Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
September 24, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Regulation And Policy, Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure, Wealthtech Investing And Trading, Risk Compliance And Regtech

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'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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
September 23, 2026 | NCFA News | Technology And Innovation, Startup And Venture Ecosystem, Events And Community, Canadian Tech Ecosystem

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.

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 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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |