Skip to content

Navigating Canada’s sanctions against Russia: New guidance on ownership and control of an entity

By Kim Walsh and Olivia Bungay

Canadian sanctions targeting Russia in relation to Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine were significantly expanded over the past year.

Critical to compliance with Canada’s sanctions targeting Russia, individuals and businesses must determine whether they are dealing in property owned or controlled by a designated person under Schedule 1 of the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations. The Regulations prohibit dealing in property of any kind that is owned, held or controlled by a designated person, regardless of where the property is located.

As it stands, there is no formal guidance on what qualifies as ownership or control in the context of Canadian economic sanctions. The result is ambiguity and confusion in efforts to avoid breaching the Regulations, particularly when dealing with companies that may be either indirectly or partly owned/controlled by a shareholder that is a designated person.

The first Court interpretation of ownership and control in the context of sanctions was the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta decision Angophora Holdings Limited v Ovsyankin, 2022 ABKC 711. In that case, Angophora was a subsidiary wholly owned by a private equity fund equally owned by two banks. One of the owners, Gazprombank, was a Russian bank that was listed as a designated person. The Court was tasked with determining whether Angophora was controlled by, or acting on behalf of, Gazprombank. Absent a definition of controlled by or acting on behalf of a designated person, the Court held that control should be assessed as a factual issue determined by the circumstances, particularly focusing on whether there is de facto control. The Court considered the following factors to find that there was a strong prima facie case that Angophora was controlled by or acting on behalf of Gazprombank:

  1. Corporate decision-making in Angophora required unanimity between both owners’ nominees, which allowed Gazprombank to prevent actions from being taken,
  2. Gazprombank exerted a high level of functional control over Angophora and was integrated in its affairs, and
  3. The corporate structure of Angophora met the U.S. sanction law definition of control (i.e. 50% or more of Angophora was indirectly owned by Gazprombank).

Angophora is currently the only interpretation on ownership and control in Canadian economic sanctions laws, however further guidance is coming. The Canadian Government has recently introduced Bill C-47 (the 2023 Budget Implementation Act) which, if passed, will amend its economic sanctions laws to include criteria for ownership and control.

The Bill, as drafted, will deem a designated person to control an entity if:

  • the person holds, directly or indirectly, 50% or more of the shares or ownership interests in the entity or 50% or more of the voting rights in the entity;
  • the person is able, directly or indirectly, to change the composition or powers of the entity’s board of directors; or
  • it is reasonable to conclude, having regard to all the circumstances, that the person is able, directly or indirectly and through any means, to direct the entity’s activities.

Moreover, the Bill introduces a deeming provision which states that a person who controls an entity according to the criteria above will be deemed to own it.

If passed, Bill C-47 will provide more guidance on the issue of ownership and control in terms of compliance with Canadian sanctions. However, the draft legislation itself provides insight into the relevant factors that indicate control.

Sanctioned ship-owners continue to leverage the use of obscure ownership structures, shell companies registered in third countries, and reflagging tactics to evade sanctions. Businesses should conduct due diligence based on these guiding factors to ensure that they are not dealing in property owned or controlled by designated persons. Special caution should be allotted to identify beneficial owners, or those with indirect control over an entity.


This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact the author.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Atlantic Employers’ Counsel – Summer 2013

August 8, 2013

DUE DILIGENCE Generally, occupational health and safety legislation in Atlantic Canada, like other jurisdictions, requires employers to take reasonable precautions to ensure the health and safety of workers in their workplace. Read More INCIDENT RESPONSE…

Read More

Client Update: Cyber-safety Act comes into effect for Nova Scotia

August 8, 2013

The Cyber-safety Act (“the Act”), excepting Part V (that part amending the Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act), was proclaimed August 6, 2013 and is now in effect. As discussed in our May 17, 2013 Client Update and our HRLaw blog The business case…

Read More

Client Update: The “historic trade-off” prevails

August 7, 2013

The Supreme Court of Canada has now released the much anticipated decision in the case of Marine Services International Ltd. v Ryan Estate, 2013 SCC 44. In doing so, the high court has signaled, at least…

Read More

Client Update: A judge’s guide to settlement approval and contingency fee agreements in P.E.I.

July 25, 2013

In Wood v. Wood et al, 2013 PESC 11, a motion pursuant to Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for court approval of a settlement involving a minor, Mr. Justice John K. Mitchell approved the settlement among the…

Read More

Client Update: Directors will be liable for unpaid wages and vacation pay

July 8, 2013

Clients who sit on boards of corporate employers should take note of recent amendments made to New Brunswick’s Employment Standards Act (the “ESA”) which could increase their exposure to personal liability in connection with claims advanced by…

Read More

Client Update: To B or Not To B? Potential Changes to PEI Auto Insurance

June 28, 2013

Significant changes may be coming to the standard automobile policy in PEI, including increases to the accident benefits available under Section B and an increase to the so-called “cap” applicable to claims for minor personal…

Read More

Client Update: Special Project Orders the next milestone for Muskrat Falls progress

June 21, 2013

On June 17, 2013, pursuant to the recently amended Section 70 of the Labour Relations Act for Newfoundland and Labrador (“NL”), the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador issued three Special Project Orders (“SPOs”) in respect of the…

Read More

Client Update: Hold your breath, SCC rules on random alcohol testing

June 17, 2013

On June 14, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (“the Court”) released the decision that employers across the country were waiting for. In CEP Local 30 v. Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd., 2013 SCC 34, a…

Read More

Client Update: Newfoundland and Labrador Aboriginal Consultation Policy

June 14, 2013

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (“NL”) has recently released its “Aboriginal Consultation Policy on Land and Resource Development Decisions” (the “Policy”). A copy of the Policy can be accessed here. This new Policy is the…

Read More

Spring 2013 Labour & Employment Atlantic Canada Legislative Update

June 11, 2013

The following is a province-by-province update of legislation from a busy 2013 spring session in Atlantic Canada. Watching these developments, we know the new legislation that has passed or could soon pass, will impact our…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top