CAPL Webinars
Member Login

Become a member

Skip to content

Home
Webinars
Products
News
About CAPL
- About Us
- Advocacy
- Membership
- Founders
Contact

Oops! That page can’t be found.

It looks like nothing was found at this location. Maybe try a search?

Search for:

Search for:

Latest News

Canada’s New Financial Crimes Agency: What Bill C-29 Means for Businesses, Financial Institutions, and Enforcement

May 5, 2026

On April 27, 2026, the federal government introduced Bill C-29, the Financial Crimes Agency Act, marking a significant shift in Canada’s approach to financial crime enforcement. If passed, the legislation will establish the Financial Crimes Agency (FCA), a new specialized federal law enforcement body dedicated to investigating serious and complex financial crimes and contributing to the recovery of proceeds of crime. For years, Canada has faced criticism that its anti-money laundering and anti-fraud enforcement model has been too fragmented, with responsibilities spread across multiple agencies and relatively low rates of investigation, prosecution, and asset recovery in major financial crime cases. Bill C-29 is intended to change that. It signals a move toward a more centralized, specialized, and enforcement-focused model that treats financial crime not just as a regulatory issue, but as a matter of economic security and public confidence. What Bill C-29 Does At its core, Bill C-29 creates the Financial Crimes Agency as a new federal institution. The legislation gives the FCA a clear statutory mandate: to investigate financial crimes, contribute to the recovery of proceeds of crime, and participate in international efforts to counter crimes of a financial nature. The bill defines “financial crime” broadly. It includes offences involving money laundering, trafficking or possession of proceeds of crime, offences that affect the integrity or security of Canada’s economy or financial system, designated Criminal Code offences that generate proceeds of crime, and offences under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. That broad definition matters. It means the FCA is not limited to classic money laundering investigations. Its scope could extend to sophisticated fraud, investment scams, online financial crime, sanctions-related conduct, and other offences tied to illicit financial activity. The FCA will be headquartered in the National Capital Region, but the Commissioner will be able to establish offices elsewhere in Canada with ministerial approval. This gives the new agency a national footprint from the start. A New Enforcement Body with Real Police Powers One of the most important features of Bill C-29 is that the FCA is not being created as a policy or intelligence body alone. It is being designed as an operational law enforcement agency. The FCA will be led by a Commissioner appointed by the Governor in Council. The Commissioner will have the rank and powers of a deputy head and will also be a peace officer throughout Canada. The Commissioner will manage the agency under the direction of the Minister of Finance, and the Minister will be able to issue directions on matters that materially affect public policy or the strategic direction of the FCA. Those directions must be made public as soon as feasible. The legislation also allows the Commissioner to designate certain employees as investigations officers and, subject to regulations, as police officers. Employees designated as police officers will have peace officer powers across Canada. This is a material development. It confirms that the FCA will have frontline investigative authority rather than relying solely on referrals to existing police services. Bill C-29 also requires an arrangement between the FCA and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the RCMP to provide services and assistance to the new agency. In practice, that may help bridge operational gaps while the FCA builds its own capacity, and it reflects that the new agency is expected to work alongside — not wholly replace — existing enforcement institutions. Independent Investigations and Cross-Border Cooperation The bill gives the Commissioner authority to launch investigations in two ways: on the Commissioner’s own initiative, or at the request of, or in collaboration with, law enforcement agencies or public bodies in Canada or abroad. That authority is especially important in the modern financial crime environment, where fraud, laundering, sanctions evasion, and digital asset misconduct often involve multiple jurisdictions, fast-moving transactions, and layered corporate structures. The legislation also contemplates information-sharing arrangements and regulations governing the collection, retention, use, disclosure, and disposal of information. As a result, the FCA is likely to become a central node in Canada’s broader financial crime enforcement network, working with domestic and foreign partners where investigations intersect. Federal Prosecution Powers Could Expand Another noteworthy feature of Bill C-29 is its treatment of prosecutions. The legislation provides that the Attorney General of Canada may conduct proceedings for offences investigated under the Act if the alleged offence is a financial crime. It also allows the Attorney General of Canada to issue a fiat establishing exclusive federal authority over a prosecution in a province, taking into account factors such as whether the offence is transnational, spans more than one province, or engages the national interest. That is a meaningful power. It suggests the federal government wants the ability to centralize prosecution decisions in appropriate cases, particularly where investigations are complex, cross-border, or national in scope. Depending on how this power is used, it may become one of the more closely watched aspects of the legislation. Why This Matters for Business For businesses, financial institutions, fintech companies, payment service providers, crypto-asset businesses, and other organizations operating in higher-risk sectors, Bill C-29 is more than an institutional reform. It is a clear signal that financial crime enforcement in Canada is poised to become more specialized and more active. Organizations should expect: more sophisticated federal investigations into money laundering, fraud, and proceeds-of-crime issues; greater coordination between agencies; increased attention to transaction monitoring, sanctions compliance, and internal fraud controls; more scrutiny of complex structures, cross-border payment flows, and digital assets; and potentially stronger focus on asset tracing and recovery. In practical terms, this means legal, compliance, and investigations teams should be reviewing whether internal systems are robust enough to respond to heightened enforcement risk. Record retention, escalation protocols, suspicious activity reporting, internal investigations procedures, employee training, and privilege management may all become more important if the FCA begins operating as intended. Relationship with FINTRAC, the RCMP, and Other Agencies The FCA will not operate in a vacuum. Canada already has multiple bodies involved in financial crime risk, including FINTRAC, the RCMP, securities regulators, provincial Read more
Australia’s Alleged $3 Billion Mortgage Fraud Scandal: A Global Warning for Canada and Private Lenders

