Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
Karsten Wenzlaff is a Crowdfunding and Fintech Expert from Germany. He is Secretary-General of Digit[...]
Category Archives: FinTech and Alternative Finance
OneVest Launches Agentic Account Opening in Canada
September 24, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Wealthtech And AI Operations, Risk Compliance And Regtech
Agentic Account Opening For Canadian Wealth Firms
On September 23, 2026, OneVest launched an agentic account opening solution for Canadian wealth firms. It can prepare applications from documents, advisor notes or CRM data, check them before submission and follow the account through custodian processing. The software can also flag missing information, track account numbers and help staff work through exceptions.
The launch advances what OneVest announced this past March. Its Agentic Wealth Operating System already included onboarding, account opening and fund transfers. September turns account opening into a defined product with named custodian connections, exception handling and a record of agent activity.
The software starts with information the firm already has, prepares the application and follows the case after submission. Staff can also dictate information by voice, while updates can appear in Slack or Microsoft Teams. OneVest says the software can carry a case through several steps and handle exceptions along the way. It doesn't appear to independently approve clients, decide suitability or determine whether every regulatory requirement has been met.
Custodian Connections Place The Agent Inside Operations
OneVest says the product connects with National Bank Independent Network, Aviso Wealth and CI Investment Services, with more custodian integrations in development. Instead of stopping at form completion, the software can follow the account into custodian processing and bring exceptions back to operations staff.
OneVest says the product connects with NBIN, Aviso Wealth and CI Investment Services, with more custodian integrations in development. OneVest had already announced an Aviso custodial integration in November 2025, which gives some background to the current connection.
OneVest Pulse adds a record of what happens inside the workflow. The company says Pulse logs agent activity and gives advisors, operations and compliance teams visibility into account-opening milestones. It can help firms see what happened, when it happened and where staff stepped in. It's better described as an activity and governance record than as proof of compliance.
Canadian dealers remain responsible for KYC, suitability and supervision even when software performs part of the work. CIRO's Client Focused Reform requirements still apply, while FINTRAC rules can require identity verification, client records and beneficial ownership information during account opening. Software can collect and coordinate information, but the dealer still owns the regulatory decisions and controls around it.
The Business Case Now Depends On Operating Results
OneVest has established that the product is available, but it hasn't published performance data for the new workflow. Those figures will determine whether agentic account opening changes the economics of wealth operations. Faster applications help, but the bigger gain comes if firms can reduce rework and handle more accounts without adding operations staff at the same rate. Exception rates are especially important because automation loses much of its value if routine cases still require frequent manual correction.
See Which Fintech Processes Are Most Ready for Agentic AI
OneVest already has Canadian enterprise relationships that could support adoption. Mackenzie Investments selected its operating system earlier in 2026, while CST Spark has said OneVest supports functions including onboarding and account opening.
For wealth firms, the development puts the focus on how much of a regulated workflow software can carry without creating new review work somewhere else. For OneVest, if the product can reduce account opening time, manual touches and exceptions across several custodians, it becomes part of the operating infrastructure rather than another advisor productivity tool.
Talking Point
OneVest has taken account opening from a capability inside its wider agentic platform to a defined Canadian product connected to named custodians. How much value it creates will come down to measurable reductions in processing time, rework and staff intervention.
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
 |  |  |
|---|---|---|
 |  |  |
Inside a Licensed Profession: What Ownright’s Build Teaches Fintech Founders
September 24, 2026
Innovation in financial services gets most of its attention at the product layer — the app, the rails, the model. If you are building in a regulated market, though, the harder problem is usually structural: how do you ship something genuinely new when the activity itself requires a licence, and that licence carries duties written long before your product existed?
Fintech founders in Canada know this problem well. What is less widely noticed is that an adjacent licensed profession is working through the same question, under a regulator that has taken a deliberately experimental approach to it. Ontario's legal sector is worth watching for that reason, and one firm rebuilding it — Ownright, which has run more than $2 billion of residential closings through a digital platform since 2023 — is solving problems that will look familiar to anyone who has automated a high-value, high-trust workflow.
Professional Regulation Behaves Differently From Financial Regulation
If your compliance experience is with FINTRAC, OSFI or the CSA, professional regulation will feel familiar in some respects and strange in others. The familiar part is the supervisory posture: registration, conduct standards, reporting, and an expectation that you can evidence your process on request.
The unfamiliar part is what is being regulated. Financial regulation largely governs activities and disclosures. Professional regulation governs who may exercise judgment on a client's behalf, and it attaches that permission to an individual rather than to a firm. In law, a licensed lawyer carries personal responsibility for advice given under their name, and no amount of process design transfers that duty to a system.
