Bank of Canada Notice of Violation Under the RPAA: Reviews, Appeals & the 30-Day Deadline

A Notice of Violation (NOV) from the Bank of Canada is a formal step in the Bank's enforcement of the Retail Payment Activities Act (RPAA). It names the payment service provider (PSP) or individual believed to have committed a violation, sets out the penalty, and gives 30 days to respond. What the PSP does within that window, and what happens afterward, determines whether the matter ends quietly or proceeds to a prescribed review and, potentially, a Federal Court appeal.

This guide walks through the process in the order a PSP actually experiences it: what the notice contains, what the 30-day deadline really measures, the paths available after service, how the Bank's prescribed review works, the 90-day backstop, how the Bank's 2026 policy on publishing NOVs applies, and what to do in the first 48 hours. It does not cover PSP registration, the RPAA's substantive operational-risk and safeguarding requirements, or the Bank's separate compliance-order (section 94) powers, which are addressed elsewhere.

What Is a Bank of Canada Notice of Violation?

The RPAA gives the Bank of Canada authority to issue administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) for designated violations of the Act and the Retail Payment Activities Regulations (RPAR). Where the Bank believes on reasonable grounds that a PSP has committed a violation, section 76(2) allows it to issue and serve either:

• a notice of violation on its own, or
• a notice of violation with an offer to reduce the penalty by half if the PSP enters into a compliance agreement in respect of the contravened provision.

Where the person believed to have committed a violation is not a PSP, section 76(3) allows the Bank to issue a notice of violation directly, without a compliance-agreement offer attached.

By statute, the purpose of the penalty is to promote compliance, not to punish (RPAA, s. 76(4)). That framing matters for how the Bank explains its AMP decisions, but it does not change the fact that an NOV creates real financial exposure and a real compliance record once a violation is deemed or confirmed.

An NOV is distinct from two other RPAA enforcement instruments a PSP might encounter:

• A compliance order under section 94 addresses an act, or anticipated act, that could have a significant adverse impact on end users or the payments system, and can require a PSP to stop an activity immediately. It is not an AMP process, and it follows its own review path under the Bank's enforcement tools policy, separate from the prescribed review process described below.
• A notice of default arises later, only if a PSP has entered into a section 76(2)(b) compliance agreement and failed to comply with it (see the comparison later in this article).

What Information Must an RPAA Notice of Violation Contain?

Section 77(1) sets out mandatory contents. A notice of violation must name the individual or entity believed to have committed the violation, identify the violation, and set out:

• the penalty to be paid;
• the right of the individual or entity, within 30 days after the day the notice is served (or a longer period the Bank specifies), to pay the penalty or make representations to the Governor about the violation and the penalty, and the manner for doing so; and
• the consequence of doing neither: the individual or entity will be deemed to have committed the violation and remains liable to pay the penalty.

The Bank may use short-form descriptions of violations in notices (s. 77(2)). If a notice contains an error or omission, section 77(3) allows the Bank to issue a corrected notice of violation at any time during the applicable response period. Section 77 does not itself state whether issuing a corrected notice restarts or extends the response clock. A PSP that receives a corrected notice should rely on the deadline stated in that notice and, where the position is unclear, confirm the applicable deadline directly with the Bank rather than assume a particular effect.

The 30-Day Deadline After an NOV Is Served

The RPAA measures the response period from service, not from the date printed on the notice. Section 77(1)(b) gives the PSP 30 days after the day the notice is served, or a longer period if the Bank specifies one, to pay the penalty or make representations to the Governor. This single window is also how the Bank operationalizes the NOV's internal review: the Bank's Reviews and Appeals supervisory policy treats an NOV as one of the decision types eligible for a "prescribed review," and states that affected parties must submit their request within 30 days after being served with the notice. Making representations to the Governor under section 78 and requesting a prescribed review under the Bank's policy describe the same step, submitted within the same 30-day (or Bank-extended) window, not two separate sequential opportunities.

