Decision in brief: Internet Sciences Inc v CNSX Markets Inc, Application for Review Proceeding, Motion to vary Reasons and Bias Motion, February 26, 2026

In its application, Internet Sciences Inc. asks the Tribunal to review decisions by CNSX Markets Inc. that denied its listing on the Canadian Securities Exchange.

After a hearing on November 25, 2025 to plan next steps in this case, a decision was made. The Tribunal:

• set a schedule for hearing motions and the merits hearing,
• noted that Internet Sciences’ application and motions did not comply with all the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, and appeared to contain references to Rules that did not exist, and
• provided Internet Sciences with time to decide if it wanted to make changes to its application and motions to correct references made to the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

Before that decision was made public on the Tribunal’s website, Internet Sciences asked that changes be made to the decision and that it only be made public if those changes were made.

Internet Sciences said that the decision needed to be changed because it was unfair to say that Internet Sciences referred to “non‑existent Rules” and “possible AI hallucinations”, and asked the Tribunal to confirm that it had acted in good faith by correcting its materials after the hearing.

The Tribunal decided not to change the decision. Internet Sciences’ actions after the hearing don’t change what the Tribunal considered at the hearing.

The Tribunal also decided that the decision should be public. Internet Sciences’ concerns about reputational harm were speculative and were not enough to override the principle that decisions are normally made public.

Internet Sciences also said that the panel was biased (not neutral) or could appear unfair to a reasonable person. It asked that a different panel consider its bias claim and its request to change the decision.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the panel was biased or appeared unfair. It is normal for a panel to consider a request to change its own decision, and this does not show bias. The panel’s comments and scheduling decisions were appropriate and reflected what happened at the hearing, and the rules cited by Internet Sciences did not apply. The decision to keep certain documents confidential was made at Internet Sciences’ request and not because the panel was hiding its own conduct. Internet Sciences was not denied a request for a stay (a permanent halt). That request had not been considered yet, but the hearing had been scheduled.