This sets a hard boundary on what automation can absorb. You can automate intake, document handling, status tracking, reminders and reconciliation. You cannot automate the judgment call, and a regulator will not accept an architecture that implies otherwise. The design question stops being how much of this can software do, and becomes which parts of this should software never do.
The Fintech Layer Underneath a Legal Workflow
Once that boundary is set, what remains is recognisably a fintech build. Ownright launched in 2023, originally as Doormat, and has processed more than $2 billion across over 2,000 transactions since — quadrupling volume year over year while growing from three founders to a team of twenty-five. That is a curve that only holds when software rather than headcount absorbs the growth.
Three parts of that build will be familiar to this audience.
The first is document analytics. Ontario condo buyers must review a status certificate, a dense legal PDF describing the financial health of the condo corporation. Traditionally it is exactly the kind of unstructured document that resists automation. Ownright's review parses it into structured sections and surfaces specific risks — reserve-fund shortfalls, pending special assessments — rather than leaving them buried in prose. That is the same problem insurtech and lending teams face when turning disclosures and filings into queryable, risk-scored data, and it compounds the same way: each parsed document makes the next review faster.
The second is the trust layer. A closing is a high-value money-movement event, which makes it a target for wire fraud and identity spoofing. Automating one means inheriting a fintech-grade security problem, and the response looks like a fintech stack: identity-verification protocols, integrations with lenders and title insurers, and controls around the movement of large sums. For founders, the lesson is that automating a transaction is not primarily a UX exercise. The verification and reconciliation infrastructure underneath is usually the hard part, and the defensible part.
The third is distribution. In 2025 the firm launched a developer platform exposing closing services via API, so proptech companies can embed them in their own products. That is the embedded-fintech playbook applied to legal services — the same logic that let any software company offer payments or lending through an interface. It reframes the company from a destination consumers visit into infrastructure other platforms consume.
Lessons For Building in a Licensed Market
Three things generalise, and probably apply to any regulated professional service you are considering.
Find the boundary before you build. The most expensive architectural mistakes in regulated markets come from automating something that turns out to require a licensed decision, then discovering it at a supervisory review. Map which steps carry personal professional responsibility and which are administrative, and design the handoff between them deliberately. That boundary is your real product spec.
See: OSFI Rebalances Regulation for Growth and Competition
Treat the regulator as a counterparty rather than an obstacle. The Law Society of Ontario runs Access to Innovation, a programme allowing technology-enabled legal services to operate under supervision instead of waiting for the rulebook to catch up. Ownright participates in it. If you have followed open banking or payments modernisation, the logic is recognisable: a sandbox does not relax the rules, it converts an unanswerable question — is this permitted? — into an observable process with a supervisor attached. Engaging early is considerably cheaper than retrofitting.
Remember that the moat is rarely the software. Anyone can build a document portal. What is difficult to replicate is a system where automation and licensed expertise are genuinely integrated, the client can see what is happening, and the regulator is comfortable with the arrangement. That takes years and cannot be shortcut with a faster release cycle.
Canada's regulated professions are going through a version of the transition financial services began a decade ago: incumbent workflows built on email and manual review, rebuilt around structured data and supervised automation, with the licensed human deliberately kept in the loop. Some of that work is being documented publicly — Ownright's 2026 Operators Report sets out what the firm is seeing across the Ontario market.
If you are building in a licensed market, the useful question is not whether regulation will slow you down. It will. The question is whether your regulator has a mechanism for examining what you have built, and whether you have designed something worth showing them.
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
FAIR Challenges Wealthsimple Prediction Market Plan
September 24, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Regulation And Policy, Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure, Wealthtech Investing And Trading, Risk Compliance And Regtech
Canadian Prediction Market Access And Regulation
On September 24, 2026, FAIR Canada challenged Wealthsimple's prediction market proposal for a wider Canadian prediction market. Wealthsimple wants regulators to change how event contracts qualify for retail trading. FAIR wants the current limits to remain unless wider access can be shown to benefit investors and serve the public interest.
Wealthsimple published its proposal on August 4. On August 27, Canadian securities regulators kept sports and entertainment contracts outside securities and derivatives regulation. FAIR has now challenged the remaining case for adding more event contracts to the investment dealer channel.
Wealthsimple Wants New Rules For Prediction Market Contracts
Wealthsimple's August 4 white paper goes well beyond its Predict product. CIRO currently limits authorized dealers to contracts based on economic forecasts, environmental forecasts and financial indicators. Wealthsimple argues that these categories are subjective because similar contracts can fit more than one label or receive different treatment.