May 5, 2026

Australia is confronting what could become one of the largest mortgage fraud scandals in modern banking history: an alleged $3 billion home loan scheme involving organized criminal syndicates, suspected insider facilitation, and AI-generated financial documents. What makes this case especially notable is not just the scale. It is the method. According to reports, the fraud was not driven by crude document tampering or isolated bad actors. Instead, it allegedly combined sophisticated fake paperwork, professional facilitators, compromised channels inside the mortgage ecosystem, and money-laundering structures that exploited trust across banks, brokers, law firms, and property transactions. If the allegations are substantiated, this case may prove to be an important inflection point for mortgage lending not only in Australia, but internationally. For Canada, the takeaway is not panic — it is preparedness. From a $1 Billion Problem to an Alleged $3 Billion Scandal The issue first drew major attention when Commonwealth Bank reportedly identified around $1 billion in potentially fraudulent home loans and referred the matter to police. What initially appeared to be a serious but contained fraud event quickly widened. As other major lenders, including NAB and ANZ, reportedly reviewed their own loan books, the suspected scale of the problem grew sharply. Estimates have since risen to approximately $3 billion in allegedly fraudulent mortgages. That figure alone places the matter among the most significant mortgage fraud investigations Australia has ever seen. Why This Fraud Is Different Mortgage fraud is not new. Banks have long dealt with inflated incomes, fake employment references, and manipulated valuations. But this scandal appears different in three important ways. 1. AI-generated documents reportedly changed the game At the centre of the alleged scheme were AI-generated documents, including fake payslips, tax returns, bank statements, and other income-verification materials designed to look internally consistent and professionally formatted. Unlike older forgeries, these documents were reportedly not just visually convincing. They were allegedly built to match realistic tax calculations, income patterns, and account activity, making them far harder to detect through traditional manual review. In other words, this was not just document fraud. It was synthetic credibility. 2. The fraud allegedly exploited insiders and trusted intermediaries Reports suggest the scheme was not limited to external criminals submitting fake paperwork from outside the banking system. Authorities have alleged that it involved professional facilitators and, in some cases, insiders or former insiders with knowledge of how lending systems worked. That matters because mortgage fraud becomes far more dangerous when criminals understand how to avoid automated flags, route applications through weak controls, or bypass standard verification channels. 3. It appears to have been structured like organized financial crime This was not described as a handful of dishonest applicants overstating income to buy homes. Investigators have reportedly linked the activity to criminal syndicates using home loans as a vehicle for laundering money, moving proceeds, and embedding illicit funds into property transactions. That elevates the issue from credit fraud to systemic financial crime. The Alleged Mechanism: How the Fraud Worked While investigators will ultimately determine the precise facts, public reporting points to a layered fraud model. AI-generated financial identities The first layer was allegedly the creation of highly convincing financial profiles. Fake payslips, tax documents, and supporting records were generated to present borrowers as stronger and more creditworthy than they really were. These materials were reportedly designed to survive both visual scrutiny and basic cross-checking. Instead of sloppy edits, the documents allegedly told a complete story: salary, tax withheld, spending behaviour, and account balances all aligned to support the loan application. Submission through compromised or weak channels A second layer involved the loan submission process itself. Some reports have suggested that corrupt or compromised channels may have allowed applications or supporting documents to be sent outside normal audited systems, including informal methods such as direct email or messaging platforms. If true, this would be especially serious. Mortgage controls are strongest when documents move through official systems with traceability, verification, and access restrictions. Once those controls are bypassed, fraud risk rises sharply. Professional facilitators Authorities have reportedly charged or investigated individuals in accounting and legal circles who allegedly helped legitimize parts of the process. That kind of support is often critical in large financial frauds. False tax records, legal handling of funds, transaction structuring, and documentation support can all make fraudulent deals appear routine. The presence of professional facilitators also helps criminal networks scale faster and with less suspicion. Inflated valuations and straw borrowers Another reported element was the alleged use of inflated property valuations and stand-in borrowers, sometimes referred to as straw buyers or mules. In this model, a loan may be approved based on false borrower strength and an overstated property value, allowing larger sums to be borrowed than a legitimate transaction would support. The excess can then be diverted, concealed, or laundered through layered transactions. Operation Penthouse and the “Penthouse Syndicate” Australian Federal Police reporting has drawn attention to “Operation Penthouse,” an investigation targeting a criminal network allegedly embedded across parts of the banking, property, and legal sectors. Media reports have referred to this network as the “Penthouse Syndicate,” described as a group allegedly using fraudulent home loans as part of wider money-laundering and organized crime activity. Several individuals and entities have been publicly named in news coverage in connection with charges or allegations. Because these matters are highly sensitive and may still be before the courts, it is important to distinguish allegations from proven facts. Those named have been accused or charged in connection with aspects of the alleged scheme, but allegations are not findings of guilt. Fallout for Brokers, Banks, and Borrowers The effects of the scandal are already being felt far beyond the people directly under investigation. Mortgage brokers face reputational and operational damage One of the most striking industry consequences has been the reported fallout involving aggregator and sub-aggregator relationships. Finsure reportedly cut ties with sub-aggregator Hai Money after suspected fraudulent activity involving brokers linked to that network. As a result, hundreds of brokers reportedly found themselves in limbo, Read more
Canada has now passed a federal stablecoin framework—implementation is the next phase.

