Insights

Over the past few days, I’ve spent time reviewing Australia’s newly released  Guidance for AI Adoption: Implementation Practices . What struck me almost immediately is how strongly this framework echoes the long-standing principles that have guided compliance, conduct risk, and operational governance programs around the world. Whether we look to the regulatory traditions of Canada, the United States, the UK, Europe, or Asia-Pacific, the foundations are remarkably consistent:

Over the past year, expectations around climate and sustainability risk have continued to evolve. In Canada, OSFI’s B-15 guideline was introduced as a milestone in how banks and insurers are expected to manage and disclose climate-related risks. It signaled shift, from reporting climate as a standalone issue to embedding it into governance, risk, and business strategy. But in recent months, there’s been a recalibration. Institutions are navigating a moving target: regulatory

This article was co-authored with Matthew Scott , Partner at Crawley MacKewn Brush LLP . We know our clients. We trust our advisors. We don't need bank-level structure. And that’s usually true, until it isn’t. All it takes is one regulator question you can’t answer quickly, one unexpected review, or one gap in supervision that snowballs into a regulatory issue. This doesn’t happen because of bad intent, but because trust and culture don’t scale without systems. The irony? The

We are excited to announce a new collaboration between Crawley MacKewn Brush and CMBYND , designed to help securities registrants...

Managing Cross-Selling Risk for Broker-Dealers As mid-tier broker-dealers (BDs) compete with Canada’s Big 5 banks, many are leveraging...