Skip to content

Enhanced scrutiny of foreign investments during COVID-19

Burtley Francis

In a statement issued on April 18, 20201, the federal government (through Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada) signalled that certain foreign investments into Canada will now face enhanced scrutiny under the Investment Canada Act as Canada continues to grapple with the impacts of COVID-19. The enhanced scrutiny comes as the national health and security of Canadians and the economy is now of paramount concern to the Canadian Government.

What transactions are subject to scrutiny?

The statement recognizes that in the current economic climate many businesses have experienced declines in their valuations, which may make them an investment or acquisition target for foreign investors.  Where the foreign investment has potential to introduce new risks into Canada those transactions will garner additional scrutiny, which will likely result in a detailed assessment and prolonged review periods. Transactions of particular concern are those involving foreign direct investments in the following circumstances:

  • In connection with the target Canadian business: the business is related to public health; or the business is related to or involved in the supply of critical goods and services; or
  • In connection with the foreign investor: the investor is owned by a foreign government; or the investor, even if it is an otherwise private entity, is assessed as being closely tied to or subject to direction from a foreign government.

This enhanced scrutiny will be applied once any of the above circumstances are met, regardless of the transaction value, and whether or not the transaction results in the foreign investor having a controlling interest in the Canadian Business.

How will this be applied?

Even prior to the issued statement, the federal government had the ability under its national security review powers to block a proposed investment, to allow an investment with conditions (which can be imposed pre- or post-implementation), or order the divestiture of a completed investment. This is unchanged. How the government exercises its national security powers remain somewhat of a black box, without much insight on the applied analysis of challenged investments. What the statement clarifies, though, is that there will be a particular heightened focus on investments involving public health and the supply of critical goods and services.

Unfortunately, the statement does not provide detail on what is captured within the scope of “critical goods and services”. However, guidance may be taken from the federal government’s published policy on critical infrastructure 2 which provides a list of 10 critical sectors, namely:

  • Energy and utilities
  • Finance
  • Food
  • Transportation
  • Government
  • Information and communication technology
  • Health
  • Water
  • Safety
  • Manufacturing

There may be additional consideration of provincial designations of industries or businesses as essential services as well. Even so, the statement leaves the door open for this higher review standard to apply to transactions beyond just those involving businesses active in Canada’s supply chains for essential medical supplies or personal protective equipment, which may otherwise have been implied by virtue of the statement being tied to the current COVID-19 pandemic.

How long will this policy be in place?

The duration of this approach to enhanced review is indefinite as it will apply until the economy recovers from the effects of COVID-19.

What does this mean for transactions going forward?

Even in light of the statement, the same financial thresholds for review and triggers for prescribed cultural businesses 3 under the Investment Canada Act continue to apply, and the majority of foreign investment transactions will likely be subject only to notification. While review officers are working remotely following personal distancing directives, they continue to accept and review notifications and adhere to the usual service standards and timelines.

However, this statement likely will result in more foreign investment transactions being subject to a higher level of review particularly where the Canadian business operates in a critical sector. Given the uncertainty in scope it is recommended that investors seek clearance prior to close (at least 45 days prior to intended closing date) even where ordinarily a post-closing notice would be allowed.4 In this way the parties will have certainty that the deal will not be challenged after it has closed.


1 https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ica-lic.nsf/eng/lk81224.html
2 The National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure is available at https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/crtcl-nfrstrctr/esf-sfe-en.aspx, together with guidance on designated essential services and functions (which are subject to amendment).
3 Cultural businesses include those involved in the publication, distribution or sale of books, magazines, periodicals, newspapers or music in print or machine readable form as well as businesses involved in the production, distribution, sale or exhibition of film or video products or audio or video music recordings.
4 The 45 day recommendation corresponds with the timelines under the Investment Canada Act, pursuant to which notice of any national security concerns must be raised within 45 days of the initial filing.


This article is provided for general information only. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Commercial Transactions/Agreements group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership articles and updates.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

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 More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe 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 More

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On 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 More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a mortgage brokerage and mortgage administrator in New Brunswick

July 7, 2016

On 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 More

Copyright does not monopolize facts – documentary filmmakers’ claim against book author and publisher fails

June 29, 2016

In 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 More

Solicitor-client privilege vs the Canada Revenue Agency: the SCC speaks

June 10, 2016

By 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 More

Why can’t we be friends?: Lessons on corporate dissolution from Smith v. Hillier

May 30, 2016

Joe 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 More

Client Update: Supreme Court of Canada dismisses appeals in punitive damages cases

May 26, 2016

The 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 More

Client Update: Pension update: Countdown to Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans

May 17, 2016

On 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 More

Pension Primer: Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) in Nova Scotia

April 22, 2016

By 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

Search Archive


Scroll To Top