April 14, 2026

Bill C-15 (Budget Implementation Act) received Royal Assent on March 26, 2026, and includes a new Stablecoin Act establishing a federal, Bank of Canada–supervised regime for fiat-backed stablecoins used for payments (and as a store of value). The legislation is not fully in force yet; detailed regulations and the official in-force date are still to be finalized, with implementation expected in 2027. What’s in the framework: Bank of Canada supervision plus registration: issuers must register and comply with ongoing oversight and reporting. 1:1 reserves: full backing by high-quality liquid assets in the referenced currency, held with appropriate safeguards (including custody expectations). At-par redemption: a clear policy enabling holders to redeem at face value in the referenced fiat currency. No yield: the Act prohibits interest/yield paid to stablecoin holders. Scope: targets fiat-backed stablecoins used across provinces or internationally, while generally excluding closed-loop systems. Timeline / what to watch: Now (post–Mar 26, 2026): enabling work begins; industry engagement ramps up. 2026: draft regulations expected from the Department of Finance, typically published in the Canada Gazette for consultation. Anticipated 2027: in-force date and transitional runway for issuers and market participants. This also appears designed to complement Canada’s broader payments oversight architecture, including the Retail Payment Activities Act (RPAA), bringing more wallet providers and payment service providers into federal supervision. For teams building or issuing stablecoins in Canada, 2026 is likely the “get ready” year—particularly around reserve composition, custody/segregation, redemption operations, disclosures, and auditability.
Branch Offices vs. Home Offices (Residential Offices): What Changed Under the MSA—and What It Could Cost at Renewal

April 7, 2026

As brokerages transition from the former Mortgage Brokers Act approach to the Mortgage Services Act (MSA) framework, it’s important to distinguish between a licensed branch office and a “home office” (residential office). The distinction matters because it can drive separate licensing and renewal fees for each location. 1) “Branch Office” (licensed business premises) A branch office is a premises that is identified in your mortgage brokerage licence as a branch office from which the brokerage may provide mortgage services under the licence. Fee impact: If a location is licensed as a branch office, it can carry its own branch office licence and its own renewal fee—separate from the head office. 2) “Home Office” is treated as a “Residential Office” (a permitted type of office with added conditions) A “home office” is not a separate licence level. Under the MSA framework, it is generally treated as a “residential office,” which may be used as a head office or branch office only if: (a) the office is located in the residence of a related principal broker; and (b) applicable local government bylaws permit the business to be conducted from the residence. Additional restrictions can apply to residential offices, including: eligibility requirements for using a residence as a head office depending on the brokerage’s structure and ownership/control; and a limit that only two (2) licensees may be licensed in relation to a residential head office or residential branch office (subject to bylaws). Fee impact: If a residence is licensed on the brokerage’s licence as a branch office (i.e., a “residential branch office”), it may still trigger branch office licensing and renewal fees. In other words, calling it a “home office” does not necessarily avoid branch office cost exposure—what matters is how the location is licensed and used. 3) Don’t be caught off guard: branch renewals can multiply quickly Branch office licensing can materially increase renewal costs because the renewal fee applies per licensed location. BCFSA example (adapted): If a brokerage has one head office and three branch offices, and the renewal fee is $3,000 per licence, then renewal costs can total $12,000, calculated as: Head office renewal ($3,000) + Branch A renewal ($3,000) + Branch B renewal ($3,000) + Branch C renewal ($3,000) = $12,000. Fees to be aware of (subject to change by the regulator): Branch office licence application: approximately $3,100 Licence renewal (head office and each branch office): approximately $3,000 per licence 4) Practical recommendation (cost + compliance) To avoid paying for locations that don’t match your operations, we recommend brokerages review all locations currently registered and confirm: Is this a premise from which mortgage services are actually provided? If it is a residence, does it qualify as a residential office, and are the residential office restrictions met? Are any legacy locations (previously treated as “additional addresses”) still needed, or should they be removed/corrected to avoid unnecessary branch licensing and renewal fees later?
Consumer Protection Update: Requiring Bold, Signed Anti-Scam Disclosures in Canada

