2025 was a big year for cryptocurrency in Canada. Here are five crypto cases from 2025 and their key takeaways that every lawyer should know. We also provide a brief commentary on the Stablecoin Act, also introduced in 2025.
1. Wang v. Binance Holdings Ltd., 2025 BCSC 425 [“Wang”]
In this ex-parte decision, the Petitioner, Lixia Wang (“Mr. Wang”), sought certain relief, including a Norwich Order from certain cryptocurrency exchanges which were the recipients of approximately $26 million in Bitcoin of which Mr. Wang states he had been defrauded.
Binance Holdings Ltd. (“Binance”), one of the entities from whom disclosure was sought, had withdrawn from the British Columbia (“BC”) market in or around September 2023. Mr. Wang deposed that he had been defrauded starting in early 2024. As such, Binance exited the BC market in advance of the start of the fraud that Mr. Wang was subjected to.
Despite this, one key finding of fact was that as of February 5, 2025, residents of BC appeared to still be able to visit the Binance website and log in to their Binance account. This was sufficient for Justice Elwood to find that Binance had “more than a mere passive presence in British Columbia” sufficient to establish a real and substantial connection, as BC residents were able to create accounts, deposit funds and trade cryptocurrencies on Binance’s platform.
2. Xu v. NDAX Canada, 2025 BCSC 2048 [“Xu”]
It is important to note that Norwich Orders, like those in Wang, are often sought against parties who have no relationship to the underlying fraud other than being “innocently involved”, such as being recipients of funds that are ultimately used to facilitate fraud.
In Xu, the Plaintiff sued the NDAX Canada (“NDAX”) cryptocurrency exchange, following the loss of approximately $671,000 to cryptocurrency fraud. Unlike Wang, the Plaintiff used NDAX to purchase cryptocurrency legitimately and then transferred that to the fraudsters. The Plaintiff made a claim of negligence against NDAX claiming that they failed to advise her that the funds were being sent to a scammer.
In dismissing the claim, Justice LeBlanc found that, in addition to a risk disclosure statement that Ms. Xu had agreed to, there were at least three other warnings that were given to Ms. Xu including a call from an NDAX employee warning Ms. Xu that she was likely being scammed and a direct call from NDAX’s compliance officer, informing Ms. Xu of the risks and confirming that she nonetheless wanted to proceed with the transaction. Notably, the Plaintiff was ordered to pay costs to NDAX.
3. Shirodkar v. Coinbase Global Inc., 2025 ONCA 298 [“Shirodkar”]
The Plaintiff (and Appellant) in Shirodkar sought to lead a class action against a number of entities for the Coinbase cryptocurrency exchange, including Coinbase Global Inc., Coinbase Canada Inc., and Coinbase Europe Limited, arguing violations of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5.
Although notable for several reasons, one key factual difference between Wang and Shirodkar is that (1) In October 2017, while living in France, Mr. Shirodkar opened a Coinbase account by entering into a user agreement with Coinbase UK Ltd. (“First Agreement”); (2) In November 2020, while living in Ontario, Mr. Shirodkar entered into an agreement with Coinbase Ireland Limited (not named in the action) but did not have access to those services (“Second Agreement”); and (3) On November 22, 2020, the appellant entered into an agreement with Coinbase Europe (“Third Agreement”). The governing law clause for the second agreement was that any disputes would be determined in the jurisdiction of Ireland while the Third Agreement was to be governed by the laws of England and Wales. The final purchase of cryptocurrency that the Appellant conducted with Coinbase was in January 2021 from his home in Ontario, accessing the platform through the Third Agreement.
It was not until early 2023 that Coinbase Canada started offering its services and applied for the necessary exemptions and registrations with the Ontario Securities Commission. It was only after Coinbase’s delivery of the motion to stay or dismiss the action for jurisdiction that the appellant logged into the Coinbase platform, on May 7, 2023, and accepted the “Canadian User Agreement” with Coinbase Canada, which listed Ontario as forum of choice. The motion judge found that the Canadian User Agreement did have retroactive effect but not for prior disputes a Canadian user might have had with another Coinbase company. Ultimately, the Ontario Court of Appeal found, in alignment with the motion judge, that it had no jurisdiction over the foreign Coinbase entities.
Key differences between Wang and Shirodkar can be drawn from the motion judge’s reasons, endorsed by the Ontario Court of Appeal, as emphasized, below:
· Avoidance of Universal Jurisdiction: If the [appellant]’s choice to use his home computer in Ontario to conduct trades on the Coinbase Platform were sufficient to ground jurisdiction, every jurisdiction in the world where anyone purchased digital assets on the Coinbase Platform would also have jurisdiction. This universal jurisdiction is exactly what our courts have cautioned against.
