Kam Thindal and Core Capital Partners are pushing back against the British Columbia Securities Commission’s recent decision, preparing an appeal that challenges both the findings and the proceedings that led to them. The firm says the ruling does not reflect the full record and that the investigation was fundamentally flawed.
What the BCSC found, and what Core Capital disputes
The BCSC panel found securities law violations tied to two companies: Integrated Cannabis and Block One. Core Capital intends to appeal those findings, arguing they don’t hold up under legal review. At the same time, the panel dismissed allegations related to Reliq Health – a decision the firm points to as evidence the case was more complicated than it often appears in public.
On Reliq Health, the panel concluded that the respondents “did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know” that Reliq wouldn’t collect certain revenues from invoices. That part of the decision, Core Capital argues, shows the need for a broader examination of how all the evidence was handled.
Related: Tom Walter turns baseball coaching into social impact
Eight years of investigation, millions in costs
Kam Thindal has been direct about the toll the matter has taken. In a January 28, 2026 statement, he described an eight-year investigation that affected his family, his business, and his access to his own assets. He says he spent more than $3.5 million of his own money on legal fees. Thindal also criticized the use of asset freezes nearly seven years before any final findings were made.
Freezes restricted his access to bank accounts, real estate, and investment accounts while he was still fighting the accusations. From his perspective, that created a situation where the proceedings themselves became punitive well before the ruling.
That timeframe matters. A probe that stretches across most of a decade forces respondents to defend themselves under constant financial and personal pressure. Core Capital’s position is that the regulatory powers used here should come with more accountability, especially when the consequences are so severe.
Related: Volkswagen Announces Voice AI in Chinese Cars Later This Year
Questions about proportionality and fairness
Securities regulators have broad authority, and for good reason – markets need investor protection and integrity. But Core Capital argues that when a probe takes that long, and when a respondent spends millions while assets remain frozen, the fairness of the proceedings becomes its own central issue. Core Capital is not asking for sympathy. It is arguing that the system needs to be balanced.
Kam Thindal’s defense rests on the idea that Commission staff developed a narrative that was not supported by the complete evidence. He has said the government used its powers aggressively without enough discipline or timeliness. The challenge will likely test both the substance of the conclusions and the procedure that produced them.
The business behind the regulatory fight
Core Capital Partners has operated for more than 15 years as a merchant banking and venture investment firm. It focuses on emerging sectors like healthcare technology, cannabis, artificial intelligence, and critical metals – areas where timing, policy, and liquidity can shift quickly. Those sectors are volatile, but they are also where early capital can help companies develop and scale.
Related: Big Tech Layoffs 2024: Meta, Amazon, and Oracle Cut Jobs – Full Company List
The regulatory proceeding has pulled public attention away from that track record and toward a disputed regulatory outcome. Core Capital’s appeal is an attempt to put the focus back on the full story – one that includes the dismissed allegations, the lengthy inquiry, and the practical consequences imposed before the matter was finished.
Two versions of events, one appeal to settle it
The public record now contains two conflicting accounts. The panel issued findings against Core Capital and Thindal on two specific issuers. Core Capital disputes those findings and argues that the regulatory process that led to them was unfair. The legal challenge will determine whether the disputed determinations stand, whether any part of the determination is reconsidered, and how the final record is understood.
Kam Thindal has said he will continue fighting the matter with the same energy he has brought over the past eight years. For Core Capital, the challenge is the next step in defending their reputation and contesting a ruling they believe was built on an incomplete version of events.