April 7, 2026

Too many Canadians are being scammed by fraudsters who impersonate banks with convincing calls, texts, and “security” prompts—then drain accounts in minutes. What’s especially troubling is what happens after: victims often learn that a quick “yes” to a verification text or an approved login prompt can be treated as “authorization” under the fine print, leaving them without reimbursement even though they were tricked. That’s why we’re asking the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) to require a simple but meaningful change: banks should be mandated to highlight, in bold and plain language—and with a separate signature or electronic acknowledgment at account opening and digital banking enrollment—that customers must never share passcodes or banking details, or approve prompts, in response to unsolicited communications. If the rules rely on consumer behaviour to prevent losses, the warnings should be impossible to miss. Letter below: Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) By email To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to recommend that the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) require federally regulated financial institutions to enhance the prominence and enforceability of consumer-facing warnings about scams that rely on unsolicited communications (calls, texts, emails, and in-app messages) to obtain credentials, one-time passcodes, or approvals. Recent reporting involving a Winnipeg consumer who was allegedly defrauded following a convincing “fraud department” impersonation illustrates an ongoing consumer protection gap: many consumers do not appreciate that a “yes” reply to a verification text, an approved push notification, or disclosure of a one-time passcode can be treated by a bank as customer-enabled authorization—potentially resulting in a denial of reimbursement under the account agreement. Whatever the merits of any individual case, the broader pattern is clear: contract terms allocating responsibility for safeguarding credentials often exist, but they are not sufficiently highlighted at the time consumers are most likely to absorb and remember them (account opening and digital banking enrollment). Recommendation: bold, signature-required disclosure at onboarding and digital banking enrollment I recommend that FCAC require banks to include a short, standardized, plain-language warning in account-opening agreements and digital banking terms that is: displayed in bold print (and not buried in general “security” language); presented as a separate “key risk” acknowledgment; and confirmed by a separate signature, initial, or equivalent electronic acknowledgment at the time of account opening and again upon digital banking/mobile app enrollment. Proposed mandatory disclosure (suggested language) For consistency across institutions, FCAC may wish to prescribe minimum wording similar to the following: IMPORTANT: UNSOLICITED CONTACTS AND SCAMS If you receive an unsolicited call, text, email, or message from someone claiming to be the bank, you must not share any banking information, passwords, PINs, one-time passcodes, or verification codes, and you must not approve any login or transaction prompts. The bank will not ask you to provide or confirm a one-time passcode or to approve a security prompt in response to an unsolicited communication. If you receive an unsolicited communication, hang up or stop responding and contact the bank using a trusted number (for example, the number on the back of your card or the bank’s official website). Customer Acknowledgment (signature required): I understand that I must never provide banking information or verification codes, or approve prompts, in response to unsolicited communications, even if the caller or message appears to be from my bank. Signature/Initial: ___________________________ Date: ___________________________ Purpose and consumer-protection rationale This recommendation is not intended to shift responsibility away from financial institutions to detect unusual activity. Instead, it is designed to ensure consumers receive a clear, memorable warning at the time it is most impactful, and to reduce foreseeable harm from increasingly sophisticated impersonation scams. A separate, bold, signature-required acknowledgment would: improve consumer understanding that one-time passcodes and approvals function like a digital signature; reduce disputes driven by misunderstanding of what constitutes “authorization” under banking agreements; strengthen incentives for banks to communicate consistent anti-scam guidance; and better align contract disclosure practices with real-world scam patterns, particularly those targeting seniors and other vulnerable consumers. Implementation considerations FCAC could consider requiring: standardized placement (e.g., within the first pages of the account-opening package and during digital banking enrollment flows); readability standards (minimum font size and plain-language drafting); a separate acknowledgment (not bundled with general consent); periodic re-acknowledgment (e.g., annually, and upon mobile app re-installation or device changes); and auditable records of acknowledgment for complaint resolution. Request I respectfully request that FCAC review this proposal and consider guidance and/or supervisory expectations requiring financial institutions to adopt prominent, signature-required disclosures addressing unsolicited communications and credential-sharing risks as part of retail account opening and digital banking enrollment. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Samantha Gale Chief Executive Officer Canadian Private Lenders Association
FSRA’s 2024–25 Enforcement Snapshot: Increased Actions, Stronger Gatekeeping