Do not assume the deadline is exactly "30 days from the date on the letter." Confirm the service date recorded by the Bank and calendar the deadline from that date.

On extensions, the Bank's policy is narrower than a general entitlement:

• If exceptional circumstances prevent a timely request, Bank review staff may consider extending the period. There is no automatic right to an extension.
• Where a PSP wants to ask for one, the Bank's policy says the extension request should be submitted in PSP Connect within 15 days of being served with or notified of the decision, with reasons.
• The clear ineligibility rule the Bank states is this: a review request submitted after the 30-day deadline (or after an extended deadline that was actually granted) is not eligible for a prescribed review. The Bank does not state that missing the 15-day guidance is, by itself, an automatic bar; the operative eligibility deadline is the 30-day review-request deadline, or any extended deadline the Bank actually grants.

A separate and later 30-day period applies only in the notice-of-default scenario, discussed further below, and a further 30-day period applies to a Federal Court appeal once a decision has been issued. These are distinct stages, not a repeat of the initial NOV response window.

Your Main Options After Receiving an NOV

An NOV response generally falls into one of four categories. None of them guarantees a particular financial or reputational outcome, and the right choice depends on the facts, the size of the penalty, and whether the PSP disputes the violation, its classification, or only the amount.

Option 1: Pay the AMP

Under section 78(1), if the PSP pays the penalty set out in the notice, it is deemed to have committed the violation and proceedings in respect of it end. This is a final step for that violation. The Bank's reviews and appeals policy confirms the practical consequence: an affected party is not eligible for a prescribed review of any violation in an NOV for which it has paid the full AMP. If the NOV covers multiple violations, paying in full for one does not necessarily forfeit review rights over the others; the Bank's policy specifically preserves the right to request review of remaining, unpaid violations within the same notice.

Option 2: Make Representations and Request the Prescribed Review

Section 78(2) requires the Governor's delegate to decide, on a balance of probabilities, whether the individual or entity committed the violation, if representations are made in accordance with the notice. If the violation is found to have been committed, the decision-maker may impose the penalty set out in the notice, a lesser penalty, or no penalty at all. This is the Bank's own internal review mechanism, described in detail in the next section; it is not a court appeal, and it is not a second process that follows some earlier "representations" step. Submitting representations to the Governor and requesting the Bank's prescribed review are the same act, made once, within the applicable response period.

Option 3: Consider a Section 76(2)(b) Compliance Agreement, if Offered

Not every NOV includes a compliance-agreement offer. Where the Bank decides to attach one, paragraph 76(2)(b) permits an offer to reduce the AMP by half if the PSP enters into a compliance agreement addressing the contravened provision. This path is explained fully later in this article, including its own, separate 30-day timing.

Option 4: Take No Action

Section 78(3) is unambiguous: an individual or entity that neither pays the penalty nor makes representations in accordance with the notice is deemed to have committed the violation and remains liable to pay the penalty set out in the notice. There is no intermediate outcome for silence. This does not mean a PSP should never pay; it means the decision to pay, contest, or seek an agreement should be made deliberately, with the statutory consequences of each path understood in advance, rather than by default.

What Is an RPAA Prescribed Review?

The Bank's Reviews and Appeals supervisory policy describes a "prescribed review" as an independent review, conducted by the Bank, of certain retail payments supervision (RPS) decisions issued against an affected party. The four decision types eligible for a prescribed review are:

• a notice of refusal to register;
• a notice of intent to revoke registration;
• a notice of violation, including any AMP; and
• a notice of default.

For an NOV specifically, the prescribed review is the process by which the Governor's delegate considers the representations a PSP makes under section 78(2); it is not an additional step that follows a separate "representations" stage. A prescribed review is not a fresh investigation, not a Federal Court proceeding, and not an informal request to "reconsider." The Bank states that it conducts prescribed reviews in accordance with principles of procedural fairness: the right to know the case, the right to be heard, the right to an impartial and independent decision-maker, and the right to be given reasons for the decision.

