Opinion: Beyond binding authority — improving Canada’s complaint-handling system

The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) are proposing a refined framework that will grant the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI) the authority to issue binding compensation decisions. This reform, long recommended by independent experts, represents an important corrective to a system that has allowed financial firms to disregard fair and reasoned decisions without serious consequences.

While the refined framework represents a necessary step forward, its over-engineered design reflects the many compromises made to overcome governmental hesitation and industry opposition. A policy initiative that began with a clear objective — to guarantee consumers fair redress without relying on firms’ voluntary compliance — has evolved into a heavily structured process marked by layered procedures, multiple adjudicative stages and extensive oversight requirements.

Still, considering political and jurisdictional constraints, this version of binding authority is the most practical outcome available at this time. Further attempts to refine or recalibrate the framework would, at best, yield diminishing returns while distracting from more pressing priorities.

It is time to proceed with implementation and turn our attention to the broader task ahead: building a modern, accessible complaint-handling system. As that work proceeds, future oversight should be calibrated to support effectiveness by enhancing efficiency and responsiveness, rather than creating additional procedural burdens.

Despite the significance of binding authority, it will not resolve the more fundamental weaknesses that continue to define Canada’s redress landscape. Even with this reform in place, consumers will remain subject to a fragmented and opaque system. Navigating the complaint process often requires moving between internal firm procedures, multiple ombuds services and an array of provincial and federal regulators, each with distinct rules, timelines and jurisdictions. This complexity obscures accountability, discourages complaints and inhibits regulators from identifying and addressing emerging risks.

Moreover, the refined framework does little to strengthen the system’s ability to detect and respond to systemic issues. OBSI is uniquely positioned to identify patterns of misconduct and product deficiencies through its intake and investigation of individual complaints. However, without a clear mandate, dedicated resources and appropriate reporting frameworks, its ability to contribute to regulatory intelligence remains underutilized.

Systemic reform

If Canada is to achieve a redress model that is both credible and effective, it must look beyond institutional fixes and toward system-level reform. This means moving toward a unified, consumer-facing platform that offers a single point of access across all financial services sectors — banking, securities, insurance and beyond.

It means standardizing procedures, modernizing digital interfaces and ensuring that complaint processes are navigable regardless of product, provider or jurisdiction.

A national complaints portal — multilingual, accessible and transparent — could provide real-time progress tracking, standardized timelines and automatic escalation when firms fail to respond. It would also generate publicly available data on complaint volumes, resolution times and systemic patterns — supporting both consumer awareness and regulatory accountability.

Such a system would not only streamline redress but would also enhance investor protection and market conduct oversight. Importantly, it would allow ombuds services like OBSI to focus on resolving disputes and contributing to systemic risk detection, rather than navigating increasingly complex governance obligations.

In short, binding authority should be understood as a point of departure, not a destination. The priority now must be to design a redress framework that delivers fairness, accessibility and transparency at scale.

Canadians deserve a complaint-handling system that reflects the complexity of modern financial markets while remaining intelligible and responsive to those it is meant to serve. The path forward begins with implementing binding authority — but it cannot end there.