i think others have addressed this but, really, no, it's not the opposite. (And don't call me Shirley.)
The TTC's move, as pointed out above, was to introduce untested technology, undermining a provincial system (flawed, sure) that was a vital part of regional fare integration. The TTC didn't care about introducing new tech and it didn't care about its role in the regional network. I don't think they cared about anything other than money. Money is important, no doubt, but I think it's really hard to spin the TTC's move as some forward-thinking genius that got reined in by others. The only Q is whether they were legitimately trying to undermine regional transit planning or just bluffing the whole way.
As for dates - Oyster was introduced in 2003, Octopus was in 1997 and NYC's Metrocard was in 1993. I'll leave it to other experts to talk about when other similar tech came online. What I do know is that, I believe it was in 2006, that the TTC realized they were getting killed with counterfeit tokens. Did they push for something like Oyster? Something like Metrocard? Did they try to reinvent the wheel by devising a groundbreaking open payment system? No - they came up with NEW TOKENS. In 2006. That's 3 years after NYC totally dispensed with tokens on its subway system.
And then, in 2010, with the province's regional system 1/2 integrated, they had a vision and decided to push open payment. Nah, it was a political game and I stand by my impression they were dragged kicking and screaming and if not for Presto and their need for the Crosstown money, they'd still be pushing tokens and tickets. And, salt in the wound, this is an organization that was a world leader in the 70s and maybe even the 80s. Now they are decades behind and funding is a big part of that, but so is their narrow thinking.