Financial Planners and Advisors Sector
Comment Due Date


The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) is seeking feedback on Proposed Rule 2020-001 – Financial Professionals Title Protection (FPTP Rule) and proposed Approach Guidance – Financial Professionals Title Protection – Administration of Applications (FPTP Guidance). 

FSRA is also seeking comments and suggestions from stakeholders on ways that it could streamline the application and approval process.

The public consultation is open for 90 days. Feedback and comments are due by November 12, 2020.


The proposed FPTP Rule sets out the requirements and standards that entities would be required to meet in order to obtain FSRA approval as a credentialing body, and to obtain FSRA approval of a Financial Planner (FP) or Financial Advisor (FA) credential. The proposed FPTP Rule also sets out ongoing requirements to maintain such approvals. The Notice of Proposed Rule and Request for Comment, which accompanies the proposed FPTP Rule, provides background and rationale to help understand the FPTP Rule, and sets out the process for public consultation.

The proposed FPTP Guidance sets out FSRA’s proposed approach to the administration of applications for credentialing bodies and FP/FA credentials under the proposed Title Protection Framework. It is intended to help potential applicants understand what is required to be approved, and maintain approval, as a credentialing body, and what is required to have an FP or FA credential approved under the Financial Professionals Title Protection Act, 2019 (FPTPA).

The proposed FPTP Guidance includes an outline of the type of information FSRA would expect in an application for approval of a credentialing body, as well as approval of FP or FA credentials.


In the 2019 Ontario Budget, the government announced that it would introduce legislation to limit the use of the titles of “financial planner” and “financial advisor” in Ontario to individuals who have obtained a credential from a credentialing body approved by FSRA.

The Financial Professionals Title Protection Act, 2019 (FPTPA) received Royal Assent in May 2019. It has not been proclaimed into force. 

FSRA was granted rule-making authority under the FPTPA to design the FP/FA Title Protection Framework, including:

  • approval criteria for credentialing bodies and credentials;
  • applications by prospective credentialing bodies;
  • application fees; and
  • transition periods for existing FP/FA title users.

Useful Links

#By submitting your content, you agree to have your materials posted on our engagement portal, used in reports and other materials prepared by Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) that may be shared with the public. Content is moderated so that all posts are respectful and professional. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.F.31, applies to all online content.

Use left and right arrows to navigate between tabs.
Sector Comment Date posted Sort ascending
Home, Life and Health Insurance Sector
[2020-008] Lisa Moretto - Masters Life Insurance Agency
In regards to the ability to use a specific title, years of experience should also be considered when making this decision on the title. This could be in combination with investment and/or insurance courses. Older people in the business should not be penalized for not having the education that was not required when they started in the business. As long as continuing education was and will be adhered to.
September 30, 2020
Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Sector
[2020-008] Steve McQueen
A large portion of the population comes to "financial advisors", and "financial planners" for guidance on how to save for retirement, build wealth and secure their futures. However, the advice that the general public receives from these individuals is often contrary to the public's best interest, and serving to the bank's own interests.

The issue is that Financial Advisors/Planners (FAPs) are trained by the bank, and they are trained to recommend what amounts to poor investment decisions, and borders on predatory behaviour. I want to be clear, FAPs are recommending what they genuinely believe to be a sound course of action, but they are trained poorly on purpose, to recommend products that are more financially beneficial to the bank.

If these roles are allowed to credentialize, there should be a strict standard of training, and examinations similar to the rigor of the CFA program (e.g., ensure the level of competency is at least as rigorous as the CFA or CA examinations), and ensure that there is not allowed to persist sub-standard advice from these roles through a thorough training, and grievance process. Do not confuse the public with additional titles, and do not enable predatory selling of bad investments to niave consumers. There needs to be a clear line: You are either an advisor to your client, and acting in their best interest always, or you are a sales person for the bank and need to be clearly labelled as such.
September 22, 2020
[2020-008] Charles A Mccrudden
Regarding the August 13 2020 consultation with respect to financial services persons it is essential that "fiduciary responsibility" be included in the requirements for anyone undertaking an advisory role in a client's financial transactions. Semantics such as advisor and and adviser only serve to confuse even the informed amongst the investing environment. Eliminating the confusion is essential to building confidence in this business as is the fiduciary aspect.

Without these two changes the financial advice industry is destined to decline in stature and eventually fail as a business model which is unfortunate for investors who need assistance with the planning of their financial future.
August 20, 2020
Financial Planners and Advisors Sector
[2020-008] David Wagg - Olympian Financial Inc
Are the bank advisors going to be held to the same standards or will it continue as usual with them hiding behind the banks credentials.
They do not have the same rigorous processes to go through to get licensed and are not held to the same level of competence.
Let's make the playing field level as anyone giving financial advice be it for investments or mortgages should have the same rules to follow.

August 17, 2020
Financial Planners and Advisors Sector
[2020-008] Krystyn Schilling
Regulating the titles is a fantastic initiative!
However seeing that FSRA will develop a fee model to recover its costs for establishing and administering the new credentialing regime, including compliance and enforcement of the permitted use of titles is disappointing.
The Organizations that grant and administer industry designations are already expensive to join and continue your membership with. In addition to those organization fees, advisors need to pay hefty fees to their SRO (whether IIROC or MFDA) for regulation and then they needs errors and omissions insurance, etc.
Please regulate the titles but please also regulate the costs to advisors because the increased fees is going to make it unsustainable for advisors to join and remain in the industry. OR fees will need to increase and make good financial advice more difficult for the average person to attain.
August 14, 2020
Date posted Sector Question and response
Financial Planners and Advisors Sector

Question: Dear Sir/Madam, Will the legislation ban fake awards? Their are magazines/websites that purport to name the "best" financial planners (for a fee). Here is an example

FSRA response:

The scope of the title protection framework, and the supporting legislation, does not include the awards referred to in your question.