"AptPay's real-time payout and orchestration capabilities are highly complementary to our platform, and together we can offer customers a complete money movement solution across North America."
Card acceptance, bank transfers and instant payouts operate under different settlement rules, compliance requirements and funding arrangements. KORT will need to integrate those services while maintaining reliable processing for existing customers.
The acquisition gives it more services to sell through established merchant and software relationships, potentially increasing revenue per customer without rebuilding its sales network. KORT's competitive advantage may come from its existing distribution rather than the technology alone.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Oct 19, 2026

Canada's online gambling industry is creating new business opportunities for payment processors, identity-verification providers and financial technology companies. But moving money between players and gambling operators involves more than completing a bank transfer.
Operators must establish who their customers are, monitor transactions for suspicious activity and meet applicable anti-money-laundering (AML) requirements. Payment providers may have separate obligations depending on the services they offer.
The regulatory framework is particularly relevant as Canada's online gambling industry expands beyond Ontario. Alberta's competitive market opened in July 2026, giving payment and compliance technology providers another provincial market to serve.
For fintech companies, the opportunity comes with an important distinction: Canada's federal financial-crime rules, provincial gambling requirements and payment-service regulations overlap, but they do not necessarily apply to every business in the same way.
The Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) administers reporting and compliance requirements under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.
Casinos are among the reporting entities covered by the legislation. Their obligations can include customer identification, transaction reporting, recordkeeping, risk assessments and maintaining an AML compliance programme.
However, the legal definition of a casino matters.
FINTRAC's casino reporting framework historically centres on organizations conducting and managing specified gambling activities, including qualifying physical casino operations. A website offering online casino games is not automatically a separate FINTRAC casino reporting entity simply because it accepts wagers.
In provincial online gambling systems, the allocation of reporting responsibilities depends on the applicable legal framework, the entity conducting and managing the gambling activity, and the arrangements with private operators.
This distinction is particularly important in Ontario, where private gaming operators provide services within a provincially conducted and managed market.
Payment companies face a separate classification question.
Certain businesses that transmit funds, provide payment services or deal in virtual currencies can qualify as money services businesses (MSBs) or foreign money services businesses under federal law.
Since regulatory amendments took effect in 2022, certain payment service providers have been brought explicitly within FINTRAC's MSB framework.
That means a gambling operator and its payment processor may both have compliance responsibilities, but not necessarily identical ones.
For fintech providers entering the Canadian gambling industry, determining their reporting-entity status is an essential first step.
FINTRAC reporting is not based on one universal transaction threshold.
Different reports apply to different types of activity. Some involve a monetary threshold, while suspicious transaction reporting depends on the circumstances rather than the amount transferred.
The principal reporting categories include:

The table summarizes FINTRAC reporting categories for reporting entities to which the relevant obligations apply. It does not mean every private online gambling brand must independently submit each report.
The CA$10,000 threshold is particularly important because applicable 24-hour aggregation rules can bring multiple smaller transactions within reporting requirements.
For example, two qualifying casino disbursements of CA$6,000 each may trigger reporting if they occur within the relevant period and meet the applicable aggregation conditions.
A suspicious transaction works differently.
A CA$500 payment could require a report if the reporting entity has reasonable grounds to suspect a connection to money laundering or terrorist activity financing. Conversely, a large transaction is not automatically suspicious merely because it exceeds CA$10,000.
FINTRAC's guidance requires reporting entities to consider the facts, context and relevant indicators when assessing suspicious activity.
GambleOnline.ca provides a more detailed explanation of these distinctions in its guide to FINTRAC reporting requirements for Canadian casinos, including casino disbursements, suspicious transactions and electronic funds transfers.
For payment technology companies, the practical challenge is designing systems that distinguish transaction types rather than applying the same reporting rule to every payment.
Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures are one of the most visible parts of gambling compliance.
Players may be asked to provide identification when registering an account, making certain transactions or requesting a withdrawal.
But customer verification is not necessarily a single event.
Reporting entities must apply identification requirements when legally required, maintain appropriate records and monitor relevant activity according to their risk assessments.
A customer who has already completed an identity check may still trigger additional scrutiny if their subsequent transactions present unusual risks.
Consider a hypothetical player who deposits CA$2,000, places a small number of wagers and then requests a withdrawal of nearly the entire balance.
The transaction does not automatically establish money laundering. There may be an innocent explanation.
However, a monitoring system might identify the pattern for review because the account appears to be used primarily to move funds rather than participate in gambling.