Its alternative focuses on who determines the result. Wealthsimple proposes approved settlement sources that include government agencies, established data providers, recognized institutions and selected news organizations. A Canadian unemployment contract could settle using Statistics Canada data, while a Bitcoin price contract could use an established financial benchmark.
The proposal could reach categories that Canadian investment dealers can't offer today. Wealthsimple includes accredited electoral authorities among potential settlement sources even though political event contracts are prohibited. It would still exclude contracts involving death, personal harm, terrorism, the initiation of armed conflict and events where one identifiable person can determine the outcome.
CSA And CIRO Keep Sports Prediction Markets Outside Securities Rules
Canada already opened a narrow regulated route earlier in 2026 when Wealthsimple entered Canada's regulated prediction market. Regulators drew another boundary on August 27 when the CSA and CIRO kept sports prediction markets outside securities rules. The CSA said sports and entertainment contracts shouldn't be regulated under securities and derivatives legislation, while CIRO said it would not approve dealer applications to offer them.
The Canadian market remains tightly controlled. CIRO has authorized two investment dealers to facilitate event contract trading, with offerings limited to economic forecasts, environmental forecasts and financial indicators. Contracts must have at least 30 days to maturity. Leverage is prohibited, along with elections, referendums, political nominations and other political events.
A dealer that wants to offer contracts outside those categories must file another material business change with CIRO. Other event contract categories remain under regulatory review.
FAIR Wants Evidence Before More Contracts Are Added
FAIR doesn't dispute that an event contract can meet the legal definition of a derivative. It disputes what should follow from that classification. Its September response asks regulators to consider investor benefit, capital market purpose, market integrity and the public interest before permitting additional categories for retail trading.
See: Should Prediction Markets Be Allowed To Trade On Disasters?
That conflicts directly with Wealthsimple's settlement source approach. A reliable source can determine the result of a contract, but FAIR argues that it doesn't establish whether the contract belongs in the retail investment market. Reliable settlement and retail eligibility are separate questions in FAIR's analysis.
The two organizations also differ on the economic case. Wealthsimple says prediction markets can aggregate information, produce useful prices and help people hedge risk. FAIR says there isn't enough evidence that Canadian retail investors use the contracts already permitted for those purposes.
The 30 Day Rule Came From Offshore Binary Options
Wealthsimple also wants Canada to revisit its binary options rules. Multilateral Instrument 91-102 was introduced in 2017 after regulators faced widespread fraud involving offshore binary option platforms. Wealthsimple argues that regulated event contracts operate differently because trades pass through regulated dealers, futures intermediaries, exchanges and clearing organizations.
It also questions what the 30 day minimum achieves. A contract can satisfy the rule when it is listed and still trade shortly before expiry. Wealthsimple would rely more on dealer controls including recommended loss levels, deposit limits, cooling periods, trading breaks, self exclusion, education and market surveillance.
The rule still applies directly to prediction markets. Ontario regulators relied on MI 91-102 in a 2025 Polymarket settlement, finding that event contracts offered to Ontario residents included prohibited binary options with less than 30 days to maturity. FAIR argues that shorter contracts can also produce faster turnover and repeated exposure to gains and losses, so changing the rule requires evidence about the investor effects as well as differences in market structure.
Canada Has Participation Data But Little Investor Outcome Data
Wealthsimple says more than one million Canadians have already used prediction markets, mainly through offshore platforms. The figure is based on survey data rather than trading records. An Angus Reid Institute survey of 1,803 Canadian adults found that 4% had used a prediction market.
The same survey found limited interest among people who hadn't used one, while opposition to allowing prediction markets was higher than support. The results confirm that Canadians are participating, but they don't show how customers behave inside a regulated investment account. They also don't establish whether people use these contracts for hedging, forecasting or short term speculation.
The permitted Canadian market can now produce better evidence. Participation, repeat trading, average exposure, realized gains and losses, liquidity and spreads can all be measured. Regulators can also examine attempted manipulation and surveillance events, an issue NCFA has explored through prediction market insider trading and surveillance.
Another useful measure is whether Canadians leave offshore platforms once a regulated option is available here. Wealthsimple argues that some will and dealer data can show whether that happens and whether their trading behaviour changes.
Which Event Contracts Belong In Canada's Regulated Market?
Canada is really deciding three things. The August 27 decision on sports and entertainment shows that a contract can meet one legal test without automatically qualifying for retail trading through an investment dealer.
- Is the contract legally a derivative?
- Which regulator should oversee it?
- Should an investment dealer be allowed to offer it to retail clients?
