Kam Thindal and Core Capital Partners Defend Their Record in BCSC Appeal

For Kam Thindal and Core Capital Partners, the British Columbia Securities Commission decision marks one stage in a much longer fight over process, evidence, and fairness. The firm has stated its intention to appeal the decision, and its position is clear: the findings do not reflect the full record, the investigation was deeply flawed, and the process imposed severe consequences long before the matter reached a final outcome.

The case has now entered a new phase. Core Capital will seek to challenge the findings it disputes, while Kam Thindal continues to defend his conduct, his reputation, and the business he has built over more than a decade.

At the center of Core Capital’s position is the view that the BCSC decision should be examined with care, rather than reduced to a headline. The panel found breaches of the Securities Act in connection with Integrated Cannabis and Block One, findings that Core Capital disputes and intends to appeal. At the same time, the panel dismissed the allegations related to Reliq Health, finding that the respondents did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that Reliq would not collect certain revenues from invoices.

That dismissal is an important part of the record. For Kam Thindal and Core Capital, it shows that the case was more complex than the public narrative suggests. It also reinforces the firm’s view that a full appeal is necessary to review how the evidence was interpreted, how the conclusions were reached, and whether the findings related to Integrated Cannabis and Block One can withstand legal scrutiny.

Kam Thindal has also been direct about the personal and financial cost of the process. In his January 28, 2026, statement, he described an eight-year investigation that affected his family, his business, and his ability to access his own assets while defending himself. He stated that he has spent more than $3.5 million of his own money on legal fees and criticized the use of asset freeze powers before the matter had been fully adjudicated.

Those details sit at the heart of his defense. In Kam Thindal’s view, the process itself became punitive. An eight-year investigation placed an extraordinary burden on him and his family. Multi-million-dollar legal costs compounded that burden. Asset freezes, applied nearly 7 years before final findings were made, restricted access to bank accounts, real estate, and investment accounts while he was awaiting and then fighting the allegations.

From Core Capital’s perspective, this raises a broader question about proportionality. Securities regulators have significant powers because public markets require investor protection and market integrity. Those powers should come with discipline, timeliness, and accountability intended to serve public interest. When an investigation stretches across most of a decade, and when a respondent is forced to spend millions defending himself while assets remain frozen, the fairness of the process becomes a central issue in its own right.

Kam Thindal’s defense is that he did not receive a process that reflected that balance. He has argued that Commission staff pursued the matter for years, used extraordinary powers aggressively, and developed a narrative that was not supported by the full evidence. His statement criticizes what he views as a process in which government power was used without sufficient accountability for the consequences imposed on the people being investigated.

Core Capital’s appeal will likely focus on both the substance of the findings and the procedure that produced them. In complex securities matters, especially those involving years of corporate activity, investor communications, market movements, and issuer-specific developments, the interpretation of evidence is critical. Core Capital’s position is that the conclusions reached in relation to Integrated Cannabis and Block One do not properly reflect the record.

The firm also believes the appeal should address the way the investigation unfolded. From Kam Thindal’s perspective, the length of the investigation, the financial strain of the defence, and the asset freeze regime created an uneven playing field. A respondent fighting the government should be able to defend himself without the process becoming so prolonged and costly that it creates pressure to settle simply to end the ordeal.

That point is central to Kam Thindal’s public position. He has said he will continue fighting the matter with the same energy and integrity he has brought to the past eight years. His statement does not frame the dispute as a request for sympathy. It frames it as a challenge to a process he believes was unfair, excessive, and damaging.

Core Capital Partners has operated for over 15 years as a merchant banking and venture investment firm focused on emerging sectors, including healthcare technology, cannabis, artificial intelligence, and critical metals. The firm’s work has often focused on capital formation in industries where timing, policy, liquidity, and investor sentiment can change quickly. Those sectors can be volatile, but they are also areas where early capital can help companies develop, commercialize, and scale.

The BCSC proceeding has shifted public attention away from that operating history and toward a disputed regulatory record. Core Capital’s appeal is an attempt to restore balance to the public understanding of the case. The firm is not asking the market to ignore the BCSC decision. It is asking that the decision be tested through the appeal process, with proper attention to the evidence, the dismissed allegations, the length of the investigation, and the practical consequences imposed before the matter was complete.

The public record now contains two different accounts. The BCSC panel has issued findings related to specific issuers. Kam Thindal and Core Capital dispute those findings, point to the dismissed Reliq allegations as evidence of complexity, and argue that the investigation and decision should be reviewed.

The appeal will determine whether the disputed findings stand, whether aspects of the decision are reconsidered, and how the final record is understood. It will also provide Kam Thindal and Core Capital Partners with the next forum to argue that the process was flawed and that the decision should not be treated as the final word.

After eight years, Kam Thindal’s position remains firm. He believes the investigation was unfair, the process was excessive, and the findings should be appealed. Core Capital Partners intends to continue that fight through the appropriate legal channels.

For Kam Thindal and Core Capital, the appeal is the next step in defending their record, challenging the BCSC’s conclusions, and seeking a fuller review of a case they believe has been defined for too long by an incomplete version of events.