INVESTOR RIGHTS MONITOR

Insights You Can Use, Advocacy You Can Trust.

March 2026


Looking Ahead: Our Policy Roadmap for 2026


At FAIR Canada, our work is driven by two straightforward questions: where are investors being treated unfairly, and how can we resolve these issues to improve investor outcomes? Answering these questions requires looking beyond individual cases to the root issues that persist across products, firms, and regulatory frameworks.


That is why we are outlining our ten policy priority areas for 2026. These priorities reflect investor protection themes that, based on our evidence and experience, warrant greater focus this year from ongoing weaknesses in complaint handling to the increasing risks faced by investors in private markets. Together, they identify where we see clear gaps in fairness, accountability, and outcomes, and where targeted policy measures would significantly benefit investors.


We see these priorities as a proactive framework for our advocacy and engagement with regulators, policymakers and other stakeholders. They are not meant to be a fixed or complete list. Instead, they offer a baseline for ongoing review, research, and discussion as markets develop, products become more complex, and investor behaviour continues to shift.



Our advocacy throughout the year will focus on these policy themes. At the same time, we understand that effective investor protection relies on a diversity of perspectives. If there are specific issues within these priority areas that you believe need urgent attention, I encourage you to reach out to me.


JP Bureaud, CEO, FAIR Canada


ADVOCACY IN ACTION

Special Feature The Hidden Issues with Uninvested Client Cash


Investors hold cash in their investment accounts from time to time, often without giving much thought to what happens with their money. What investors may not realize is that, in Canada, investment dealers are generally permitted to use uninvested client cash commonly referred to as “free credit balances” for their own business purposes, subject to regulatory limits. Mutual fund dealers, by contrast, are required to keep client cash fully segregated from their own assets.

 

International approaches to client cash vary. In the UK, all dealers must fully segregate client cash. In the US, are allowed to use client cash within prescribed limits. US dealers also commonly offer “cash sweep programs” to sweep cash into interest-bearing accounts, often held at an affiliated bank.

 

In both jurisdictions, regulators have raised concerns about how firms manage client cash. In 2023, the UK regulator flagged concerns with firms’ cash management practices and directed them to improve disclosure, ensure fair treatment of clients, and comply with their Consumer Duty obligations. In 2025, the SEC in the US took action against two large dealers alleging that they failed to adequately disclose conflicts of interest in their cash sweep programs and that they unfairly benefited from using client cash while higher-yielding alternatives were available to their clients. By contrast, Canadian regulators have been largely silent on how current industry practices involving client cash align with the enhanced disclosure and conduct standards introduced under the Client Focused Reforms.

 

What A Quick Scan Revealed

 

To better understand current practices in Canada, we reviewed publicly available information from the largest bank-owned investment dealers and found:

 

  • Most pay little or no interest on client cash balances.
  • All disclosed that they use, or may use, client cash for their own purposes.
  • Some suggested they may pay interest to clients, but did not do so.
  • In every case, disclosures failed to clearly explain that clients would receive little or no interest in exchange for the dealers using their cash.
  • One firm, that does not pay interest, advertised it offered “competitive” interest rates which is potentially misleading to investors.  

 

Practices Warranting Regulatory Attention


It is difficult to understand how such vague, incomplete and potentially misleading disclosures meet regulatory standards. However, our concerns go well beyond disclosure. In advisory accounts, we question if firms are meeting their suitability obligation where they pay no interest on cash balances when higher‑yield alternatives are readily available. Even more concerning, in fee‑based accounts clients may be paying advisory fees on their cash that their dealer is using for its own purposes. It is not evident how dealers are managing these conflicts in the client’s best interest or meeting their obligation to treat clients fairly, honestly and in good faith. 


What Needs to Change

 

To be clear, we are not suggesting that all dealers must fully segregate client cash. However, this is an area where regulators need to do more to enforce existing rules. At a minimum, this should include:

 

  • Excluding cash balances when calculating advisory fees in feebased accounts;
  • Requiring clear, plainlanguage disclosure explaining how client cash is used, how it benefits the clients, and what interest rate, if any, clients may receive;
  • Assessing the suitability of cash in advisory accounts, particularly where better options exist for clients; and
  • Reviewing dealer cashmanagement practices to determine whether they are in the client’s best interest.

 

A regulatory review of dealers’ use of client cash should be more than just a routine compliance exercise. With the implementation of Client Focused Reforms, it should prompt regulators to reassess long-standing industry practices from the investor’s perspective and to clarify what it truly means to act in the client’s best interest.

Accountability Matters: New Brunswick Takes a Step Toward Stronger Investor Protection 



New Brunswick has enacted legislation that would make decisions of the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI) binding on the parties and enforceable as court orders. This change would give OBSI’s decisions greater practical effect and marks an important development in the province’s investor protection framework. New Brunswick joins Saskatchewan as one of the few provinces to have passed legislation enabling binding outcomes through OBSI.


Binding decisions represent a shift from the current model, under which firms may choose not to follow OBSI’s recommendations. Giving decisions legal force can help reduce power imbalances between firms and investors and provide a more effective dispute resolution process, without requiring investors to pursue costly and time‑consuming court proceedings.