April 7, 2026

FSRA’s newly released Enforcement Annual Report (Fiscal 2024–25) offers a clear snapshot of how Ontario’s financial services regulator is stepping up oversight to protect consumers and strengthen market conduct. Enforcement activity increased in both volume and complexity, with 100 enforcement actions initiated (up from 65 the prior year) and 80 unique sanctions imposed across regulated sectors—most notably mortgage brokering and life & health insurance. The report highlights FSRA’s core tools—licence sanctions, compliance orders, and administrative monetary penalties—including approximately $1.2 million in AMPs imposed, and a growing emphasis on licensing suitability “gatekeeping,” supervision failures, and unlicensed activity. It also signals modernization of the enforcement function through upgraded case management and planned e-discovery capabilities, reinforcing FSRA’s focus on fair, proportionate, and transparent enforcement. Read more here.
Ontario’s HPA: What the New NOSI Rules Mean for Mortgage Brokers and Lenders

March 31, 2026

Ontario’s Homeowner Protection Act (HPA) took effect on June 6, 2024. It changes how certain notices can appear on a home’s title and removes a common source of last-minute surprises in mortgage deals. If you arrange mortgages or fund them, this matters because these notices used to slow down closings, create borrower stress, and sometimes push homeowners into paying fees they didn’t truly need to pay just to keep a transaction alive. The big change Before June 6, 2024, some companies that rented or financed home equipment—like water heaters, furnaces, and A/C units—would register a notice on the homeowner’s property title. That notice is called a Notice of Security Interest (NOSI). Now, under the HPA, these notices can’t be registered on title for consumer household equipment. In other words: equipment providers can’t use the land title system to pressure homeowners over ordinary household items. Why NOSIs caused problems in mortgage transactions Most homeowners didn’t even know a NOSI existed until they tried to sell or refinance. A NOSI isn’t the same thing as a mortgage, but in practice it often created the same type of panic: title searches would reveal the notice late in the process lenders wanted comfort that the title was “clean” lawyers had to figure out what the notice meant and how to remove it borrowers felt forced to pay large “buyout” amounts immediately Even when the company couldn’t take the home, the timing pressure was real. In a refinance, that pressure can be even worse because borrowers may be counting on funds to consolidate debt or meet urgent expenses. What changed for older NOSIs already on title The HPA doesn’t only apply going forward. It also helps deal with NOSIs that were registered before June 6, 2024 for household consumer items. The practical takeaway is: some older NOSIs that should never have been on title in the first place are now treated as ineffective, and there are processes to have those notices removed without the homeowner having to negotiate with the company that registered them. Your borrower’s real estate lawyer is the right person to confirm whether a NOSI is disqualified and to handle the removal steps through the Land Registry process. What this means for mortgage agents and brokers This change reduces one kind of closing problem—but it creates a new risk: people may assume that if the notice is gone (or removable), the debt is gone too. That’s not always true. So your best practice is to focus on two separate issues: Title issue: Is there a notice on title that affects closing? (Often easier now for household items.) Contract issue: Does the borrower still owe money under a rental/lease/financing contract? (Still possible.) Practical steps you can build into your process Ask early if the property has rented/financed equipment (water heater, HVAC, water treatment). Get the paperwork early: contract, account statements, buyout terms. If the borrower is being pressured with “you can’t close unless you pay,” encourage them to speak with their lawyer to confirm what’s actually required. Keep clear notes in the file—especially if a borrower is deciding whether to pay, dispute, or remove a notice. What this means for lenders and underwriters Lenders should see fewer last-minute title surprises caused by household equipment NOSIs. But lenders and lawyers are still cautious for a reason: No notice on title doesn’t guarantee there’s no equipment debt. This is why some transactions now involve: more detailed questions about rental items requests for proof of ownership or buyout confirmation PPSA searches (searches for security interests registered against the person/company name, not the land) This can feel like “more paperwork,” but it’s often about preventing a borrower from inheriting a messy equipment dispute after closing. A common misconception to avoid: “If it’s not on title, it doesn’t matter.” This is the biggest trap. Even if equipment companies can’t use NOSIs on title anymore for consumer goods, borrowers can still face: collections activity under the contract credit reporting disputes claims about returning equipment or paying a buyout conflicts after a purchase when a buyer didn’t realize an item was rented So while the HPA reduces title leverage, it doesn’t eliminate the need for good disclosure and good diligence. What you can tell clients Here’s a simple way to explain it to a borrower: “This new law makes it harder for equipment companies to put notices on your home’s title for things like water heaters.” “But if you signed a contract, you may still owe money under that contract.” “Your lawyer can confirm whether anything on title is removable and what we actually need to do to close.” That messaging helps clients stay calm while still taking the issue seriously. Quick checklist for mortgage files Use this as a practical closing tool: Confirm if any household equipment is rented/financed. Collect contracts and buyout/ownership terms. Flag any equipment disputes early (before commitment / funding). If a NOSI is found or claimed, send it to borrower’s counsel to confirm whether it’s disqualified and removable. Don’t assume “pay it off” is the only solution—especially if the notice is no longer effective. Bottom line The HPA is a positive change for Ontario mortgage transactions. It should reduce last-minute title issues tied to water heaters, HVAC rentals, and similar household equipment. But mortgage professionals still need to manage the underlying contract risk by asking the right questions early and making sure borrowers get proper legal advice when a notice or demand letter appears. Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Legal advice depends on the facts of your situation. If you have questions about a NOSI, a title issue, or an equipment contract, speak to an Ontario lawyer.
Strong Borders Act AML reforms — what mortgage lenders and brokers in Canada need to know