A compliance analyst could examine the customer's transaction history, account information, payment method and other relevant indicators before determining whether further action is necessary.
This creates a technical challenge for operators and their fintech partners.
A system that generates too many false alerts increases manual review costs and can delay legitimate withdrawals. A system that misses relevant patterns can expose the business to financial-crime risks and regulatory consequences.
The objective is therefore not simply to block unusual payments. It is to identify activity requiring investigation while allowing legitimate transactions to proceed efficiently.
Canadian consumers are accustomed to fast digital payments, particularly through services such as Interac e-Transfer.
Yet a payment method capable of transferring funds quickly does not guarantee that a casino withdrawal will be completed immediately.
The withdrawal process may involve several separate stages.
First, the operator receives the request and checks whether the funds are available for withdrawal. The account may then be reviewed for identity-verification issues, payment-method consistency, fraud indicators or other compliance concerns.
If the transaction requires manual examination, the operator may need additional information before authorizing payment.
Only after the withdrawal is approved does the payment-processing and settlement stage begin.
The difference between these stages matters commercially.
A customer may interpret a delayed withdrawal as a problem with the payment provider when the transfer has not yet been released by the operator.
For fintech companies, clear transaction-status information and effective integration with compliance systems can reduce unnecessary support requests.
However, AML checks should not be treated as a universal explanation for slow withdrawals. Processing schedules, payment-provider limitations, account conditions and operational delays can also affect the time required.
Ontario and Alberta provide useful examples of how federal financial-crime obligations interact with provincial gambling frameworks.
Ontario's competitive online gambling market launched in April 2022. The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) regulates gaming operators and suppliers, while the province's conduct-and-manage structure determines how private companies participate.
AGCO's Registrar's Standards require operators to implement controls addressing unlawful activity, including relevant financial-crime risks.
Those requirements are distinct from FINTRAC's federal reporting obligations, even when they address similar risks.
An operator may need to demonstrate that its systems can detect suspicious activity and support the province's compliance framework without independently becoming the entity legally responsible for every FINTRAC casino report.
Alberta introduced its competitive iGaming market in July 2026, creating a second major Canadian market for private online gambling operators.
Although federal AML legislation applies nationally, the provincial arrangements governing operators, regulators and payment infrastructure are not necessarily identical.
That creates additional work for companies operating in both provinces.
Technology providers need to understand which organization is responsible for particular controls, what information must be exchanged and how reporting procedures fit into each province's operating model.
A payment platform built for Ontario may provide a useful foundation for Alberta, but it cannot assume that every contractual and regulatory responsibility transfers unchanged.
AML compliance is an operating expense as well as a regulatory obligation.
For gambling operators, costs can include identity-verification services, transaction-monitoring software, compliance personnel, employee training, independent reviews and record-management systems.
Payment providers may face additional expenses associated with their own regulatory classification and obligations.
The financial impact extends beyond direct spending.
When customers abandon registration because verification is difficult, operators lose potential business. When legitimate transactions are repeatedly flagged, customer-service workloads increase.
Delays can also affect customer trust, particularly when users receive little explanation about why a withdrawal is under review.
These problems create opportunities for specialized fintech providers.
Automated identity checks can reduce manual document handling. Transaction-monitoring platforms can identify patterns across large volumes of payments. Case-management systems can help compliance teams document investigations and maintain audit trails.
However, automation does not eliminate the need for professional judgement.
A system can identify unusual activity, but reporting decisions still require an assessment of the relevant facts and legal standards.
Businesses also need to consider data protection, cybersecurity and the reliability of third-party vendors.
Outsourcing a compliance function does not automatically transfer the reporting entity's legal responsibilities to the technology supplier.
Several technologies are becoming increasingly relevant to financial-crime controls in online gambling.
Digital identity systems can compare customer information against documents and other verification sources. Device and behavioural analytics may help detect account takeover attempts or coordinated fraudulent activity.
Transaction-monitoring systems can examine payment frequency, unusual funding patterns and relationships between accounts.
Some providers use machine learning to prioritize alerts and identify behaviour that traditional rules might overlook.
The commercial value of these technologies depends on measurable results.
A platform that identifies more suspicious activity but produces an overwhelming number of false positives may create additional work rather than reduce it.
Likewise, a faster onboarding process is not necessarily better if it weakens identity verification.
For Canadian fintech companies, the opportunity lies in helping gambling businesses meet their obligations while reducing unnecessary friction.
That requires integration with existing payment systems, clear audit records, configurable monitoring rules and an understanding of Canadian regulatory requirements.