· Weakness of Presumptive Connecting Factor – “…viewed practically, it would not be reasonable for the [respondents] to expect that they would be called to answer proceedings in Ontario in the circumstances where almost every element of the alleged tort occurred outside Ontario and only a relatively minor element of the tort occurred in Ontario.”
4. Lochan v. Binance Holdings Limited, 2025 ONSC 6493 [Lochan]
The Court in Lochan dealt with a similar underlying class action as in Shirodkar, but the dispute in Lochan centered around issues relating to an arbitration agreement between the parties, whereas in Shirodkar the focus was on questions of jurisdiction.
The Plaintiffs in Lochan moved for an anti-suit injunction to stop an arbitration from taking place in Hong Kong between Nest Services Limited (“Nest”), a Seychelles corporation, and the Plaintiffs. The Defendants, Binance Holdings Limited, Binance Canada Capital Markets Inc., and Binance Canada Holdings Ltd. (collectively, “Binance”) had unsuccessfully moved in Ontario to stay this action on the basis of an arbitration agreement. In spite of this loss, Binance commenced arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong using Nest as its vehicle.
The Court ultimately granted an order restraining Binance and Nest from continuing arbitration in Hong or elsewhere in relation to the issues in the Ontario action. Most notably, the Court found that Nest’s supposed separate identity from Binance “is all a façade” (para. 22). The Court also found that “Nest’s true role in bringing the arbitration is not to claim a separate wrong done to itself, but to undermine the Plaintiff’s claim in the Ontario action” (para. 20).
The underlying litigation is a class action brought on behalf of Canadian investors who purchased cryptocurrency derivative products through an asset trading platform operated by Binance. The Plaintiffs allege that Binance engaged in the business of trading in securities without registering, and distributed securities without complying with, applicable prospectus requirements, in violation of securities laws in Ontario and in other provinces.
The Court made further statements regarding the oneness of Binance and Nest:
- “[…] Nest is, in effect, Binance itself. That is, it is responsible for and operates the very Binance system that the class members paid to join. It is, for all intents and purposes, no more and no less than Binance” (para. 14);
- “The claim outlined in the Notice of Application, and especially the relief sought therein, confirms beyond any doubt that Nest is nothing but the alter ego of Binance” (para. 15);
- “In reality, Nest is not a separate party from Binance and the Hong Kong arbitration claim is not separable from the within Ontario action” (para. 21); and
- “Accordingly, Nest may technically be a non-party to this action, but it is a non-party in name only. Nest has placed itself in Binance’s shoes in its Notice of Arbitration; it equally stands in Binance’s shoes for the purposes of any injunctive or other relief granted by this Court” (para. 43).
The Court awarded substantial indemnity against Binance to discourage the kind of tactics that Binance had deployed in these proceedings (see 2026 ONSC 194).
The Court’s statements in Lochan are not only relevant to disputes over arbitration agreements, but to issues relating to Binance’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy more broadly.
For example, Binance has, from time to time, listed Nest as its data controller for regions specified in its Privacy Policy. For the sake of a Norwich order, Nest would appear to be the appropriate disclosing party should the applicant be residing in that specified region and during that period of time. However, Nest is domiciled in the Seychelles, a challenging jurisdiction in which to effect service and to enforce an order. Lochan potentially provides support for such applicant to pursue Binance instead of Nest for relief. The extent to which Lochan will be used to support such positions has yet to be seen.
5. Binance Holdings Limited v. Ontario Securities Commission, 2025 ONCA 751
On March 29, 2021, the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”) issued a general announcement that cryptocurrency exchanges doing business in Ontario were required to contact the OSC to start compliance discussions. Binance, the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the world, did not do so, despite having significant presence in Ontario.
On May 10, 2023, the OSC staff obtained an order from a commissioner, issued pursuant s. 11(1)(a) of the Securities Act to investigate allegations that Binance had acted contrary to securities law. On May 11, 2023, a Summons to Binance under s. 13 of the Securities Act was issued, which provided a list of demands, including:
“For the period of January 1, 2021 to present, provide all communications regarding Ontario (or Canada generally) among directors, officers, employees, contractors, agents and consultants of Binance Holdings Limited and related entities ….”
The demand went on to provide a wide non-exclusive description of the form of communications that could include “emails, letters, [and] chats/texts on messaging platforms (e.g. Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram, Slack, etc.)” and which “shall include” but “not be limited to” as including “those among directors, officers, employees, contractors, agents and consultants of Binance regarding” a list of events and activities.
Binance relied on section 8 of the Charter, namely the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, arguing the summons violated those rights. The Ontario Court of Appeal found that Binance was entitled to rely on section 8 of the Charter which requires (1) the search or seizure to be authorized by law; (2) the law itself must be reasonable; and (3) the search or seizure must be carried out in a reasonable manner.