A detail worth noting for PSPs weighing their options: the Bank's policy describes the prescribed review decision as made de novo, meaning the delegate decides the matter afresh on the material submitted, rather than simply checking the original decision for errors.

A notice of default, discussed later in this article, is also eligible for its own, separate prescribed review, with its own filing deadline running from service of the notice of default itself, not from the original NOV.

Compliance orders issued under section 94 follow a separate review path set out in the Bank's enforcement tools policy, not the prescribed review process described here.

Who Decides the Prescribed Review?

The Governor may delegate powers, duties, and functions under the RPAA to a Bank officer. The power to conduct prescribed reviews of the relevant supervisory decisions was delegated to the Executive Director of Payments and Regulatory Oversight, by a notice of delegation published in the Canada Gazette on June 15, 2024. If the Executive Director is absent, unable to act, or the position is vacant, an alternate delegate conducts the review.

The Bank's policy describes an internal separation between this adjudicative function and the supervisory activities (registration, risk assessment, enforcement) that are overseen by the Managing Director of Supervision. Staff who support the Executive Director on prescribed reviews are described as independent from RPS supervisory activities, and are also supported by independent legal and communications staff. A conflict-of-interest check is completed before a review proceeds, and any identified conflict is addressed with the Bank's Compliance and Ethics Office, including possible reassignment to an alternate delegate. These are the safeguards the Bank has published; this article does not make claims about internal independence beyond what the Bank has stated publicly.

What to Include in a Prescribed Review Request

All prescribed review requests are submitted through PSP Connect, the Bank's IT platform for communication between the Bank and affected parties, in either English or French. According to the Bank's policy, a submission should include:

• the original RPS decision (including the external findings report, where applicable);
• a description of what aspects of the decision are being contested, and the reasons; and
• all documentary evidence supporting the PSP's position, plus any other relevant information.

The request may be submitted by the affected party or by a representative authorized to act on its behalf; the Bank's policy does not require that representative to be legal counsel, though a PSP may choose to engage counsel for a significant or legally complex matter.

Requests to make additional submissions beyond the 30-day deadline (or an extended deadline) are handled separately: the PSP must outline what it wants to submit, explain why, and provide the material. The Bank may deny such a request for any reason, including if it decides the reasons given are not valid, or if the delegate would not have enough time to consider the additional material before issuing a decision. Do not assume open-ended supplementation rights exist; late submissions are at the Bank's discretion.

The following practical suggestions are ComplyFactor recommendations, not Bank-prescribed requirements:

• Respond issue by issue rather than as one undifferentiated narrative, so each contested finding has a clear, traceable answer.
• Tie each piece of evidence explicitly to the finding it addresses.
• Build a chronology of relevant events, with dates and version-controlled records.
• Keep factual disagreements separate from legal or regulatory-interpretation disagreements; they usually need different kinds of evidence.

How to Structure Representations Against an NOV

A clear representations package generally does the following, in this order:

1. Identify the specific violation referenced in the NOV, using the Bank's own short-form description where one was used.
2. State precisely what is disputed: the underlying facts, the legal interpretation of the provision, the classification of the violation (serious versus very serious), the AMP amount, or more than one of these.
3. Map each argument to supporting evidence, rather than submitting a general narrative and a stack of unlinked documents.
4. Set out the relevant chronology of events, decisions, and communications.
5. Address harm, potential harm, prior violation history, and intent or negligence where these are relevant to the appropriateness of the penalty amount, since these are factors the Bank's AMP methodology weighs.
6. Distinguish corrective action from proof of the underlying facts. Remediation undertaken after the fact can be relevant context, but it does not, by itself, establish that the original violation did or did not occur.
7. State the relief requested: confirmation the violation was not committed, a reduced penalty, no penalty, or another specific outcome.

