Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
September 25, 2026 | NCFA Fintech Intelligence Question | Artificial Intelligence And Data, Risk Compliance And Regtech, Payments Infrastructure And Money Movement

On September 15, 2026, TypeSafe AI introduced Jev, an AI model built to make structured decisions inside software rather than write free form answers for people. Instead of generating prose, it returns predefined choices with probabilities and confidence scores.
TypeSafe calls Jev a System One Model and argues that this approach is better suited to autonomous software. That's the company's thesis, not an established industry conclusion. TypeSafe produced the benchmarks but acknowledges limitations in its testing and says Jev can still make wrong decisions.
AI agents can already read brokerage accounts, prepare trades, open wealth accounts, hold digital money and make payments. Giving an agent access is one thing. Letting it decide what to do with someone's money carries a different level of responsibility.
Do autonomous financial agents need a different AI architecture?
As agents progress from answering questions to spending, trading and making decisions, an error can become an action before a person sees it. If one AI interprets the request, makes the judgment and initiates the transaction, several distinct financial controls can end up depending on the same model.
Some firms are already separating what an agent understands from what it is allowed to do and what ultimately gets executed. The unanswered part is whether financial judgment should also be separated from the general purpose language model.
A specialized decision model is one option. An LLM with constrained outputs, external permissions and conventional software making the final call is another. There isn't enough independent testing in regulated financial workflows to know which approach performs better.
NCFA has already tracked AI's growing compliance burden, agents entering governed financial workflows and consent and liability when AI makes payments. Those controls become more consequential once an agent can act on a financial decision rather than simply recommend one.
Click each item to expand
Form3's Model Context Protocol adaptor gives authorized AI agents access to payment information through a controlled interface. Initial access is read only, and the agent stays outside the payment flow.
An agent can investigate a payment or help someone understand what happened without gaining the authority to send money. Form3 has separated access from execution at the infrastructure level.
OneVest launched agentic account opening for Canadian wealth firms on September 23. Its agents coordinate onboarding across custodians, track progress and handle administrative work that normally moves between people and systems.
Advisors and operations teams remain in control, and the system preserves an audit trail. The launch doesn't indicate that the agent independently approves a client or makes the final suitability decision.
GoCardless processed an AI driven account to account payment on September 22 through work developed in the FCA AI Live Testing programme.
The agent completed the transaction inside an AI conversation, but its authority came from an existing Direct Debit mandate. It could handle more of the transaction without receiving an open ended right to move money.
Mastercard, Flybits and Rogers Bank announced a completed Canadian agentic commerce transaction on September 21.
A Rogers Red Mastercard holder gave the Flybits powered assistant instructions and a spending limit. The agent selected an eligible product and completed the purchase using Mastercard Agent Pay.
The AI chose and paid, but only inside authority the customer had already defined.
TypeSafe describes Jev as its first System One Model. A developer defines the possible output types in advance. Jev returns a decision with probabilities and a measure of confidence rather than generating an unrestricted text response.
A response can therefore be perfectly formatted and still be wrong, an important distinction when the output can trigger a financial action.
Questrade's MCP connection lets approved AI agents work with brokerage account data and prepare orders when trading permission is enabled.
The customer still reviews the security, direction, order type, quantity, price, estimated cost and commission before submitting the trade. The agent can do much of the work without getting the final say.
Circle Agent Stack gives AI agents wallets that can hold and move USDC without asking a person to approve every transaction.
Developers can limit spending, restrict services, use allowlists and put time limits around an agent's authority. The agent may decide that it wants to pay, while the wallet determines whether that payment is permitted.
Click each item to expand
The Monetary Authority of Singapore and industry participants published Safeguards for Agentic Finance at Runtime, or SAFR, on July 3.
SAFR examines controls that operate while an agent is active, including whether its actions comply with policy, whether a transaction can be stopped, what records are kept and whether controls work across different systems.
Those safeguards operate outside the model rather than depending on the agent to police itself.
As financial agents gain access to accounts and transactions, governance extends beyond whether the model gives a good answer. Firms also need approved data, permissioned tools, review points, records, escalation and someone accountable when things go wrong.
Once an agent can act, the choice of which AI makes a financial decision becomes part of that control structure.
An April IMF Note divides agentic payments into three parts: intent, authorization and settlement.