Wealthsimple wants less focus on the subject of the contract and more on how it works, how the result is settled and what controls the dealer has in place. FAIR wants stronger evidence that adding more contracts would benefit investors and support capital market activity. Canadian trading data can help answer that.
See Regulated Event Contract Infrastructure
The contracts already allowed in Canada can show who is trading, how often, how much they gain or lose and whether enough buyers and sellers show up. Regulators can also see whether a regulated Canadian option pulls users away from offshore platforms. That would give them Canadian evidence to work with instead of relying mainly on legal arguments and overseas trading volumes.
Talking Point
Canada already permits a narrow range of regulated prediction markets. Which additional event contracts should qualify, and what does actual Canadian trading behaviour say about expanding access?
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
Why Paying for Use Is Beating Paying to Own
September 23, 2026
In 1962, Rolls-Royce made an unusual decision for an engine maker. Rather than simply selling engines for the de Havilland 125 business jet and billing operators whenever something went wrong, it offered a complete engine and accessory replacement service charged at a fixed cost for every hour flown. It called the idea Power by the Hour.
You see, the operators didn't want to own a maintenance problem, they wanted engines that worked. Six decades later, that same distinction between owning a thing and paying for what it does sits behind some of the biggest financial decisions businesses and wealthy individuals make.
The Cost Nobody Puts in the Brochure
An expensive asset costs money while you use it. It also costs money while it sits there.
That second cost is the one people usually always underestimate. Insurance, storage, servicing, staff and depreciation all keep running on the days nothing happens. Spread over heavy use, those fixed costs become manageable. Spread over light use, they make each hour of actual value very expensive.
Let’s take a simple example. An asset with £1 million a year in fixed costs, used for 400 hours, costs £2,500 an hour before anything else is added. Use it for 100 hours and the same asset costs £10,000 an hour. Nothing about the asset changed, only the usage did.
Hilti Didn't Sell Drills. It Sold Uptime.
Construction is not an industry known for embracing subscriptions. Tradespeople take pride in their kit. So when Hilti launched its Fleet Management programme, the idea of contractors renting power tools met real resistance.
And yet, the pitch worked anyway. Customers pay a monthly fee covering the use, servicing and repair of their tools, with no upfront purchase. Tools are replaced with newer models on a regular cycle, and theft and breakdowns are covered.
What the contractor gains is not really a drill. It's the certainty that a broken tool on a Monday morning doesn't stop a job, and that money which would have been sitting in a tool store is available for payroll, materials or the next contract.
Image by Lorraine Robinson from Pixabay
The Yacht Arithmetic
Yachts show the problem at its most extreme. The long-standing industry rule of thumb holds that a yacht costs around 10% of its purchase price to run every year. As YachtBuyer points out, that rule becomes badly misleading for larger crewed or older vessels, because the boat's value falls while its running costs climb.
Now factor in how often owners actually go to sea. Industry usage data suggests a typical owner uses their yacht for somewhere between four and eight weeks a year. The crew, berthing and maintenance bills arrive for all fifty-two.
For someone who wants a fortnight in the Aegean each summer, chartering does more than save money. It means choosing a sailing yacht one year and a larger motor yacht the next, in whichever sea suits the season.
Aviation Runs the Same Numbers
Business aviation may be where this calculation is most precise, because every cost can be counted by the flight hour.
Owning an aircraft brings crew salaries, hangarage, insurance and management fees whether it flies or not. The broad consensus in the industry is that whole ownership starts to make financial sense somewhere in the region of 200 to 400 flight hours a year, depending on the aircraft.
Plenty of companies and individuals fly nowhere near that. A board that needs to visit three European sites in a single day, or a family heading to a small Alpine airstrip twice a season, has a real need for private aviation, but not for a full-time aircraft. For them, private jet charter delivers what actually matters: the right aircraft for each specific trip, whether a light jet for a short hop or a long-range jet for a transatlantic meeting, with none of the ongoing overheads.
Image: Pexels/RDNE Stock project
When Owning Still Wins
None of this makes ownership a bad idea. It makes it a decision that depends on the numbers.
Heavy, predictable use changes the maths quickly. So does a need for total control: a particular cabin configuration, crew who know your preferences, an aircraft ready at an hour's notice every day of the year. There's also a middle ground. Leasing, fractional shares and block-hour arrangements sit between full ownership and one-off bookings, and each suits a different usage pattern.
The mistake is treating ownership as the natural reward for success rather than as one option to be costed alongside the others.
Capital Has Better Things to Do
The shift towards access is really about where money works hardest. Capital held in an asset used a few weeks a year cannot also fund an acquisition, a new market or an opportunity that turns up unexpectedly.