This is a structural suggestion, not legal advice, and it is not a substitute for qualified legal counsel where the facts are contested or the penalty is significant.

How the Bank of Canada Determines an Administrative Monetary Penalty

The RPAR classifies violations and sets penalty ranges. As of the applicable Regulations, the general ranges are up to $1,000,000 for a serious violation and up to $10,000,000 for a very serious violation, with specific exceptions for certain provisions, including a distinct daily-penalty structure for shorter periods of reporting non-compliance. The Bank's published guidance describes weighing actual and potential harm, violation history within the preceding five years, and the degree of intent or negligence when setting an amount within the applicable range. This article does not attempt to reproduce the Bank's full AMP methodology; PSPs weighing a specific penalty amount should consult the Bank's current administrative monetary penalties supervisory policy directly, since methodology detail can be updated.

What Can the Prescribed Review Decision Change?

Under section 78(2), if the individual or entity makes representations in accordance with the notice, the Governor's delegate must decide, on a balance of probabilities, whether the violation was committed. If it was, the decision-maker may impose the penalty set out in the original notice, a lesser penalty, or no penalty. The review is not limited to adjusting the penalty amount; it can result in a finding that the violation was not committed at all. Equally, a PSP should not assume that remediation or a sympathetic explanation guarantees a reduced penalty; the outcome depends on the evidence and the applicable classification.

The Bank must cause a notice of this decision to be issued and served, together with notice of the right of appeal under section 84(1) (RPAA, s. 78(4)).

The 90-Day Backstop for an NOV Prescribed Review

Section 84(2) provides that if the Bank does not cause a notice of decision to be issued and served under section 78(4) within 90 days after the day representations were made under section 78(2), the individual or entity may appeal the penalty set out in the original notice of violation to the Federal Court, within 30 days after that 90-day period expires.

The Bank's Reviews and Appeals policy describes the same backstop in operational terms: if the delegate fails to issue a prescribed review decision within 90 days after the day an affected party submits its request for review of an NOV, the affected party has a right of appeal to the Federal Court within 30 days after the 90-day period expires. Submitting the request for review and making representations under section 78(2) are, again, the same act; the statute and the policy are describing one 90-day backstop for the NOV process, using different vocabulary, not two separate 90-day mechanisms.

A separate 90-day backstop exists for a notice-of-default review under section 83, running from the day the Governor received the application for review under section 83(1), rather than from representations on an original NOV. This is a distinct mechanism tied to the notice-of-default process, not a second layer within the ordinary NOV pathway.

The practical point for a PSP is this: the 90-day period is a backstop, not a target. It does not mean the Bank always takes exactly 90 days, and it does not guarantee a decision within that window. It means that if no decision has issued by day 90, the PSP is not left waiting indefinitely; a Federal Court appeal route opens.

When Can You Appeal a Decision to the Federal Court?

Section 84(1) gives a right of appeal to the Federal Court for a decision made under subsection 78(2) (the NOV representations/prescribed review decision) or subsection 83(2) (a notice-of-default review decision). The appeal must generally be filed within 30 days after the day the decision is served, or within a longer period the Federal Court allows.

The Bank's policy confirms that this 30-day appeal clock also applies to a prescribed review decision more broadly: affected parties must exercise the right of appeal within 30 days after being notified of or served with the prescribed review decision, or within a longer period the Federal Court allows. On appeal, the Federal Court may confirm, set aside, or vary the decision (s. 84(4)), subject to applicable regulations on penalty amounts.

The Bank has set up an optional method for a PSP to serve the Bank with a Notice of Appeal by email, and states that parties using this method can expect a response within two business days of properly serving the notice.

Keep the vocabulary precise: the internal process is a prescribed review, not an "appeal." The appeal is the subsequent step to the Federal Court, available only after a prescribed review decision has been issued, or after the applicable 90-day backstop period has expired without one.