AI can interpret what someone wants and turn that request into instructions. A separate authorization layer checks mandates, permissions and regulatory requirements before the approved transaction reaches payment infrastructure for settlement.
The IMF doesn't argue that LLMs should be replaced. Its model separates probabilistic AI from some of the controls governing the transaction.
There isn't one financial agent architecture yet. Form3 stops at information. Questrade lets an agent prepare a trade. OneVest automates much of an account opening. Circle lets agents spend within wallet rules. GoCardless and Mastercard take agents into live payments, but inside authority established before the transaction.
None of those examples establishes a need for specialized decision models. An LLM with strong permissions and conventional software controls may be enough for many jobs.
A fraud decision can be uncertain even when the permitted actions are tightly controlled. The available actions may be tightly defined even when the right answer isn't obvious: approve it, reject it, ask for more information or send it to a person. A model designed to choose among those outcomes and report its confidence could have a role between language interpretation and a hard software rule.
A model can perform well across thousands of decisions and still get one customer's transaction badly wrong. In credit, fraud, sanctions, trading or client money, the consequences of that one decision can matter more than the average benchmark.
Financial firms already separate customer instructions, risk decisions, permissions, execution and records. As AI enters governed financial workflows, firms have to decide which of those jobs AI should perform and which should remain outside its discretion.
Adoption by regulated firms would test TypeSafe's benchmarks against real credit, fraud, trading and payment decisions. Independent testing could then compare specialized models with LLM based agents and conventional systems, especially where a wrong decision can cost someone money.
Regulators may influence the architecture without choosing the model. Requirements that separate interpretation from authorization, limit an agent's authority or send uncertain decisions to a person could favour some designs over others. Those boundaries are already part of the debate around AI payment consent and liability.
LLMs may keep improving while structured outputs, wallet controls and policy engines handle the hard boundaries. Specialized models could prove valuable for particular financial decisions without becoming standard infrastructure. Understanding a customer's instruction is one job. Deciding whether their money should move can be another.
Do you agree the evidence supports this answer?
Click Agree or Disagree. Your vote is recorded anonymously and aggregate results are tracked.

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 25, 2026

Entrepreneurs are trained to manage uncertainty. They build forecasts with incomplete data, make decisions under pressure and keep teams moving through shifting market conditions.
Divorce creates a different kind of uncertainty.
Legal questions become entangled with parenting, housing, cash flow, business ownership and emotionally charged communication. Meanwhile, the company does not pause. Employees still need decisions, investors expect updates, customers require support and the next financing milestone remains on the calendar.
For founders, executives and technology professionals, divorce is not only a private family matter. It can become a leadership, financial and operational risk event. Managing it well requires more than working longer hours or applying the same intensity used to solve a product problem.
It requires the right advisory team, disciplined communication and a system for making consequential decisions without allowing personal conflict to consume the business.
A salaried employee may have income, savings and retirement accounts to consider. A founder’s financial life can include far more moving parts:
A company may appear valuable on a pitch deck without producing much personal liquidity. Conversely, an early-stage equity position that seems speculative today could become valuable after a financing, acquisition or public offering.
How these assets are treated depends on the facts and the applicable provincial or territorial law. A founder should not assume that shares registered in one person’s name, assets held digitally or property accumulated through a corporation are automatically excluded from the divorce process.
Early advice from qualified legal, tax and valuation professionals is essential.
Divorce involves several kinds of problems, and no single professional is meant to solve all of them.
A family lawyer provides legal advice and represents the client’s interests. An accountant or business valuator may analyze corporate income, ownership and value. A tax professional can identify the consequences of proposed transfers or settlement options. A therapist supports mental health and deeper emotional healing.
A divorce coach fills a different role. Coaching can help a client organize priorities, prepare for professional meetings, improve difficult communication and remain focused on practical next steps.
Busy professionals exploring this type of support can learn more from Heidi Dinning, a certified divorce coach and family communications expert who works with clients on divorce strategy, high-conflict communication, co-parenting and preparation for mediation or legal proceedings.
A coach does not replace a lawyer, accountant, valuator or therapist. The value comes from helping the client use each professional more effectively.
Founders rarely begin due diligence by searching through random email threads five minutes before a meeting. The same discipline should apply to divorce preparation.
Create a secure inventory of relevant personal and business records. Depending on professional advice, that may include:
This is an organizational step, not an invitation to copy confidential corporate information without authorization. Founders should ask legal counsel how to preserve relevant records while respecting company obligations, employee privacy and securities requirements.