See: Crypto’s 22 Billionaires & the Global Adoption Index
Rolls-Royce understood that in 1962. Its customers wanted flying hours, not engines. The most useful question to ask of any expensive asset is the same one: are you paying for the thing, or for what it lets you do?
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
Elevate Becomes Nrth
September 23, 2026 | NCFA News | Technology And Innovation, Startup And Venture Ecosystem, Events And Community, Canadian Tech Ecosystem
Canadian Tech Organization Rebrands and Expands Year Round
On September 22, 2026, Canadian technology and innovation organization Elevate announced it has officially become Nrth, introducing the new name during the opening night of its annual Toronto festival.
Elevate Festival has also been renamed Nrth Festival, with the 2026 event continuing in Toronto from September 22 to 24.
The organization says Nrth is an evolution of Elevate rather than a new organization. Its existing community, programs and annual festival will continue under the new brand.
Nrth Expands Beyond the Annual Festival
Elevate launched in 2017 as a platform for Canada's technology and startup community. According to the official announcement, its events have attracted more than 89,000 attendees over its first nine years.
Under Nrth, the organization plans to operate throughout the year in addition to running its flagship festival.
Beginning in 2027, Nrth says its activities will include more events, programs connecting Canadian companies with customers and investors, support for businesses adopting emerging technologies and research and insights covering Canada's innovation economy.
Lisa Zarzeczny, Co-Founder and CEO of Nrth:
“Elevate was created to lift Canadian innovation into view. But visibility alone isn’t enough anymore. Nrth is about direction and expanding the role we can play for this community.”
Existing programs are also being incorporated into the new structure. The CIX Startup Awards will become the Nrth Innovation Awards, while startup, innovation and technology adoption programs will operate under Nrth Labs.
Nrth Festival Continues in Toronto
Nrth Festival remains the organization's main annual gathering, bringing together founders, investors, business leaders, policymakers and technology companies.
The first Nrth Festival (previously Elevate Festival) is currently underway in Toronto from September 22 to 24, 2026, with more than 10,000 attendees expected and programming covering AI, fintech, technology sovereignty and other areas of innovation.
NCFA is pleased to continue supporting the event as a Community Partner.
Learn more about Nrth Festival.
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
Canada’s Big Six Collaborate on CAD Tokenized Deposits
September 23, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Payments Infrastructure And Money Movement, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Banking And Credit, Competition And Market Structure
Big Six Partnership For Tokenized Canadian Dollars
On September 22, 2026, BMO, CIBC, National Bank of Canada, RBC, Scotiabank and TD announced that they are jointly exploring CAD tokenized deposits. The first phase aims to transfer tokenized deposits across Canadian financial institutions. Longer term, the banks want to connect the project with other emerging digital asset infrastructure.
It's a partnership at an early stage, but banks have been here before. The banks haven't disclosed a project name, investment amount, technology provider, structure or governance model. They also haven't explained whether each bank would issue its own tokenized liability or exactly what happens when a deposit transfers from one institution to another.
Canada's largest banks compete hard for deposits, payments and corporate clients. They also have a long history of building together when six versions of the same underlying system would cost more and work less effectively.
Four Dates Put The Partnership In Context
March 5, 2026 The Bank of Canada completed Project Samara with Export Development Canada, RBC and TD. EDC issued a C$100 million tokenized bond to a closed investor group and settled the payments in wholesale central bank money. The experiment achieved real time settlement and improved data integrity, but system complexity, liquidity costs and new governance requirements offset some of the efficiency gains.
May 27, 2026 The Bank of Canada joined BIS Project Agorá. Its prototype combines tokenized commercial bank deposits with wholesale central bank money on a programmable platform for wholesale cross border payments.
September 10, 2026 OSFI clarified how Canadian bank regulation treats tokenized deposits. OSFI said the technology used to represent a product doesn't determine its legal nature and that tokenized deposits are not legally distinct from traditional deposits simply because they are represented digitally.
September 22, 2026 All six major Canadian banks announced that they were exploring a Canadian dollar tokenized deposit solution together. That brought the Canadian story from capital markets testing and international experimentation into a domestic partnership between the banks that hold much of the country's commercial deposits.
These projects weren't announced as one coordinated program. Seen together, they show the regulatory, settlement and commercial pieces of tokenized Canadian dollar finance being worked on at roughly the same time.
OSFI's position gives the partnership a clearer legal starting point. Tokenization doesn't automatically turn a bank deposit into a different financial product. Existing legal, technology, cyber and third party risk requirements still apply, and banks are expected to engage their supervisors before launching novel products.
