Skip to content

New reporting requirements for beneficial ownership of federal corporations coming this June

Tauna Staniland, Andrea Shakespeare, Kimberly Bungay and Alycia Novacefski

The federal government has introduced new record keeping requirements for private, federally formed corporations governed by the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”). The amendments to the CBCA are being made in an effort to meet international obligations to increase corporate transparency and prevent tax-evasion and money laundering and will require corporations to track and report the individuals who are beneficial owners of shares with significant control.

The requirements created by the amendments will apply to all private companies formed under the CBCA, with specific exemptions for reporting issuers and corporations listed under a designated stock exchange. The exempted corporations are already subject to disclosure requirements that pertain to beneficial ownership of shares at certain thresholds.

The new beneficial ownership requirements were passed into law with Bill C-86 in December of 2018 and will come into force on June 13, 2019.

Who is an individual with significant control?

The amendments will require corporations to create and maintain a register of individuals who hold “significant control” in the corporation. Individuals will be deemed to hold significant control if they, either by themselves or “jointly or in concert”, own or control 25% or more of the voting rights attached to a corporation’s shares, or 25% or more of a corporation’s shares by value. For the purposes of the legislation, individuals are considered to hold significant control jointly or in concert if they hold an interest that meets this definition with another individual, or if they have an agreement to exercise their rights with another person (for example, a voting agreement or shareholders agreement). Individuals who do not own shares may also be captured by these amendments if they have significant influence over the corporation.

The broad definition of significant control found in the amendments will require organizations to trace corporate structures (including tracing through shareholder entities such as trusts and partnerships) to determine the individual human being who ultimately holds rights and interests in an affected CBCA corporation. Further consideration will then be required to determine whether such individuals are “significant” for the purposes of the legislation.

Challenges may arise when determining whether a shareholder meets the threshold of holding 25% or more of all of the corporation’s outstanding shares measured by fair market value, as this may fluctuate over time. This will be especially true in the case of corporations with complex share structures. As the fair market value of a corporation changes, so might its beneficial owners, those changes will need to be reflected in the registry.

What will the register include?

The amendments require federal corporations to create and maintain a register of current information of a corporation’s beneficial ownership. Corporations Canada has released an example of what a beneficial ownership register could look like, available through their website. However, at this time, there is no prescribed format for the register, so long as it contains the prescribed information. For each individual who holds significant control the register must include the following information:

  • name, date of birth and address;
  • jurisdiction of residence for tax purposes;
  • date when individual obtained significant control and ceased to hold significant control of the corporation;
  • description of how the individual has significant control over the corporation, including a description of any interests and rights they have in shares of the corporation
  • description of the steps taken by the corporation in each financial year to ensure the register is complete and accurate; and
  • any other prescribed information required by regulation.

Who will be able to access the register?

Information contained on the register will not be publicly available but will be available to directors, shareholders and creditors of a corporation. The Canada Revenue Agency, and other regulatory bodies, may also be able to access the information. In the future, registers of beneficial owners may become more widely accessible. Bill C-97, which is currently before Parliament, proposes giving certain investigative bodies involved in investigating crimes related to those listed in a schedule to the CBCA, the authority to request information from registers without a warrant. It is uncertain if, or when, this will become law.

In the interest of protecting privacy, corporations will be required by law to dispose of personal information collected in the process of maintaining a register of beneficial ownership six years after an individual ceases to be an individual with significant control.

Compliance and penalties

Once the amendments are in effect, corporations will be required to take “reasonable steps” to discern who the individuals with significant control in the corporation are, and to ensure registers are complete and accurate. Timeliness is an important requirement of the amendments. A corporation that becomes aware of information that should be included in the register will have 15 days to update it. Shareholders will also have a duty to respond to inquiries from a corporation pertaining to information required for the register “accurately and completely as soon as feasible”.

Non-compliance with the new requirements could result in significant monetary penalties, imprisonment, or both, for not only corporations themselves, but their directors, officers and shareholders. Corporations may be fined up to $5,000.00 for failure to meet the requirements to maintain a register of individuals with significant control, or for failure to meet a request for information from an investigative body. Directors and officers can be fined up to $200,000.00 or imprisoned for up to six months for failure to meet the requirements to maintain the register, respond to a request from an investigative body or for allowing false or misleading information to be recorded in the register. Shareholders will face the same penalties for failure to meet their obligations to provide information for the register.

As the amendments are part of a larger plan towards national and international corporate transparency, provincial finance ministers have also pledged to strengthen transparency with respect to beneficial ownership. As such, it is likely that these CBCA amendments will be used as a model for provincial legislation. More information on amendments to provincial legislation is expected in the coming months.


This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above, please contact a member of our Corporate Formation/Reorganization team.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Damages for minor injuries in Nova Scotia: a new case on the new cap

April 20, 2017

Damages for pain and suffering are capped for Nova Scotians who are injured in motor vehicle accidents if their injuries are considered “minor.” The cap was amended for accidents occurring on or after April 28,…

Read More

The Latest in Employment Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – “You gotta have (good) faith” … Terminating without notice during the probationary period

April 19, 2017

Grant Machum & Sean Kelly A recent decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Ly v. British Columbia (Interior Health Authority) 2017 BCSC 42, provides helpful clarification of the law on termination of probationary employees on the basis…

Read More

Municipality liable for failing to ensure visitor was reasonably safe in Municipal Public Park

April 19, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman The Supreme Court of Canada recently declined to hear an appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Campbell v Bruce (County), 2016 ONCA 371. The Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court finding…

Read More

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top