They were designed for the systems behind them. The result is friction, confusion, and moments where users make financial decisions without fully understanding what they are agreeing to. This role exists to change that.
You will sit inside a cross-functional squad alongside product and engineering, operate with high autonomy, and be expected to shape problems before solving them.
Banking flows are inherently complex. Onboarding involves compliance. Payments involve risk. Account management involves states and edge cases that most users never anticipate until they are already in them.
The job is not to simplify for the sake of it. The job is to make complexity navigable, to make trade offs visible, and to make users feel in control of decisions that have real financial consequences.
If you cannot demonstrate all five clearly in your CV and portfolio, please do not apply. Screening will filter against these specifically before any manual review takes place.
You are not executing briefs. You are expected to:
This role is measured on outcomes, not output.
The metrics that matter: task completion rate on key flows, error rate on complex multi-step journeys, activation and onboarding conversion, and design system adoption across the product. If those numbers move in the right direction and the team is shipping better work faster, the role is succeeding.
Design sits inside cross-functional squads and shapes strategy directly. It is not a service function. Work is shared early, challenged often, and improved continuously. You are expected to bring a point of view, defend it with reasoning, and update it when you are wrong.
The operating environment is office first across Calgary, Winnipeg, and Toronto. Regular in-person presence with your product squad is expected, not optional.
We ask every applicant to record a short video answer to one question. It takes less than three minutes. We know it is uncomfortable. We ask anyway because it tells us something a CV cannot.
The question is: Tell us about a complex, multi-step flow you designed in a financial or regulated product. What was the hardest trade off you had to make, and how did you decide?
We are not assessing presentation style or production quality. We are assessing how you think about hard problems and whether you can communicate trade offs clearly to people who were not in the room when you made them.
I use an AI assisted screening tool to do a first pass on applications before I review them together with the team. It does not make final decisions. I do. But it flags applications that do not clearly address the five criteria above, and that shapes the depth and order of our review.
If your application does not speak to those five things directly, it will likely be deprioritised regardless of how strong your broader experience is.
After the screening pass, the team and I review your portfolio together. We are looking for honest case studies: real problem framing, your specific role, the trade offs you made, and what actually happened. Outcomes that did not go perfectly are more useful to us than polished stories that did.
You will hear back from us regardless of the outcome. That is not a standard line. It is a commitment.