Deposit insurance will depend on the final design, however the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation says innovative products, including tokenized deposits, may qualify for protection when they meet the legal requirements for an eligible deposit. CDIC assesses them case by case, so the Big Six project can't yet be described as insured.
It is also different from Canada's developing stablecoin market. Canada's federal stablecoin framework applies its new issuer regime to non-financial institutions. Banks and credit unions already operate under prudential regulation.
A qualifying tokenized deposit can preserve a customer's deposit claim on a bank while adding new ways to transfer or settle value digitally. Canada's stablecoin framework, by comparison, requires non-financial issuers to back fiat stablecoins with reserves and provide redemption at par.
See Canada Stablecoin Regulations Guide
It becomes important if tokenized securities, stablecoins and bank deposits eventually need to exchange value on the same financial networks. Canada's banks aren't simply exploring another digital asset. They are exploring what regulated commercial bank money could look like inside those networks.
Canada's Banks Have Shared The Plumbing Before
The idea of competitors cooperating behind the customer layer isn't new in Canadian banking. Payments, identity, cheque processing and compliance have all produced examples where financial institutions shared systems or standards, then kept competing on the services built around them.
| Collaboration | What The Banks Shared | What Happened |
| Interac | Canada's major financial institutions came together in 1984 to create a national shared cash dispensing network. | That network expanded into debit and electronic transfers. In 2025, Interac processed 7 billion debit transactions and 1.6 billion e-Transfers. |
| SecureKey | BMO, CIBC, RBC, Scotiabank, TD and Desjardins backed common digital identity infrastructure. | The institutions invested C$27 million in SecureKey in 2016. Its Canadian verification capabilities later became part of Interac. Interac Verified handled 544 million transactions in 2025. |
| Symcor | BMO, RBC and TD combined cheque processing that had previously been handled separately. | The collaboration consolidated 21 processing sites to seven and put the banks on one technology platform. |
| CanDeal Third Party Risk | All six major banks are working with CanDeal on common third party due diligence and compliance processes. | The banks and CanDeal announced their investment in February 2026. The amount wasn't disclosed and the project is still publicly described as a pilot, so there isn't a verified outcome yet. |
Interac began in 1984 because customers needed access to cash beyond their own bank's machines. Four decades later, the same network supports everyday payments and money transfers at national scale. The banks didn't need six incompatible cash networks to compete for customers.
The identity example required actual shared capital. BMO, CIBC, RBC, Scotiabank, TD and Desjardins put C$27 million into SecureKey in 2016 to commercialize a common digital identity network. Interac later acquired the Canadian rights to SecureKey's digital ID services, including Verified.Me. Interac Vrified processed 544 million transactions in 2025.
Symcor example highlights the cost argument more directly. When BMO, RBC and TD combined cheque processing in 1996, the operation cut 21 processing sites to seven while moving the banks onto one technology platform. Customers still chose among competing banks. The repetitive work behind cheque processing no longer had to be reproduced three times.
The Big Six returned to that model this year. In February, they invested with CanDeal in a common third party risk solution intended to reduce repeated supplier checks and standardize due diligence. CanDeal hasn't disclosed how much the banks invested or published enough results to judge the pilot yet.
Banks can share the plumbing where duplication adds cost, then compete on products, pricing, service and customers.
Tokenized deposits make the shared infrastructure question more practical. One bank can digitize its own deposits, but interbank use requires agreement on how the claim is preserved, how compliance controls apply and how settlement is completed. That is where common rules become necessary.
Interac's history also shows how access can impact a shared network. The Competition Bureau previously challenged Interac's restrictions that limited competitors' access to the network. The resulting agreement widened participation and required access to the technical information needed to connect. Later changes gave Interac an independent board and a for profit structure while keeping access open and non-discriminatory.
That history makes the new partnership's promise to include other deposit taking institutions worth watching. Access rules haven't been published yet. The eventual treatment of smaller banks, credit unions and other eligible institutions could determine whether the project becomes widely useful Canadian infrastructure or mainly a shared capability for its six founding banks.
See How Canada Started Opening Its Financial Infrastructure
That question is more relevant now than it would have been a few years ago. Payments Canada has widened membership, regulated payment service providers have entered federal supervision, consumer driven banking is being implemented and Canada has enacted a stablecoin framework. A new tokenized deposit system would be entering a financial market where more firms are gaining roles in payments, data and digital money.