It also requires attention to the distinction between anti-money-laundering monitoring and responsible gambling controls.
Both may examine customer behaviour, but they serve different purposes. AML monitoring focuses on potential financial crime, while responsible gambling systems identify indicators of gambling-related harm.
Combining relevant data can improve operational visibility, but the two functions should not be treated as interchangeable.
Canada's expanding online gambling industry is likely to increase demand for payment infrastructure and compliance technology.
More operators mean more accounts, deposits, withdrawals and transactions requiring appropriate controls.
But the growth opportunity is not simply about processing larger payment volumes.
Financial institutions and payment providers must determine whether they fall within FINTRAC's reporting framework, while gambling businesses must understand their responsibilities under the relevant provincial systems.
The businesses best positioned to serve this market will be those that can support reliable payments, effective financial-crime controls and a manageable customer experience.
For regulators, the challenge is maintaining oversight as technology and transaction methods evolve.
For fintech companies, the challenge is building systems that make compliance part of the payment process rather than an obstacle added after the transaction.
Canada's online gambling expansion is therefore also a test of its financial technology infrastructure. The companies moving the money, verifying customers and monitoring transactions will play an important role in how efficiently the industry operates.
GambleOnline.ca is an independent online gambling media website founded in 2008, publishing experience-based reviews, guides and analysis of online casinos, sportsbooks and poker platforms. Its editorial team conducts hands-on testing and research to provide factual, player-focused insights, alongside educational content on gambling strategy, legality and responsible play.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |

On October 17, 2026, Finance Canada published proposed fintech investment and technology regulations for powers Parliament approved in June 2018 and never brought into force. The package reaches more than 400 federally regulated financial institutions.
Finance now says the older rules can “prevent or complicate” fintech investment, limit capital flowing into innovative sectors and impede productivity growth. Eight years after Parliament acted, the operating rules are still only proposed.
The delay wasn’t one long consultation. Finance’s own record shows six concrete problems. Officials had to draw the regulatory perimeter between finance and technology, preserve the barrier against unrelated commerce, set revenue and regulatory capital limits, stop the rules from squeezing smaller institutions, and cut reporting requirements industry said were too heavy. Then Parliament had to repair defects in the 2018 statute in 2024. Six problems turned one reform into eight years of rulemaking.
This wasn’t a ban on fintech investment. Banks and insurers could still buy businesses that fit the existing rules. The trouble started when a fintech mixed finance with commercial software or expanded after an institution had invested. Banks had already warned that some domestic technology approvals took three to four months. The 2026 proposal would finally give qualifying mixed businesses a new route when at least 60% of their activity is financial, subject to separate limits on the investor.
Finance opened the review in 2016. It held 32 meetings and received 63 written submissions, then received 300 submissions in 2017, with 25 focused on fintech. Finance later acknowledged that incumbent institutions and industry associations were better represented than independent fintechs and venture investors.
Bankers came with a practical complaint. The Canadian Bankers Association’s 2017 submission said some domestic technology approvals could take three to four months and covered only the activities named in the application. That’s a poor fit for a fintech that can add a product, market or subsidiary in the time it takes a large institution to finish an approval process.
Founders weren’t building tidy regulatory categories. Payments were moving into merchant software, identity tools could serve banks and law offices, and data companies were becoming financial infrastructure while selling into other industries. The old rules drew cleaner lines than the market did.
Investors wanted a wider lane too. Finance said collaboration could pair fintech speed with the balance sheets and customer relationships of established institutions. Portag3 Ventures, then backing Canadian companies including Wealthsimple, Borrowell and KOHO, supported broader investment flexibility and argued that bank financing and collaboration were important to the fintech ecosystem. Capital and distribution were already part of the policy problem.
Under the Bank Act route described by the CBA, a substantial investment generally had to stay inside permitted activities. If even one ancillary activity or a downstream subsidiary moved outside that list, the bank could face another approval, a different investment classification or divestment. The CBA called the restriction a “significant impediment” with the potential to restrict Canadian innovation.
Insurers ran into the same boundary from another direction. The life insurance industry’s 2017 submission said an insurer could use identity or anti money laundering technology inside finance but couldn’t freely sell the same capability to law offices, real estate firms, other businesses or government. Useful technology could have a broader market, while the ownership and commercialization rules stayed narrow.
A growing fintech can create a problem for the shareholder that helped fund it. Add inventory software, merchant analytics or a commercial subsidiary because customers want them, and the business may no longer fit the permission that supported the original bank investment. The CBA warned that this could discourage fintechs from working with banks.