March 31, 2026

Canada’s anti-money laundering (AML) rules just got sharper teeth—and mortgage lenders and brokers are squarely in the spotlight. Over the past two years, the federal government has moved from signalling major AML reform to enacting it. In 2024, the government previewed a significant strengthening of Canada’s AML framework. That preview became a concrete legislative proposal on June 3, 2025, when Parliament introduced the Strong Borders Act (Bill C‑2). Many of those measures are now law under Bill C‑12, which received Royal Assent on March 26, 2026 on an expedited timeline. For businesses regulated under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and supervised by FINTRAC, the impact is straightforward: higher expectations, higher enforcement risk, and dramatically higher penalties. For mortgage lenders and brokers, that means AML compliance needs to be operationally embedded across the origination and funding process—not treated as a back-office formality. The “then”: what Bill C‑2 signalled (June 10, 2025 context) When Bill C‑2 was introduced in June 2025, it was positioned as a watershed moment for Canada’s AML regime. The proposed PCMLTFA amendments and regulatory changes were expected to shift the compliance landscape in two major ways: Universal FINTRAC enrolment for reporting entities, paired with significantly higher penalties for AML non-compliance; and A proposed prohibition on receiving cash payments of C$10,000 or more for business purposes (and, for charities, as a donation), subject to exemptions in regulations. Bill C‑2 also proposed broader reforms to strengthen Canada’s ability to investigate and prevent money laundering, including measures that would expand information access and sharing in certain contexts. Importantly for the mortgage sector, Bill C‑2 explicitly identified mortgage administrators, mortgage brokers and mortgage lenders as part of the population that would be impacted by FINTRAC enrolment requirements—underscoring the government’s view that mortgage-related activity is a key AML risk channel. The “now”: Bill C‑12 is law (Royal Assent March 26, 2026) Bill C‑12 has now enacted significant amendments to Canada’s AML regime. Some key elements are already in effect, and others (including universal FINTRAC enrolment) are enacted but not yet in force. Either way, the practical direction of travel is clear: FINTRAC is being given more tools, and reporting entities are being held to a higher standard of day-to-day compliance. Below are the changes most likely to affect mortgage lenders and brokers. 1) Penalties are dramatically higher—and can compound quickly The headline change that gets boardrooms and principals’ attention is the revised administrative monetary penalty (AMP) framework. Bill C‑12 increases maximum AMPs by roughly 40 times the previous levels. Per violation, the maximums are now: Minor: up to $40,000 Serious: up to $4 million Very serious: up to $20 million In the mortgage context, this matters because AML issues often arise at the file level—and regulators don’t necessarily view problems as a single “event.” A recurring gap across multiple borrowers or transactions (for example, inconsistent identity verification, missing beneficial ownership documentation, or poor third-party determination records) can create multiple violations, increasing exposure. There is also a significant corporate-structure angle: in some cases, penalty caps may be assessed by reference to global income (for individuals) or global corporate group revenue (for entities). For mortgage businesses that are part of larger groups—particularly those with affiliates outside Canada—this can materially increase theoretical downside. 2) FINTRAC can require formal remediation—on a clock Bill C‑12 introduces a mandatory compliance agreement regime tied to prescribed violations. In practice, that means if FINTRAC penalizes a reporting entity for a prescribed violation, FINTRAC will require the business to enter into a compliance agreement setting out what must be fixed and by when. If the entity refuses to enter the agreement, or fails to meet its terms, FINTRAC must issue and publicize a compliance order. This has two major implications for mortgage lenders and brokers: Remediation becomes formal, time-bound, and enforceable, rather than a best-efforts exercise after an examination. Public compliance orders raise reputational and commercial risk, particularly for brokers whose business depends on referral sources and lender relationships, and for lenders reliant on funding partners and investor confidence. A breach of a compliance order is itself treated as a new violation, creating additional penalty exposure. 3) AML programs must be “effective,” not just documented Historically, many AML programs were built around formal requirements: policies and procedures, training, and a scheduled effectiveness review. Those pieces still matter, but Bill C‑12 raises the statutory standard. The PCMLTFA now requires an AML compliance program to be “reasonably designed, risk-based and effective.” In other words, FINTRAC is positioned to assess not only whether you have a program, but whether it actually works in practice. For mortgage lenders and brokers, “effective” tends to mean FINTRAC will expect evidence of consistent execution in the real origination process, including: reliable identity verification and recordkeeping practices, appropriate handling of beneficial ownership and corporate borrowers, clear third-party determination and documentation, escalation and decision-making processes for suspicious activity (with a defensible audit trail), and testing or quality assurance that finds issues and drives correction. This is also where many organizations get caught: strong policies, uneven execution—especially across multiple branches, agents, or broker networks. 4) Anonymous or obviously fictitious clients are expressly prohibited Bill C‑12 explicitly prohibits providing services to anonymous clients or clients using clearly fictitious names. For most mortgage professionals, this will sound like “common sense,” but it matters because it tightens the compliance narrative. Practices like “we’ll finalize ID later” or “we relied on someone else’s ID check” become harder to defend when the statute is explicit. The takeaway is less about edge cases and more about file discipline: if the identity verification isn’t done, documented, and retrievable, the file is a liability. 5) FINTRAC’s examination reach is broader Bill C‑12 also expands FINTRAC’s ability to examine records and inquire into the business and affairs not only of known reporting entities, but also of those it reasonably believes are reporting entities. This matters most for non-traditional models and evolving structures—for example, certain private lending arrangements, syndicated models, or platforms that mix brokering, Read more
Ontario HST New Home Rebate (Proposed) — What Lenders and Brokers Need to Know (as of March 25, 2026)