 

New Brunswick’s legislation aligns with ongoing efforts by the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) to move toward a binding complaint‑handling framework for investment disputes. That proposal depends on provinces and territories enacting the necessary legislative authority. In that respect, New Brunswick has taken a concrete step to support the broader policy direction under consideration across Canada.



FAIR Canada welcomes measures that strengthen accountability and improve outcomes for investors. We will continue to engage with governments and regulators to encourage consistent, well‑designed complaint‑handling frameworks that deliver fair, timely, and enforceable resolutions for investors across the country. 


REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS

Pushing Liquidity Risk Down to Those Who Can Least Afford It


The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) is continuing work on a project intended to expand retail investor access to longterm, illiquid assets including private equity, private debt, infrastructure, and other hardtosell investments through new or modified investment fund structures.

 

After consulting in October 2024 on a proposed Ontario LongTerm Asset Fund (OLTF), the OSC has shifted to its LongTerm Asset Fund Project, run through OSC LaunchPad. The initiative is designed to support and evaluate exemptive relief applications that could enable new products to come to market.

 

Liquidity Risks Are Well Known and That Is the Point

 

Importantly, the risks associated with illiquid investments are not new, nor are they misunderstood by regulators. On the contrary, securities regulators have long recognized that these products carry significant liquidity, valuation, and complexity risks. That recognition is precisely why access to private and illiquid assets has traditionally been limited, in most cases, to highnetworth or accredited investors individuals who are generally better positioned to absorb losses, withstand long lockup periods, and cope with the possibility that their money may not be available when they need it.

 

From an investor protection perspective, the core concern remains straightforward: illiquid assets and retail investors’ need for reliable access to their money often make a poor fit.

 

Longterm assets can be difficult to value and even harder to sell quickly. When too many investors seek redemptions at once particularly in stressed markets funds may limit withdrawals, delay redemptions, or suspend them altogether. For everyday investors facing job loss, illness, or family emergencies, restricted access to their own savings can create real hardship.


This Risk Is No Longer Theoretical


Since late 2022, a growing number of Canadian private funds and alternative investment vehicles have limited or suspended redemptions, including:

 

 

Taken together, these cases underline a hard truth: when illiquid products are sold with an implied promise of access on demand, that promise can disappear precisely when investors need liquidity most.

 

A Troubling Shift in Regulatory Direction

 

Against this backdrop, the troubling aspect of the OSC’s current initiative is not that it is exploring innovation, but that it risks shifting well‑understood liquidity risks onto a much broader population of retail investors including those least able to bear them.

 

While the OSC has acknowledged that it is still studying retail demand and investor experience, it is simultaneously facilitating product launches through exemptive relief. From an investor advocacy standpoint, this creates a real risk that the market moves ahead of the evidence before regulators have clearly answered critical policy questions about who these products are truly appropriate for, how they will be sold, what investors will be told (in plain language) about redemption limits and valuation uncertainty, and what happens when liquidity dries up.

 

Expanding access without fully resolving these questions risks undermining the very investor‑protection principles that have long justified keeping these products largely out of reach for the general public.


TOOLS YOU CAN USE

Spotlight on Fraud Prevention – And How You Can Play a Role


Fraud affects Canadians of all backgrounds and remains one of the most under‑reported sources of financial harm. If you’ve been targeted or victimized, one of the most important steps you can take is to report it even if you feel uncertain, embarrassed, or think the loss was too small to matter.


As part of Fraud Prevention Month, we want to highlight a key resource worth revisiting: the Government of Canada’s national fraud and cybercrime reporting portal. Canadians can report incidents online at https://reportcyberandfraud.canada.ca


Reporting matters because your information feeds into a national system that helps authorities spot patterns, link cases, and share intelligence across jurisdictions. Even if your report doesn’t lead to immediate action, it may provide a critical piece that helps prevent future harm. By taking a few minutes to report fraud, you’re not just speaking up for yourself - you’re helping protect others, too.

WHAT'S NEW AT FAIR

A Top‑Read at Maclean’s – FAIR Canada’s Article on Investor Fraud


We were pleased to see our op-ed piece recognized in Maclean’s “Big Ideas” ranking among the top ten most-read Maclean’s articles of 2025.



The piece tackles a critical investor protection gap: what happens when you’re defrauded by the firm or person who is supposed to act in your best interests. The op-ed points to Quebec’s fraud compensation fund as one practical example of how investors can be better protected when trust is broken, and why similar solutions deserve consideration across Canada.


At FAIR Canada, we continue to advocate for investor protection frameworks that recognize the central role trust plays and ensure meaningful safeguards are in place when that trust is abused.

We’d Love to Hear From You!

Do you have feedback on our newsletter or suggestions for topics you’d like us to write about? Your input is valuable and will help us improve our newsletter content for loyal subscribers like you. Please email us at info@faircanada.ca with your comments and/or suggestions.

Know someone who’d benefit? Forward this email.

X Share
LinkedIn Share