Insurers faced a similar commercial choice. A tool built for regulated finance might have customers far beyond finance, yet the legal route could narrow who could own the business or where the product could be sold. That can influence which investor a founder takes, how the company is structured and which markets it enters next.
Parliament responded on June 21, 2018. The 2018 Budget Implementation Act broadened permitted technology activities, removed prior ministerial approval for the expanded nonfinancial activities, widened referral powers and created a new investment category for companies whose businesses were mostly financial services. The law clearly moved toward more flexibility.
But Parliament didn’t define how much of a company had to be financial to qualify as a majority financial services entity. It also left the revenue, capital, reporting and transaction conditions to regulation. Without those operating rules, institutions couldn’t use the new powers and stayed under the older framework.
Parliament gave banks and insurers broader ownership powers in June 2018. Finance still had to define the majority test, exposure limits and safeguards before anyone could use them. The authority existed. The investment route didn’t.
That left financial institutions making real investment decisions under the old framework while fintech business models kept widening. A company could fit the rules when a bank first invested and create a new legal problem later simply by adding a commercial activity customers wanted.
After Royal Assent, Finance worked with the CBA, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association and OSFI. The first problem was the regulatory perimeter. Finance called separating new technology activities from core financial services a “serious technical challenge”, especially when the same staff, assets and systems served both. Officials also had to preserve existing investment prohibitions and keep visibility into the new business.
Then came the operating limits. In 2019, officials worked through revenue caps, regulatory capital exposure, annual reports and transaction conditions. A 2020 technical review exposed two more problems. Uniform rules could box out smaller institutions, while the proposed reporting package could impose a significant burden. Finance later revised both.
The delay didn’t come from one unresolved issue. It came from six. Finance had to separate finance from technology, preserve limits on unrelated commerce, set revenue and capital exposure caps, give smaller institutions enough room to compete, and reduce reporting requirements industry said were too burdensome. Those were the five regulatory design problems documented through the consultation record.
The sixth problem sat in the law itself. Bill C-59 received Royal Assent in June 2024 and made technical corrections to the 2018 law. It fixed discrepancies between the English and French provisions and clarified that the expanded technology powers were limited to information technology. By then, Finance had already consulted in 2019, reviewed a draft in 2020, consulted again in 2021 and returned with another draft in 2024.
Every revision created another round of legal or regulatory work. Caps changed. Reporting changed. Parliament repaired the statute six years after passage. The first public regulations still didn’t reach Canada Gazette Part I until October 2026, even though stakeholders were asking by 2024 for the powers to come into force “as soon as feasible.”
National Bank took control of Flinks in 2021. Its disclosed transaction included C$73 million for voting preferred shares followed by another C$30 million investment. The bank’s interest rose to 85.9%.
RBC bought WayPay in 2019 to expand automated business payments and account reconciliation. Canada Life acquired ClaimSecure in 2021, adding 1.25 million plan members and technology handling more than C$1.2 billion in annual claims payments. Canada Life and ClaimSecure later launched a combined benefits product.
Those deals matter because they rule out the easy story. Canada didn’t ban institutional fintech investment, and banks and insurers kept buying businesses that fit the existing framework. The squeeze showed up at the edges, where finance blended with commercial activity or a company later expanded beyond the legal fit that supported the original investment.
By October 2026, Flinks had moved beyond financial data connectivity into banking development, payment integrations, account switching and managed services. That’s exactly the kind of expansion a strategic shareholder may want to keep backing. Under the older framework, a different commercial move could force the shareholder to stop and ask whether it could legally stay invested.
The CBA warned that the legal fit could affect a deal before anyone applied for approval. If a fintech needed capital quickly, a bank bid carrying a regulatory condition could lose to cleaner, faster money. A later business change could also force the bank back into approval or divestment. A lost opportunity can disappear before Ottawa ever sees a file.
Finance expects more activity once the new route is usable. Over the past decade, roughly one institution per year sought the relevant ministerial approvals. Finance now assumes large banks will average two qualifying investments annually and large insurers one. The figures aren’t directly comparable, but Finance itself expects more activity because the process should be faster, less costly and more certain.
Government data can count approvals. It can’t count the bank bid that was never made, the expansion pushed into another company or the investor a founder never approached because the legal fit was poor. It can’t count technology an insurer decided not to sell outside finance either. Those decisions rarely leave a public record.
The economic toll starts before an approval file exists. A bank offer with conditions can lose to faster capital. A founder can split a product, delay a commercial move or avoid an investor whose ownership may become a future constraint. None of those choices needs a rejection letter to change the company’s path.