How Other Markets Are Testing Tokenized Bank Money
Banks and payment networks elsewhere are already testing different ways to keep commercial bank money useful as financial activity becomes more programmable.
| Initiative | Current Scale Or Stage | What It Adds To The Comparison |
| Kinexys by J.P. Morgan | More than US$4 trillion processed since inception and about US$7 billion daily. | A single global bank has already taken blockchain based payments, settlement and tokenization into production at substantial volume. |
| Citi Token Services | Live 24 hours a day across participating Citi markets. | Citi uses tokenized bank money for near real time cross border payments and liquidity transfers inside its own network. |
| Great British Tokenised Deposits | Seven banks and building societies participating in a live industry pilot. | The UK is testing shared tokenized deposits against marketplace payments, remortgaging and digital asset settlement rather than leaving the use cases theoretical. |
| The Clearing House | Owned by 25 large U.S. financial institutions and developing interbank clearing and settlement for tokenized commercial bank money. | The model connects tokenized deposits with existing RTP and CHIPS payment infrastructure and says banks of all sizes will be able to participate. |
| BankChain Alliance | Thirty nine U.S. state banking associations are developing bank owned blockchain infrastructure targeted for 2027. | The proposed ownership model is designed to give community and regional banks a role in common digital money infrastructure. |
The UK project is interesting because it's testing specific jobs that tokenized deposits could do. Those include marketplace payments, remortgaging and digital asset settlement. UK Finance and EY identified more than 40 potential business benefits and estimated that tokenized deposits could generate more than £3 billion in economic benefit.
The U.S. examples take different approaches. J.P. Morgan and Citi have built their own bank networks for institutional clients. The Clearing House is taking a shared industry approach so tokenized commercial bank money can clear between institutions and connect with payment systems that already exist.
Canada hasn't yet said which structure it plans to use. The Big Six partnership could become a common platform, a set of interoperable bank issued tokens or something else. Canada's earlier bank partnerships show that sharing core infrastructure can reduce duplication. The international examples also show that the real test will be whether the system supports useful transactions at scale.
The Big Six partnership will be judged by whether it can support useful transactions at lower cost and with less duplication than existing systems.
Talking Point
Canada's largest banks have successfully shared payment, identity, processing and risk infrastructure before. Can they do the same with tokenized deposits while giving enough institutions access for the partnership to become useful national infrastructure?
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
3 Best Criminal Lawyers in Calgary for Impaired Driving Charges
September 23, 2026
An impaired driving charge in Calgary can cost you your licence, your job, and your insurance rate within days of the traffic stop. The three best criminal lawyers in Calgary for impaired driving charges listed below all defend DUI, over 80, and refusal cases in Alberta courts. Each one is picked for courtroom experience, clear pricing, and a track record with driving-related charges.
Before the list, it helps to know what you are actually facing.
What Happens After an Impaired Driving Charge in Alberta?
Most drivers in Alberta face two separate processes after an impaired driving stop: a roadside sanction from the province and a possible criminal charge under the Criminal Code of Canada.
Immediate Roadside Sanctions (IRS). Alberta police can issue an administrative penalty on the spot. An IRS FAIL penalty usually brings a $1,000 fine, a 90-day licence suspension, and a 30-day vehicle seizure. You dispute it through SafeRoads Alberta, and the window to do that is short. [CONFIRM: current SafeRoads review deadline before publishing]
Criminal charges. Police can also lay a charge under section 320.14 of the Criminal Code. Common charges include:
- Impaired operation: driving while your ability is impaired by alcohol, drugs, or both.
- Over 80: a blood alcohol concentration of 80 mg or more per 100 mL of blood within two hours of driving.
- Refusal: failing or refusing to give a breath or blood sample when lawfully demanded.
A first conviction carries a mandatory minimum fine of $1,000, rising to $2,000 for a refusal, plus a driving prohibition and a criminal record. A lawyer can look at whether the stop was lawful, whether the breath demand was valid, and whether the testing followed the rules.
1. Wyman & Williamson
Wyman & Williamson is a Calgary criminal defence firm led by two senior lawyers, James Wyman and Jillian Williamson, who defend impaired driving, over 80, and refusal charges alongside a full criminal practice. James was called to the Alberta bar in 2010 and has argued before the Supreme Court of Canada. Jillian graduated from the University of Calgary Faculty of Law and was called in 2013.
The firm appears almost daily in the Alberta Court of Justice and the Court of King's Bench. That matters for impaired driving files, because most of these cases are decided by how well a lawyer knows local Crown prosecutors and the Charter arguments that apply to roadside stops and breath demands.
Why it stands out for impaired driving charges:
- Speed on roadside sanctions. The firm tells drivers to call the same day they receive a Notice of Administrative Penalty, since the dispute window is so short.
