Canadian Financial Services
GRI’s Canadian Financial Services Risk Outlook Survey draws on the views of Chief Risk Officers from across Canada’s financial sector.
The survey results indicate a risk environment characterized by interconnected risks. Respondents expressed greater caution over the short term, with more positive expectations over the five-year horizon. Confidence in organizational resilience remains strong, alongside recognition of external constraints driven by geopolitical and macroeconomic conditions.
Key takeaways from the 2026 survey:
- Short-term caution and stronger medium-term confidence, with expectations improving over the five-year outlook.
- Operational risks with strategic relevance, including technology, cyber, third-party and outsourcing risks.
- High confidence in organizational resilience, alongside lower confidence at the sector level.
- Emphasis on governance and foresight, including scenario planning, stress testing and board engagement.
- Rapid technological change, with innovation advancing alongside evolving oversight frameworks.
Top risks for 2026:
- Geopolitical and policy risk
- Macroeconomic risk
- Technology and cyber risk
- Financial market risk
- Third-party and outsourcing risk
Figure 1: Evolution of Top Risks Over Time: Ranking of Short-term Risks
Figure 2: Outlook for the Canadian Financial Sector: 1-Year versus 5-Year Horizon
“Given the level of uncertainty, scenario planning and stress testing
are no longer optional, they’re essential.”
Survey Context and Methodology
Survey respondents were asked to assess risks over short-term (one year) and medium-term (five-year) horizons, rank the most significant threats to the Canadian financial system and evaluate their organizations’ capacity to understand, manage and govern those risks. Survey results were analyzed using a weighted ranking methodology to identify priority risk areas and to support comparison across time horizons. Risk categories and definitions were refined for the 2026 cycle to improve clarity and consistency.Historical results were reclassified and recalculated to align with the updated risk taxonomy. Rankings based on the proportion of total responses received for each risk factor (1st risk = 5 responses, 2nd risk = 4 responses, 3rd risk = 3 responses, 4th risk = 2 responses, 5th risk = 1 response)