Beneficial Ownership Registry Rules Come to New Brunswick
By Alanna Waberski, Graham Haynes and Maria Cummings
On June 10, 2022, the Government of New Brunswick proclaimed into force Bill 95, which amends the Business Corporations Act (New Brunswick) (the “NBBCA”) to require corporations to maintain a register of all individuals with significant control over the corporation, among other things.
Non-compliance can result in significant fines for a corporation, its shareholders and other individuals.
Key Changes
1. Register Maintenance
Under Bill 95, all corporations formed under the NBBCA, aside from public corporations, are required to maintain a register of individuals with significant control (a “Register”). An “individual with significant control” over a corporation is defined as an individual who:
- is the registered holder of a “significant number of shares”;
- is the beneficial owner of a “significant number of shares”; or
- has direct or indirect control over a “significant number of shares”.
A “significant number of shares” is defined as either any number of shares that carry 25% or more of the voting rights attached to all of the corporation’s outstanding voting shares, or any number of shares that is equal to 25% or more of all of the corporation’s outstanding voting shares.
A register must contain the following information about every individual with significant control:
- their full name, date of birth and last known address;
- their jurisdiction of residence for tax purposes;
- the day they became, or ceased to be, an individual with significant control;
- a description of how each individual has significant control over the corporation, including their interests and rights in respect of shares of the corporation;
- a description of each step taken to ensure the information is accurate; and
- any other prescribed information.
At least once during each financial year, a corporation must take reasonable steps to ensure that it has identified all individuals with significant control, and ensure that the information in the register is accurate, complete and up to date, and must also update any information which has changed once it becomes aware of such change within fifteen (15) days.
2. Penalties
A corporation that, without reasonable cause, fails to maintain a Register or fails to comply with a request for information from an investigative body may be fined up to $10,200 for a first offence or, for a second or further offence, be fined up to $15,000 or such face imprisonment for up to 90 days. A judge may also choose to levy a fine in an amount above the aforementioned maximums in certain circumstances. Shareholders that fail to comply with requests for information from a corporation can also be subject to the same penalties for not complying.
3. Bearer Share Warrant Prohibition
Also under Bill 95, corporations are prohibited from issuing bearer share warrants (i.e., shares granting ownership to the person who physically possesses the bearer share warrant certificate) following the date of enactment.
If you would like our assistance in complying with these legislative changes and preparing your Register, or if you have any questions about the new disclosure requirements, please contact our Firm at compliance@stewartmckelvey.com.
Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.
Archive
Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…
Read MoreJoe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…
Read MoreOn July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…
Read MoreOn April 1, 2016 New Brunswick’s Mortgage Brokers Act came into force, requiring businesses acting as mortgage brokerages or as mortgage administrators in New Brunswick to be licensed. A mortgage brokerage is a business that on behalf…
Read MoreIn May 2016, the Federal Court of Canada confirmed that copyright does not protect facts, even where a book’s author is clearly inspired by the content of a film (Maltz v. Witterick, 2016 FC 524 (CanLII)).…
Read MoreBy Jennifer Taylor “…firms of notaries or lawyers…must not be turned into archives for the tax authorities”1 So says the Supreme Court of Canada in one of two highly anticipated decisions on solicitor-client privilege, offering lawyers…
Read MoreJoe Thorne1 and Clara Linegar2 As joint owners of a business, what do you do when the business relationship falls apart? And what if one owner undermines the business in the process? In Smith v Hillier,3 Justice Paquette…
Read MoreThe Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the appeals in Bruce Brine v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.1 (with costs) and Luciano Branco, et al. v. Zurich Life Insurance Company Limited, et al.(without costs). Both of…
Read MoreOn May 4, 2016, the Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act (“PRPP Act”) was proclaimed in force, and finalized Pooled Registered Pension Plan Regulations were released. While there were no major changes from the previously released draft regulations, the proposed rules…
Read MoreBy Level Chan and Dante Manna Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) are closer to becoming a reality for Nova Scotian employers. PRPPs were established by the Federal government in an effort to address the lack of retirement savings…
Read More