How Section 76 Compliance Agreements Work

Where the Bank decides to attach a compliance-agreement offer to an NOV under paragraph 76(2)(b), the Bank's supervisory policy on compliance agreements sets out precise mechanics:

• The Bank may offer to reduce the AMP set out in the NOV by half if the PSP enters into a compliance agreement addressing the contravened provision. This is a 50% reduction, not an "up to 50%" range, when the offer is accepted according to its terms.
• The PSP has no obligation to accept. It is one of several available responses, not a default outcome.
• The agreement must identify the contravened provision, the period and terms for coming into compliance, and the reduced penalty amount (s. 79(1)).
• Timing is strict and does not draw on the Reviews and Appeals extension mechanism. The agreement will not have effect until the PSP both signs it and pays the reduced AMP, and both must happen within 30 days after the day the PSP received the NOV. Signing without paying does not mean the PSP has entered into the agreement. If the PSP does not do both within that period, it is deemed to have refused the agreement and remains liable for the full penalty set out in the notice (s. 79(2)). This 30-day acceptance-and-payment deadline is separate from, and should not be confused with, the Bank's discretion under section 79(3) to extend the later remedial compliance period specified inside an already-signed agreement, which addresses a PSP's ability to complete the corrective action itself, not the initial decision to accept the offer.
• The Bank may also withdraw its offer to enter into a compliance agreement at any time before both parties have signed, for reasons that can include an inability to agree on terms or conduct by the PSP that the Bank considers bad faith. If the offer is withdrawn, or the PSP declines it, the PSP remains liable for the full AMP set out in the NOV, and the ordinary NOV procedures apply.
• A PSP that enters into a section 76(2)(b) compliance agreement is deemed to have committed the violation referred to in the notice (s. 80). This is a firm consequence, separate from any prescribed review process, and the violation counts toward the PSP's violation history for future AMP calculations.
• The Bank's policy states its intention to publish certain information about a section 76(2)(b) compliance agreement, consistent with the agreement's terms. This is different from a section 71 compliance agreement (a broader compliance tool not tied to a specific NOV), which the Bank treats as confidential between the Bank and the PSP unless the PSP later fails to comply and the Bank issues an NOV over that non-compliance. Do not assume all compliance agreements are treated the same way for publication purposes; the section under which the agreement was made matters.
• If the Bank later considers the agreement has been complied with, it must serve a notice to that effect, after which no further proceedings may be taken with respect to that violation (s. 81).
• If the Bank later considers the agreement has not been complied with, it may issue a notice of default (s. 82), discussed next.

Prescribed Review vs. Section 76 Compliance Agreement

Notice of Violation vs. Notice of Default

These two notices are easy to confuse but arise at different stages.

A notice of violation is the Bank's initial enforcement instrument, issued where the Bank believes on reasonable grounds that a violation occurred.

A notice of default can only arise later, and only where a PSP entered into a section 76(2)(b) compliance agreement and the Bank considers that agreement has not been complied with. Under section 82, a notice of default states that the PSP is liable to pay the difference between the original NOV penalty and any portion of the reduced penalty already paid, plus an additional penalty specified in the Regulations. The Bank's published guidance describes that additional penalty as equal to 100% of the original AMP, on top of the outstanding balance of the reduced penalty. A PSP served with a notice of default has no right of set-off or compensation against amounts already spent under the compliance agreement (s. 82(3)).

A PSP served with a notice of default may file an application for review with the Governor, on or before the date specified in the notice (which must be 30 days after service) or within any longer time the Bank allows (s. 83(1)). The Governor may confirm the Bank's decision or find that the PSP did comply with the agreement (s. 83(2)). Failure to pay or apply for review within the period means the PSP is deemed not to have complied, and must pay the amounts in the notice of default without delay (s. 83(3)). This is a genuinely separate review process from the original NOV's prescribed review, with its own deadline running from service of the notice of default, and its own 90-day Federal Court backstop under section 84(3).

Notice of Violation vs. Compliance Order

A Notice of Violation and a compliance order under section 94 address different problems and follow different processes.