March 30, 2026

In a move aimed at improving housing affordability, the Ontario government announced on March 25, 2026 a proposed enhanced HST rebate on eligible new homes. If implemented, this program can materially reduce a borrower’s cash-to-close and/or overall financing requirement—particularly on homes up to $1 million—making it a key planning item for pre-approvals, builder deals, and closing instructions. Rebate structure (impact on purchase price economics) Home price range HST reduction amount (proposed) Up to $1,000,000 Full 13% HST rebate (up to $130,000) $1,000,001–$1,500,000 Flat $130,000 reduction $1,500,001–$1,850,000 Declining reduction from $130,000 down to $24,000 Over $1,850,000 $24,000 (status quo provincial reduction) Broker/lender lens: why this matters For eligible transactions, the rebate may reduce the client’s required equity/down payment and closing funds, and may improve affordability metrics. You should expect more clients trying to time signing dates and closing/construction milestones to fit the eligibility window. Builder pricing/APS terms may start referencing the enhanced rebate—important for reviewing how the tax is treated in the contract (included vs. added, assignment of rebate, and who receives the rebate at closing). Federal legislation risk (timing and certainty) Because the rebate requires amendments to the federal Excise Tax Act, the announcement is unusual in that it was made by Ontario without a concurrent federal release. Ontario has indicated the federal government has agreed to “approximately” cover the 5% federal portion of the HST, but the changes remain subject to federal legislative approval. Broker/lender takeaway: treat as “proposed” until enacted Avoid underwriting or advising clients on the assumption the full rebate will apply unless/ until confirmed in binding legislation and reflected in closing statements. Consider adding a borrower acknowledgement in your file notes (or internal condition) that rebates are subject to legislative change and CRA eligibility. Eligibility — “qualifying new home” categories (what to screen early) Owner-occupied (primary residence) new home Eligible where the home is acquired for use as the buyer’s primary place of residence and the purchase agreement with the builder is signed between: April 1, 2026 and March 31, 2027 Purpose-built rental / new rental supply (construction started early) Eligible where construction began before March 31, 2026 and the home is intended for use as a residential rental property, and: the purchase agreement with the builder is signed between April 1, 2026 and March 31, 2027, and construction is substantially completed on or before December 31, 2029 Broker/lender practice point Capture (i) APS signing date, (ii) intended occupancy (owner-occupied vs rental), (iii) construction start evidence (where relevant), and (iv) anticipated substantial completion date for new builds. These drive eligibility and can affect the borrower’s liquidity plan. First-time home buyer rebate alignment (stacking potential) Ontario has also previously announced a separate provincial HST rebate for first-time home buyers, expected to align with the federal First Time Home Buyers’ rebate effective March 20, 2025. If a first-time buyer signs an APS with a builder for a new home between March 20, 2025 and December 31, 2030, both provincial and federal rebates may be available. Broker/lender takeaway First-time buyers may have multiple rebate pathways depending on timing and transaction type; ensure clients are directed to confirm eligibility with their lawyer/accountant and that your funding plan is resilient if a rebate is reduced or delayed. Operational considerations for mortgage funding and closings Closing adjustments: New home rebates are often handled through statement-of-adjustments mechanics; confirm whether the builder credits the rebate on closing or the buyer applies post-closing. This changes cash-to-close. Qualification and LTV: If the rebate is treated as a reduction to total cost rather than cash back, it can shift the effective financing need. Ensure consistency between underwriting assumptions and the lawyer’s closing adjustments. Builder contract review: Watch for clauses assigning the rebate to the builder, conditions precedent, or buyer indemnities if CRA later denies the rebate. Bottom line (what to tell clients) The key planning date for the main enhanced rebate is that the APS must be signed between April 1, 2026 and March 31, 2027 (with additional construction timing rules for certain rental-focused transactions). Both the provincial and federal components remain subject to federal Excise Tax Act amendments. Clients should confirm eligibility and closing mechanics with their real estate lawyer and tax advisor before relying on the rebate for affordability or down payment planning.
Big White “Seller Impersonation” Fraud: Why Real Estate Needs Expert KYC Screening

