The debate around the OBSI’s future has become dominated by an attractive but misleading narrative that binding powers are the needed next step. Our contribution to this year’s review  reframes that narrative with evidence, structure, and a clear-eyed look at OBSI’s best role:

Fairness, independence, and impartiality are foundational.

• The OBSI should not drift toward advocacy, quasi?regulation, or activities that compromise impartiality.
• Well?intentioned ‘consumer assistance’ undermines neutrality.
• Education, industry guidance, and policy?shaping are roles that belong to regulators and government, rather than the OBSI.

Regulatory oversight of the OBSI is structurally problematic.

• The current Memorandum of Understanding Between the OBSI and the CSA places the OBSI under multi?headed regulatory control, limits its autonomy, and encourages regulators to treat it as an intelligence?gathering arm rather than an independent dispute?resolution service.
• Parties may withhold candour if OBSI findings or disclosures can lead to regulatory consequences.

Binding Reform is a Solution in Search of a Problem.

• Canada should follow its own evidence: the data shows the current system functions well.
• OBSI compliance rates exceed 99% since 2015, making claims of structural weakness unsubstantiated by data.
• No comprehensive data from the OBSI supports claims of systemic under?settlement; isolated anecdotes have been used to justify reforms.
• There is no global norm toward binding powers; jurisdictions with binding systems (e.g., UK) are outliers and are now reforming due to adverse impacts on consistency and market competitiveness.

The above is in keeping with our prior analysis to the CSA.