- Resolution first. Their approach is to find weaknesses in the Crown's disclosure, such as an unlawful search or a gap in the evidence, and push for a withdrawal or reduced charge before trial.
- Trial-ready files. When a case has to be fought, they prepare it from day one with Charter applications and cross-examination.
- Clear pricing. One flat fee per matter, no hourly billing, and monthly payment plans. Legal aid certificates are accepted on a limited basis.
- Free first hour. A full one-hour consultation, not a quick screening call.
The firm reports more than 2,000 cases defended and 185+ five-star Google reviews. It also publishes its case results, including the charge, the court, and the outcome, so you can check its work before you call.
Serves: Calgary, Airdrie, Canmore, Drumheller, Red Deer, Lethbridge, Edmonton, plus courts in Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
Best for: Drivers who want senior lawyers, a flat fee, and a firm that handles both the roadside sanction and the criminal charge.
2. Dunn & Associates
Dunn & Associates is a downtown Calgary criminal defence firm whose lawyers regularly handle impaired driving, dangerous driving, and DUI appeals. The firm is led by Greg Dunn, and lawyer Vince Semenuk handles a large share of its driving-related files.
Client feedback for the firm points to results on driving charges specifically. Former clients describe impaired and dangerous driving charges being successfully defended, DUI charges being dropped, and appeals being taken forward when the first result was not the right one.
Why it stands out for impaired driving charges:
- Driving cases at every stage. The firm handles files from the first court appearance through trial and appeal.
- Clear communication. Clients often mention being walked through each step and given realistic expectations.
- Central location. The office sits on 6 Avenue SW, a short distance from the Calgary Courts Centre.
Contact: 801 6 Ave SW, Suite 2610, Calgary, AB T2P 3W2. Phone: 403-233-0443.
Best for: Drivers facing impaired or dangerous driving charges who may need an appeal as well as a trial defence.
3. Wilson Criminal Defence
Wilson Criminal Defence is a Calgary criminal defence practice led by Cory Wilson that handles impaired driving charges and Immediate Roadside Sanctions disputes. The firm works out of Chadwick House on 14 Street SW, just outside the downtown core.
See: Calgary’s Modular Raises Key Insurtech Funding Round
Clients describe Cory Wilson as direct and responsive, with regular email updates throughout a case. Reported results include a successful outcome on an IRS roadside sanction and criminal charges thrown out at trial.
Why it stands out for impaired driving charges:
- Handles the provincial side too. The firm takes on IRS disputes, which run separately from the criminal charge.
- Trial experience. Clients report cases being taken to trial and won, not only resolved by plea.
- Honest assessments. Former clients say they were told plainly what to expect from the start.
Contact: Chadwick House, 1842 14 St SW, Main Floor, Calgary, AB T2T 3S9. Phone: 403-978-6052.
Best for: Drivers who want a lawyer to fight both a roadside sanction and a criminal impaired driving charge.
How to Choose an Impaired Driving Lawyer in Calgary
The right impaired driving lawyer in Calgary is one who does criminal defence full time and has taken driving cases to trial. Ask these questions at your consultation:
- How many impaired driving or over 80 cases have you handled? A general practice lawyer may not know the breath testing rules in detail.
- Will you also handle my SafeRoads dispute? The roadside sanction and the criminal charge run on separate tracks.
- Is your fee flat or hourly? A flat fee lets you know the full cost up front.
- Who will actually appear in court for me? Some firms pass files to junior lawyers.
- What are the realistic outcomes for my case? A good lawyer will give you an honest range, not a promise.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an impaired driving charge be dropped in Alberta?
An impaired driving charge in Alberta can be withdrawn or stayed when the evidence has problems, such as an unlawful stop, an invalid breath demand, or delays that breach your Charter rights. Whether that applies depends on the facts in the Crown's disclosure, so a lawyer needs to review the file first.
Do I need a lawyer for a first-offence DUI in Calgary?
A lawyer is strongly recommended for a first-offence DUI in Calgary, because a conviction brings a criminal record, a minimum $1,000 fine, and a driving prohibition. Many first-time drivers have defences they do not know about until a lawyer reviews the evidence.
How much does an impaired driving lawyer cost in Calgary?
Impaired driving lawyer fees in Calgary depend on whether the case resolves early or goes to trial. Some firms, including Wyman & Williamson, charge a flat fee with payment plans instead of hourly rates. Ask for the full cost in writing at your first consultation.
Should I talk to police after an impaired driving arrest?
You should speak to a lawyer before giving any statement to police after an impaired driving arrest. You have the right to contact counsel, and anything you say can be used as evidence.
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
