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


 
 

Client Update: Valentine’s Day @ the Workplace

February 14, 2013

Yellow diamonds in the light And we’re standing side by side As your shadow crosses mine What it takes to come alive It’s the way I’m feeling I just can’t deny But I’ve gotta let…

Read More

Client Update: Nova Scotia Contaminated Site – Ministerial Protocols

January 11, 2013

INTRODUCTION On December 6, 2012, The Nova Scotia Department of Environment (NSE) released Draft Ministerial Protocols (the “Draft Protocols”) related to contaminated sites. The release of the Draft Protocols has been eagerly anticipated. The adoption…

Read More

Client Update: Changes to the Rules of the Supreme Court

January 3, 2013

Recent changes to the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986, SNL 1986, c 42, Sch D On December 14, 2012, several changes were made to the Rules of the Supreme Court. These changes include: who may act…

Read More

Doing Business in Atlantic Canada (Winter 2012) (Canadian Lawyer magazine supplement)

January 1, 2013

IN THIS ISSUE: Putting Trust in your Estate Planning, by Paul Coxworthy and Michael McGonnell The Risks, for Insurers in Entering Administration Services Only (ASO) Contracts, by Tyana Caplan Angels in Atlantic Canada, by Allison McCarthy, Gavin Stuttard and Adam Bata…

Read More

Client Update – Changes to the Human Rights Legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador

July 13, 2010

Bill 31, An Act Respecting Human Rights, came into force on June 24, 2010 replacing the Human Rights Code (the “Code”). For more information, please download a copy of this client update.

Read More

Atlantic Business Counsel – December 2009

December 18, 2009

IN THIS ISSUE Expanded Fines and Penalties for Environmental Offences: The New Federal Environmental Enforcement Act Spam about to be Canned? Preparing a Business for Sale Business Disputes Corner – Place of Arbitration and Selected…

Read More

Client Update – General Damage Cap Upheld By the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

December 15, 2009

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has unanimously upheld the province’s legislative limits on general damage recovery for “minor injuries”. Today’s decision, authored by Chief Justice Michael MacDonald, completely affirms the January 2009 decision of…

Read More

Client Update – New Planning Opportunities For ULCs

December 4, 2009

The Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) announced helpful administrative positions concerning the new rules under the Fifth Protocol to the Canada-US Income Tax Convention, 1980 which will come into effect on January 1, 2010. The CRA…

Read More

Atlantic Construction Counsel – Fall 2009

November 26, 2009

IN THIS ISSUE Contractor Held Liable for Business Interruption: Heyes v. City of Vancouver, 2009 BCSC 651 When Can a Tendering Authority Walk Away if Bids are Too High? Crown Paving Ltd. v. Newfoundland &…

Read More

Client Update – Nova Scotia Unlimited Companies: An Update

November 6, 2009

Withholding tax and other issues under the Fifth Protocol The Fifth Protocol to the Canada-US Tax Convention, 1980 introduced significant changes which may affect the use of most unlimited companies and other so-called ULCs. These…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top