The October proposal finally puts a number on majority. A target can qualify when at least 60% of its business consists of qualifying financial activity, measured using whichever produces the highest result among revenue, operating expenses or assets. That gives younger or differently structured companies more than one way to clear the test.
The investor has separate limits. Institutions with more than C$12 billion in equity would face a 10% nonfinancial revenue ceiling and a 10% regulatory capital exposure limit. Small and medium institutions with C$12 billion or less in equity would get 15% revenue headroom while keeping the same 10% capital limit.
Take a payments company that also sells merchant software. Under the older activity based route, one impermissible commercial activity could knock the company out of that investment permission. Under the proposal, a business with 70% qualifying financial activity and 30% other commercial activity could potentially qualify. The 70 and 30 split is illustrative, but the business consequence is straightforward. The founder may no longer have to strip out every useful commercial feature just to keep a bank investor eligible.
The percentages don’t describe the same limit. The historical 5% exemption covered certain bank technology investments without approval and required the investee to stay within prescribed activities. The new 60% test applies to the target company’s business mix. The 10% and 15% limits apply to the investing institution’s aggregate nonfinancial business. There isn’t a simple old cap and new cap comparison.
More eligible bank and insurer investors can improve financing choices, distribution and negotiating leverage for an independent fintech. A strategic buyer can get a product in front of customers much faster. It can also end up owning technology several competing institutions rely on. More capital and more competition aren’t automatically the same outcome.
Finance is trying to keep sight of that risk. Certain large acquirers would have to report material supply arrangements between a target and the acquirer’s competitors. Smaller and medium institutions get more revenue headroom and no new reports, because identical limits would leave them with much less room to compete.
A wider buyer pool can help founders raise money, get distribution and negotiate exits. It can also put an important supplier or emerging challenger inside a major incumbent. That’s where the reform shifts from a capital question to a competition question.
The Competition Bureau’s fintech study supported removing unnecessary barriers to entry and collaboration while keeping scrutiny where incumbent relationships could weaken competition. Finance’s new supply reporting reflects the same concern. The useful outcome isn’t simply more acquisitions. It’s more capital reaching strong companies without draining independent competitive pressure from the market.
Finance estimates the proposed rules will add C$267,518 in annualized administrative and compliance costs, or about C$1.88 million in present value over 10 years. Those figures cover the new reporting burden. They don’t count the savings from removing some ministerial approvals, and they certainly don’t capture eight years of slower, narrower business choices under the old framework.
The regulations are proposed, not in force. Canada Gazette Part I opened a 30 day consultation on October 17, 2026, with comments due November 16. The government still has to finalize the regulations and use a separate Order in Council to activate the dormant 2018 amendments.
The last round now turns on execution. The 60% definition has to work for current fintech business models, smaller institutions need enough room to compete, and Finance needs visibility into new risks without rebuilding the reporting burden industry spent years pushing back on. Get those choices wrong and the reform can still underdeliver even after eight years.
Canada has already spent eight years designing conditions around powers Parliament approved in 2018. The next step is simpler to describe and harder to deliver. Put the rules into force, give good businesses a workable path to institutional capital, and keep enough independent competition in the market that customers actually benefit.
Canada’s eight year delay carried a real economic toll. Banks faced approval processes that could take three to four months. Mixed fintechs could lose access to some bank or insurer investors as they expanded. Insurers had less room to sell useful technology outside financial services. Finance now says the old framework can prevent or complicate investment, limit capital and impede productivity. We can’t put a credible dollar figure on every deal, product or expansion that went another way, but the commercial cost isn’t abstract. It lands in who funds a company, what it builds next and how quickly it gets to market.
Canada has good reasons to keep banks and insurers out of unrelated commerce. Those guardrails protect stability and stop financial institutions from controlling too much of the wider economy. But a safeguard carries a cost when rules written for older business models keep constraining newer ones after Parliament has already approved change. The Competition Bureau’s fintech progress review has warned that regulatory barriers can weaken competition too. Capital won’t wait eight years for rulemaking to catch up.
Founders didn’t stop building while Ottawa worked through the rules. Banks and insurers still found ways to invest where the old framework allowed it, as Flinks, WayPay and ClaimSecure show. The 2026 proposal can widen those paths without turning strategic investment into another route to incumbent control. Eight years are gone. The better outcome now is a market where good Canadian fintechs have more ways to finance growth, commercialize useful technology and challenge the status quo.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |