On April 25, 2025, the Financial Markets Administrative Tribunal (the "FMAT") issued its first ruling on the admissibility of expert reports on cryptocurrencies. This is the first such decision reported by a securities regulator in Québec or in any other Canadian province.
As part of request for precautionary measures filed by the Autorité des marchés financiers (the "AMF"), the respondents sought to present a cryptocurrency expert, whose report had been added to the case file. The AMF objected, arguing that the report was useless and that the expert was overstepping the role of the judge. The FMAT ultimately rejected the report and barred the expert from testifying at the hearing. Two main reasons drove this decision.
1. FMAT's technical expertise in cryptocurrencies
Administrative Judge Jean-Pierre Cristel began by pointing out that recourse to expert evidence is only justified if the subject matter is beyond the knowledge of the FMAT. Over the past eight years, the FMAT has issued numerous rulings on the use of cryptocurrencies for investment and market manipulation. As a result, the FMAT now possesses sufficient technical expertise to assess the relevant facts relating to these financial products without external assistance. This decision is likely to influence the litigation strategy of parties in future cases, as they will need to consider the scope of the FMAT's technical expertise in this area in order to assess the appropriateness of engaging an expert on the nature or workings of crypto assets.
2. Legal opinions given by the expert
The second reason for exclusion was equally important: the FMAT criticized the expert, who was not a lawyer, for having usurped its role by providing interpretations of the law. In his report, the expert opined on applicable regulations in Canada and the United States, and even suggested that an exemption might apply to the respondents' situation. The FMAT pointed out that only the parties' lawyers may present legal arguments and its application to the facts in dispute, whereas the expert's role is limited to technical analysis and factual observations.
The judge also noted that the report contained elements resembling pleading, which undermined its evidentiary value and relevance to the legal debate.
Implications going forward
By rejecting this evidence, the FMAT has opened a significant chapter in Canadian jurisprudence as this decision is the first to formally address the role of cryptocurrency experts in quasi-judicial proceedings related to financial markets. It remains to be seen under what circumstances the FMAT would allow this type of expert evidence in the future—and whether other provincial securities tribunals will follow suit.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
