Start here: if a candidate says they led "operations," ask what they owned. At TMX Group I was Manager, IT Operations and Incident Response from February 2025 to October 2026. The mandate was L1 Monitoring and Major Incident Management. Infrastructure ownership sat elsewhere.
That split is the whole point of this note. Capital markets and post-trade services do not wait for ambiguous ownership. This is the mandate as held.
Reporting shape
I led a unified monitoring and major incident team through three team leads.
Accountability covered:
- escalations
- executive communications
- development of team leads for broader incident responsibilities
Day-to-day monitoring and incident work ran through the leads. My job was the operating model, the escalation path, the quality of executive updates, and whether those leads could take broader incident ownership over time.
Why that matters to the business: during a P1 or P2, the cost of a fuzzy escalation path is delayed recovery coordination and noisy executive updates. My accountability was to keep that path usable while the technical owners did their work.
Live incident work had an explicit exclusion
I served as Incident Lead for P1 and P2 incidents across TMX, excluding Trayport.
In that role I coordinated technical recovery, escalations, and executive updates while the incident was active. The Trayport exclusion mattered in practice. Stakeholders still expected clarity on who was leading which incident class. Ambiguity there creates duplicate bridges, delayed updates, and argument about ownership while services are degraded.
High-agency call: I accepted narrower live P1/P2 lead assignment and still owned process design that spanned a wider surface, including Trayport. Collapsing those two facts into "he owned every incident everywhere" is how résumés get misread. Keeping them separate is how you avoid ownership fights mid-outage.
I designed, documented, and implemented an incident management process across TMX businesses and subsidiaries, including Trayport, covering all severity levels. Process ownership could be broad. Live lead assignment stayed narrower. Both can be true.
Why we automated the collaboration bridge
I led integration of ServiceNow Major Incident Management.
That work included Google Workspace automation that creates a dedicated Chat space and Meet bridge for each incident troubleshooting team.
Major incidents waste minutes on channel setup. People join the wrong room. Executives ask for updates before the technical bridge even exists. Automating space and Meet creation removed one avoidable failure mode at the start of an incident, before recovery work had a reliable place to happen.
Tools supported the mandate. They did not redefine it.
Monitoring and observability used Splunk Observability Cloud, Dynatrace, and Grafana. Workload and operational automation used Control-M and Ansible Automation Platform.
Those tools mattered for detection and handling. They did not convert the role into platform engineering or infrastructure ownership.
I also supported CDS modernization go-live and post-go-live operations during the transition from mainframe to open systems. During the same period I strengthened production change requirements for technical documentation, implementation evidence, procedural completeness, and accountable authorization, and owned assigned operational control attestations.
Scar tissue from that period: go-live and post-go-live support during a mainframe-to-open-systems transition leaves little room for vague ownership. Monitoring signals, escalation paths, and change evidence either hold under modernization pressure or they do not. Strengthening change evidence was risk control for a live transition, not paperwork for its own sake.
Headcount after amalgamation
The team had 17 people when I joined and 14 after amalgamation.
Two support teams were consolidated following CDS Post Trade Modernization so monitoring and major incident management sat in one operating team.
That change was organizational consolidation. It is not a savings claim. It is not a performance win narrative. Merging two support cultures into one operating team is the hard part: shared severity language, shared escalation habits, and shared expectations of team leads. Without that, amalgamation just creates a larger meeting with two ways of paging people.
How to use this in hiring
Use this record if you need someone who has clarified ownership under pressure, coordinated major incidents with executive updates, built process across business units, and led through amalgamation without dressing headcount change as heroics.
Do not use it as proof of infrastructure build ownership. That was outside the mandate.
Employment at TMX ended in October 2026. I am seeking a senior technology operations or service delivery leadership role in Canada. The résumé on this site carries the same chronology.