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


 
 

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Prince Edward Island adopts new Municipal Government Act

December 22, 2016

Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…

Read More

Land Use Planning in Prince Edward Island: The Year in Review

December 20, 2016

Jonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Onsite OHS liability: Who is (and who is not) the true constructor?

December 15, 2016

Peter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…

Read More

Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?

December 15, 2016

Rick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…

Read More

Canadian employers facing marijuana challenges in the workplace

November 25, 2016

Brian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…

Read More

You’ve got mail – Ontario Court of Appeal sends a constitutional message to municipalities about community mailboxes

October 28, 2016

Jonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…

Read More

A window on interpreting insurance contracts: Top 10 points from Ledcor Construction

September 23, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…

Read More

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

Search Archive


Scroll To Top