## The Industry Layer: CIRO, CSA, and Regulatory Signals Chapters 2 and 3 covered what privacy law requires. This chapter covers what industry regulation adds on top. ### 4.1 CSA Staff Notice 11-348: The Landmark CSA Staff Notice and Consultation 11-348, published December 5, 2024, is the most authoritative Canadian regulatory guidance on AI in financial services. It applies directly to CIRO-regulated advisors through the CSA framework. At the current stage of development of AI systems, we do not believe it is possible to use an AI system as a substitute for an advising representative acting as decision-maker for clients' investments and consistently satisfy regulatory requirements. The Notice establishes four key themes. **Technology neutrality**: securities laws regulate the activity, not the technology. **AI output is an input**: registrants must treat AI output "as no more than an input for their own decision-making." **Explainability**: AI systems must provide the "highest degree of explainability that is feasible." **Disclosure**: AI use must be disclosed to clients, and the CSA warns against "AI washing," meaning exaggerated claims about AI capabilities. The consultation period closed March 31, 2025. No follow-up guidance has been published as of February 2026. ### 4.2 CIRO's Silence in Context CIRO has released no AI-specific guidance, rules, or staff notices as of February 2026. Its 2025 Enforcement Report detailed 57 enforcement proceedings and $10.3 million in fines, with zero cases involving advisor AI use. This silence does not mean absence of obligation. Existing CIRO rules create binding requirements when AI is involved:

In December 2025, CIRO launched InnovateSafe, a regulatory sandbox enabling member firms to test innovative technologies in a controlled environment. The Joint CSA/CIRO Staff Notice 31-368 (December 2025) reviewed Client Focused Reforms compliance across KYC, KYP, and suitability practices. CIRO's 2026 Annual Priorities identify AI as a "key industry trend" but include no AI-specific rulemaking.

### 4.3 The OSFI Flow-Down Effect If you work at a bank-owned or insurance-affiliated dealer, your firm's AI tool restrictions have a regulatory origin. OSFI sets technology requirements for federally regulated financial institutions. Those requirements flow through the compliance chain. **OSFI -> Banks/Insurance Companies -> Dealer Platforms -> Advisors** Three OSFI guidelines create this chain: - **B-13** (effective January 2024): Technology and cyber risk management. Every AI tool on a dealer platform must pass a security risk assessment before deployment. - **B-10** (effective May 2024): Third-party risk management. All AI vendors are "third parties" requiring full due diligence, including sub-processor assessment. If your AI tool uses an underlying model from OpenAI or Anthropic, that sub-processor must also be assessed. - **E-23** (published September 2025, **effective May 2027**): Model risk management. Explicitly covers AI and machine learning models. Requires institutions to inventory, risk-rate, and govern all models throughout their lifecycle. E-23 is the most significant near-term development. As institutions build model risk management frameworks ahead of the May 2027 deadline, new AI tool approvals are likely to slow. The approval bottleneck advisors experience with their firms is driven by these OSFI requirements, not by institutional conservatism.