An NOV is an AMP-based enforcement tool for a designated violation of the Act or Regulations, addressed through the payment, representations, compliance-agreement, or no-action paths described above.

A compliance order, by contrast, is used where the Governor is of the opinion that a PSP is committing, or about to commit, an act that could have a significant adverse impact on end users, another PSP, or a designated clearing house. It can direct a PSP to stop an activity or take remedial action, and, where the Governor considers delay for representations could itself be prejudicial to the public interest, can be made as an immediate temporary order that takes effect before representations are heard. This was the mechanism the Bank used against a Toronto-based fintech PSP in February 2026, in a case involving end-user fund safeguarding failures.

The two tools can, in principle, arise from overlapping facts, but they are governed by different sections and different review processes: compliance orders follow the review path in the Bank's enforcement tools policy, while NOVs follow the prescribed review process described throughout this article. ComplyFactor covers the compliance-order framework, including that 2026 case, in its XTM Inc. & the RPAA: What the Bank of Canada Compliance Order Means for PSPs article.

When Does a Bank of Canada NOV Become Public?

This is one of the more consequential 2026 developments for PSPs, and it needs precise handling.

The statute. Section 93(1) requires that, as soon as feasible after a PSP is deemed under subsection 78(1) or (3) to have committed a violation, or after a notice of decision stating the PSP committed a violation is served under subsection 78(4), the Bank must make public the nature of the violation, the name of the PSP, and the amount of any penalty imposed. Section 93(2) allows the Bank to include its reasons, including relevant facts, analysis, and considerations, when making a violation public.

The June 2026 policy change. On June 12, 2026, the Bank announced that it would begin publishing notices of violation relating to PSPs. According to that announcement, after a PSP has received an NOV, and once the period for making representations has expired, the notice is published on the Enforcement Decisions section of the Bank's website, with some detail on the nature of the violation and any AMP amount. The violation is also noted on the PSP's entry in the Bank's public Registry.

Reading the two together. Section 93 and the Bank's own retail payments glossary tie publication to a violation being deemed committed under section 78(1) or (3), or confirmed through a notice of decision under section 78(4) or a subsequent prescribed review decision. The June 2026 announcement's wording, tied to the expiry of the representations period, fits the statute cleanly in two scenarios and is less precise in a third:

• The PSP pays the AMP. The violation is deemed committed immediately under section 78(1), and section 93 publication can follow promptly.
• The PSP takes no action. The violation is deemed committed at the end of the response period under section 78(3), and publication can follow at that point.
• The PSP submits timely representations. The violation is not yet deemed or confirmed simply because the 30-day window has closed; under the statute, that depends on the subsequent decision under section 78(4) or a prescribed review outcome. Where representations are outstanding, the precise operational timing the Bank applies for Enforcement Decisions publication and Registry annotation should be confirmed against the Bank's current Enforcement Decisions practice, rather than assumed from the June 2026 announcement's general wording alone.

PSPs should not assume that every NOV becomes public the instant it is issued, that filing representations delays publication indefinitely, or that publication waits until every possible Federal Court appeal has been exhausted; none of these positions is supported by the sources reviewed for this article.

Separately, the Bank's Reviews and Appeals policy states that for enforcement-related prescribed review decisions (NOVs and notices of default), it will publish the entire prescribed review decision if the decision confirms the original decision or finds the PSP committed a violation, and that the PSP will first be given an opportunity to request redactions for sensitive, personal, or confidential business information before that publication occurs. Redaction requests are considered case by case and are not a guarantee that the underlying decision stays private.