Information should be collected transparently and lawfully. Concealing, deleting or transferring assets can create serious legal and credibility problems.
Divorce generates messages that feel urgent because they are emotionally uncomfortable. Not every message requires an immediate reply.
Entrepreneurs who are accustomed to rapid decision-making may respond too quickly, especially when a text or email feels unfair. That reaction can intensify conflict and create a written record that is difficult to explain later.
Before responding, ask:
A divorce coach can help a client review communication patterns, identify triggers and draft a clear response without turning every disagreement into a legal escalation.
This creates a valuable pause between reaction and action.
Founders make high-stakes decisions every day, but divorce can reduce the mental capacity available for those decisions. Sleep disruption, fear and repeated conflict make it harder to assess trade-offs objectively.
A useful approach is to divide decisions into three categories.
These can be adjusted with limited consequences, such as changing a weekly scheduling system or choosing where routine information will be shared.
These involve meaningful financial or parenting effects and should be considered carefully with the appropriate adviser.
Selling shares, transferring property, accepting a settlement or making public statements about the separation may create lasting consequences. These decisions should not be made simply to end an uncomfortable conversation.
The speed valued in a startup is not always an advantage in a divorce. Good leadership sometimes means slowing the process down long enough to obtain reliable information.
Personal disruption becomes a company problem when too many operational decisions depend on one person.
A founder navigating divorce should review what would happen if they were temporarily unavailable. This does not require sharing private details with the entire team. It requires ensuring that the company is not dependent on the founder answering every question in real time.
Consider:
If the divorce may affect ownership, governance, financing or disclosure obligations, the appropriate corporate and family-law advisers should be involved. The board may also need information when the issue creates a material risk, but disclosure should be deliberate and limited to what is professionally required.
Technology professionals often have a complicated digital footprint. Personal and corporate data may be spread across cloud storage, password managers, shared subscriptions, smart-home systems, cryptocurrency wallets and devices used for both work and family communication.
During separation, review digital access carefully without locking a spouse out of jointly owned property or interfering with information that must be preserved.
Useful steps may include:
Company IT staff should not be drawn into a personal dispute. If corporate security is potentially affected, involve the appropriate security or legal leader through a controlled process.
Lawyers, accountants and valuators are valuable because of their specialized expertise. Meetings are more productive when the client arrives with organized documents, clear questions and a defined objective.
Before each professional meeting, prepare a short brief:
A divorce coach can help build this agenda and organize the emotional noise surrounding the issue. This allows legal and financial professionals to concentrate on the work only they are qualified to perform.
Entrepreneurs are used to developing solutions quickly. Children experiencing a family separation may not need a solution in the moment. They may need time, reassurance and permission to have complicated feelings.
A parenting plan is not simply another operating agreement. It affects a child’s routines, relationships and sense of security.
Avoid treating time with children as a metric to be maximized or a negotiation to be won. Where it is safe and appropriate, keep children out of adult conflict, avoid using them as messengers and do not ask them to report on the other household.
Co-parenting coaching can help parents prepare for difficult conversations, establish workable communication practices and keep decisions centred on their children’s needs.
Legal complexity is not the only factor that makes divorce expensive. Repeated conflict can generate unnecessary correspondence, emergency meetings and negotiations over issues that might otherwise have remained manageable.
Watch for patterns such as:
A structured communication process can reduce confusion. Keep messages brief, address one subject at a time and separate factual requests from emotional commentary. When a response is not urgent, draft it and review it later.
The first days of separation can feel chaotic. A simple sequence can restore a degree of control:
A successful divorce strategy is not about eliminating emotion. That is unrealistic. It is about preventing emotion from driving every legal, financial and parenting decision.
For a busy founder or technology leader, the right support structure protects more than personal well-being. It preserves attention, improves the use of professional advice and reduces the likelihood that a private crisis will become an unmanaged business risk.
Entrepreneurs already understand the value of expert guidance in areas outside their specialization. Divorce should be approached with the same discipline. Build the team, organize the information, protect the company and create enough space to make decisions based on facts rather than fear.
This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal, financial, tax, investment or mental-health advice. Divorce and property laws vary by jurisdiction. Obtain advice from qualified professionals who understand your circumstances.
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 | Wealthtech And AI Operations, Risk Compliance And Regtech

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