Even though Binance had a “very low expectation of privacy” as part of a regulatory investigation, the Court of Appeal found this was not tantamount to “no expectation of privacy”. The compelled production of documents in this case was found to be unreasonable because of its overbroad nature, namely in relation to the demand for “all communication” without including specific activities of interest, not limiting the scope of communications sought to Ontario but rather Canada at large, and requiring production from every person who may have not only managed work at Binance but also all of its related entities.
6. BONUS: Canada’s Proposed Stablecoin Act
In November 2025, the Canadian federal government tabled Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, which introduces Canada’s first comprehensive “Stablecoin Act”. Stablecoins are generally defined as cryptocurrencies that are pegged in value to a fiat currency. The legislation was introduced on the heels of the President of the United States signing into law the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act) on July 18, 2025.
Canada’s proposed Stablecoin Act has the potential of harmonizing federal and provincial regulations respecting digital assets, at least stablecoins, through interoperability provisions demanding a “substantially similar” provincial regulatory framework in order for a provincially-regulated issuer to be exempt from the federal framework.
Currently, Canada’s digital assets are principally governed by a tapestry of provincial regulations. It is unclear how the Stablecoin Act’s influence will rework this tapestry.
For example, under the Stablecoin Act, as it is currently drafted, the issuance of a stablecoin does not constitute dealing in securities (s. 3) or engaging in the business of accepting deposit liabilities (s. 4), for the purposes of the Bank Act, S.C. 1991, c. 46, Insurance Companies Act, S.C. 1991, c. 47, and Trust and Loan Companies Act, S.C. 1991, c. 45. In contrast, provincial regulators have identified stablecoins, or “value-reference crypto assets”, as potentially amounting to securities and/or derivatives. There is, however, no express provision in the Stablecoin Act preventing provincial securities laws from continuing to apply, so it has yet to be determined the extent to which the provinces will revise their current position on such things as the treatment of stablecoins as securities.
Pursuant to the Stablecoin Act:
- A prospective stablecoin issuer must apply to the Bank of Canada and disclose information relating to such things as its ownership structure, financial records, technological infrastructure and redemption policies (s. 17);
- The Stablecoin Act applies only to a stablecoin that has or could reasonably be expected to have an interprovincial or international application (s.10); and
- The Governor may order that the Stablecoin Act or regulations do not apply to the prospective issuer if that issuer is subject to a provincial or a foreign framework that is “substantially similar” to the Stablecoin Act or regulations (s. 14).
The Stablecoin Act does not apply to an issuer that is:
- A “financial institution” as defined in section 2 of the Bank Act, including banks, federal credit unions, trust and loan companies and insurance companies (s. 12). It is unclear the extent to which such a financial institution can deal in stablecoins, but it would appear that these institutions would be subject to the investment regimes under the Bank Act, Insurance Companies Act, and Trust and Loan Companies Act, as applicable;
- Central banks (s. 13); and
- Closed-loop issuers (s. 11).
The Stablecoin Act imposes extensive obligations on a stablecoin issuer:
- An issuer must maintain reserve assets that has a value that is equal to or greater than the par value of the outstanding stablecoins (i.e., at least on a one-to-one basis) (s. 37(1));
- This reserve must be composed exclusively of fiat currency relative to which a stablecoin is intended or designed to maintain a stable value (reference currency) or other high-quality liquid assets that are denominated in the reference currency and that are provided for in the regulations or approved by the Bank of Canada (s. 37(3));
- An issuer must establish and make publicly available a policy respecting redemption of outstanding stablecoins, including terms relating to the manner and timing of redemption and to fees that may be payable relating to redemption (s. 36).
- An issuer also has on-going reporting requirements to the Bank of Canada, including in maintaining a governance policy (s. 40), risk management policy (s. 41), data-security policy (s. 42), recovery and resolution policy (s. 43), and a certified statement of account on at least a monthly basis (s. 46).
- The issuer must make information they provide under the regulations publicly available, should the regulations require such disclosure (s. 45).
The following are prohibitions imposed on stablecoin issuers under the Stablecoin Act:
- An issuer must not, directly or indirectly, grant or pay to the holder of a stablecoin any form of interest or yield (s. 32);
- An issuer must not issue a stablecoin if it is legal tender (i.e., a central bank digital currency), a deposit or proof of deposit or is insured under a public deposit insurance system or guaranteed or backstopped by a government (s. 33); and
- An issuer must not represent a stablecoin in a manner that suggests that stablecoin falls into any category of assets listed directly above (s. 34).
Both intranational and international stablecoin regulatory harmonization is anticipated in the coming years, potentially paving the way for broader regulatory harmonization encompassing other kinds of digital assets.
Leave a Reply