What a PSP Should Do in the First 48 Hours After Receiving an NOV

1. Record the exact service date. This is the anchor for every deadline that follows, not the date on the letter or the date it was read.
2. Calendar the 30-day deadline, and separately note the Bank's 15-day guidance for requesting an extension, in case exceptional circumstances arise.
3. Preserve the NOV and all related internal records exactly as received, without alteration.
4. Separate each alleged violation in the notice and treat it individually; a multi-violation NOV can be responded to differently for different violations.
5. Determine the nature of the dispute for each violation: facts, legal interpretation, classification, penalty amount, or a combination.
6. Check whether a compliance-agreement offer was included under paragraph 76(2)(b), and, if so, note its own strict 30-day signing-and-payment deadline, separate from the review-request timeline.
7. Do not pay the full AMP before understanding what that payment forecloses. Payment ends the matter for that violation and generally removes prescribed review eligibility for it; understand that consequence before choosing this path, rather than avoiding payment reflexively.
8. Gather supporting records relevant to each contested point, organized by issue rather than by document type.
9. Consider whether the size, complexity, or legal interpretation involved warrants specialized legal counsel, particularly where a Federal Court appeal is a realistic possibility.
10. Assign a single internal response coordinator to own the timeline, the portal submissions, and communication with the Bank, so nothing is missed across departments.

How ComplyFactor Can Support RPAA Compliance and Remediation

Responding to a Bank of Canada NOV well depends on more than understanding the statute; it depends on having an accurate compliance record to draw on and a clear-eyed view of where the underlying program fell short. ComplyFactor supports Canadian PSPs with RPAA compliance readiness, remediation planning following a supervisory finding, operational-risk framework review, end-user fund safeguarding review, and preparation of documentary evidence for supervisory submissions.

ComplyFactor does not provide legal representation before the Bank of Canada or the Federal Court, does not file Federal Court appeals, and does not guarantee a particular prescribed review outcome, an AMP reduction, or an appeal result. Where an NOV involves a disputed legal interpretation, a significant AMP, or a likely appeal, qualified legal counsel should be engaged alongside any compliance advisory support.

For related RPAA registration or PSP compliance program work, see ComplyFactor's PSP Registration Canada service page.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does requesting a prescribed review suspend the obligation to pay the AMP?

Timely representations defer the point at which the original NOV penalty becomes a recoverable Crown debt. Under section 88(1)(a), the penalty set out in the NOV does not become recoverable on its original payment date where representations are made in accordance with the notice. If the Governor's delegate later imposes a penalty, section 88(1)(b) ties the debt to the amount imposed in that decision, beginning on the day the delegate specifies or, if no day is specified, the day the decision is made. In practical terms, the original NOV amount is not required to be paid up front while a timely prescribed review is pending.

Can a PSP use an authorized representative for the prescribed review?

Yes. The Bank's reviews and appeals policy allows the request to be submitted by the affected party or by a representative authorized to act on its behalf. The Bank does not require that representative to be a lawyer, though a PSP facing a complex or high-value matter may still choose to involve legal counsel.

What happens if an NOV lists several violations with different AMPs?

Each violation in a multi-violation NOV can, in effect, be treated on its own terms. A PSP can pay the AMP for one violation while making representations about another; paying the full AMP for a given violation removes eligibility for a prescribed review of that specific violation, but the Bank's policy preserves review eligibility for any other violations in the same notice that remain unpaid. Track each violation's status separately rather than treating the NOV as a single all-or-nothing decision.

Can a PSP continue operating while an NOV is under prescribed review?

An NOV, on its own, is not necessarily an operational stop order; it is an AMP process. However, other enforcement tools (such as a section 94 compliance order), registration conditions, or separate supervisory concerns could independently affect a PSP's ability to continue operating. Do not assume that receiving or contesting an NOV automatically permits, or automatically restricts, continued operations; that depends on the PSP's overall registration and supervisory status, which is separate from the NOV process itself.

This article provides general information about the Bank of Canada's Notice of Violation process under the Retail Payment Activities Act. It is not legal advice. PSPs facing an active NOV, prescribed review, or Federal Court appeal should consult qualified legal counsel and the Bank of Canada's current supervisory policies directly, since procedural details can be updated.