March 29, 2026

Kirby v. Turner, 2026 BCSC 510 (Supreme Court of British Columbia) A B.C. Supreme Court case out of Kelowna shows how easily a real estate transaction can be hijacked when identity verification is treated as a paperwork step instead of a risk-control process. In Kirby v. Turner (2026 BCSC 510), a Kelowna couple believed they were buying a Big White condo at an attractive price. The true owners lived in South Africa. Unknown fraudsters impersonated them, communicated through email, provided fake passport copies, and nearly pushed the sale through. The Court called the situation “the stuff of nightmares.” The lawsuit against the realtor and brokerage failed—not because the fraud wasn’t serious, but because the judge found the defendants met the industry standard of care as it existed in 2020–2021. In other words: the process may have been “compliant,” but it still allowed a sophisticated identity attack to get dangerously far. That’s the real lesson. The core takeaway: identity risk is now a transaction risk Real estate deals involve large transfers of value, remote parties, and high trust in professional gatekeepers. That combination makes the industry an attractive target for: seller impersonation and title fraud diversion of funds (especially last-minute wiring changes) misuse of professionals and trust accounts as “validators” Once fraudsters have access to an owner’s email and basic personal information, they can look legitimate long enough to trigger major harm—buyers incur costs, sellers face privacy breaches, and lenders risk funding a transaction built on a false identity. Courts may apply “then,” but fraud operates in “now” In Kirby, the judge emphasized that professional conduct must be assessed based on what was known and required at the time. The Court also noted the outcome could differ if the same facts occurred after the industry’s understanding of impersonation fraud evolved. For the market, that’s a warning: today, this fraud is foreseeable. “We followed the old checklist” is not a strategy—especially when the financial and reputational consequences are so severe. The solution: expert KYC screening across the whole deal team Identity risk cannot be managed by one party alone. Real protection comes when mortgage lenders, real estate professionals, and lawyers treat KYC as a shared control, not a silo. 1) Real estate professionals (agents and brokerages): KYC at onboarding—before marketing Agents are often the first professional contact with the “seller.” That makes brokerages a frontline defense. Stronger controls should include: mandatory identity verification before listing or marketing, not just at acceptance/closing enhanced verification for remote or overseas clients (including independent verification or a mandatary) structured “red flag” escalation (email changes, urgency, refusal to meet, inconsistent documents) documented audit trails 2) Mortgage lenders: verify the borrower and the transaction identity chain Lenders already run underwriting, but identity screening should also address transaction integrity, including: confirming the seller’s legitimacy through independent sources where risk triggers exist ensuring funds are routed only through validated accounts and verified instructions step-up verification when anything changes late in the process Lenders are exposed not only to fraud loss, but also to enforcement and reputational risk if their controls are not aligned with modern fraud typologies. 3) Lawyers and notaries: treat identity as a fraud control, not a formality Conveyancing professionals are often the final gatekeeper—and in Kirby, a lawyer’s inability to verify identity is what ultimately prevented completion. But relying on the last checkpoint is dangerous. Legal professionals can strengthen the chain by: requiring robust identity verification for remote signers (including secure video ID processes where permitted) independently confirming authority to sell (not just relying on emailed ID copies) using out-of-band confirmation steps before accepting or changing payment instructions What “expert KYC screening” looks like in practice A modern, fraud-resistant approach usually includes: digital ID verification with liveness checks (not just a scanned passport) document authentication and tamper detection independent verification via mandatary/agency services where appropriate clear risk triggers that require enhanced due diligence consistent documentation that can satisfy regulators, insurers, and auditors The goal isn’t to make transactions slow—it’s to make them hard to fake. Bottom line Kirby v. Turner shows a harsh truth: innocent buyers and owners can do everything right and still get pulled into an identity fraud. The Court found no liability under the standards of the time—but the market cannot rely on yesterday’s baseline. If we want to reduce real estate fraud, identity risk must be mitigated upfront and collectively, with expert KYC screening used by: mortgage lenders, real estate professionals, and lawyers/notaries.

Support CAPL

Contribute to CAPL
Become a Member
Subscribe to our news

About

CAPL Webinars
Member Login

Policies

Code of Conduct
Privacy Policy

Members Login

My Account
Treefort
AML Courses
Fintrac AML Custom Policy for Brokerages and Lenders
Policies
Log In

Website design by Genuweb