Skip to content

Diversity disclosure under the Canada Business Corporations Act

Andrew Burke, Colleen Keyes and David Slipp

Starting January 1, 2020 “Distributing Corporations” under the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”) will be subject to new disclosure requirements relating to the diversity of directors and senior management.

Who will be affected by these changes?

This new legislation will only affect entities existing under the CBCA that are also “Distributing Corporations”. A Distributing Corporation is defined by the CBCA Regulations to include:

  • any “reporting issuer” under provincial securities laws;
  • any corporation that is listed and posted for trading on a stock exchange inside or outside Canada;
  • any corporation that has filed a prospectus or registration statement under provincial legislation or under the laws of a jurisdiction outside Canada; and
  • their successor corporations.

What are the new disclosure requirements?

Distributing Corporations will be required to disclose information related to the diversity characteristics within their board of directors and senior management. They will also have to describe any policies related to the identification and nomination of diverse candidates to these positions. The disclosure will have to be made in relation to the following four groups:

  • women;
  • aboriginal peoples;
  • persons with a long-term or recurring physical, mental, sensory, psychiatric, or learning impairment; and
  • persons, other than aboriginal peoples who are non-caucasian in race.

The information will have to address the following points:

  • whether the corporation has adopted term limits or similar mechanisms for board renewal – these limits or mechanisms must be described or the corporation must explain why it does not have them;
  • whether the corporation has adopted a written policy relating to the identification and nomination of diverse candidates for directorships, or why it has not adopted such a policy;
  • whether the board considers the level of representation of diversity groups when identifying and nominating candidates for the board or appointing members of senior management – the corporation must describe how it is considered or why it is not;
  • whether the corporation has adopted a target number or percentage for any/each of the four designated groups;
  • the number and proportion of members for each designated group who hold positions on the board of directors expressed as a percentage; and
  • the number and proportion of members for each designated group who hold positions as senior management of the corporation and all major subsidiaries expressed as a percentage.

What qualifies as a “Member of Senior Management” or a “Major Subsidiary”?

Members of senior management are defined by regulation to include:

  • the chair and vice-chair of the board of directors;
  • the president of the corporation;
  • the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer;
  • the vice-president in charge of a principal business unit, division, or function; and
  • an individual who performs a policy-making function within the corporation.

A major subsidiary of the corporation is a subsidiary that has assets or revenues that are 30 percent or more of the consolidated assets or revenues of the Distributing Corporation.

Are there any exemptions to the new rules?

The information described above must be provided with any notice or a proxy circular package required for the Distributing Corporation’s annual meeting unless a particular shareholder informs the corporation in writing that they do not want to receive the information.  The information must also be sent to the Director under the CBCA.

How does a corporation collect the information in order to disclose it?

Although not explicitly mandated, Distributing Corporations will have to solicit their directors and senior management to self-identify any designated diversity characteristics in order to comply with these new requirements. The time and resources required to collect and analyze this information will need to be factored into the corporation’s yearly disclosure planning and AGM preparation.

What if a corporation has no such policies or has a lack of diversity?

The “comply or explain” structure of the new requirements does not mandate that Distributing Corporations actually make any changes to their current practices. It is aimed at inspiring corporations to change by highlighting how their traditional approach may not be capturing the full range of potential candidates.

How is this different than diversity disclosure requirements under provincial securities laws?

Although the nature of the information required to be disclosed is substantially the same as that required by the corporate governance disclosure rules under provincial securities laws applicable to senior listed public corporations in Canada, the new CBCA requirements differ in two material respects.

First, the new CBCA diversity disclosure requirements apply to a number of corporations that are not required to comply with the existing diversity disclosure requirements, which only apply to corporations listed on the TSX in Canada or certain senior exchanges outside Canada. In particular, corporations that are venture issuers because they are listed on junior exchanges such as the TSX Venture Exchange, CSE or are unlisted will be subject to the new CBCA requirements.

Second, while the existing diversity disclosure requirements deal only with gender, the new CBCA requirements will require the same information for each of the four groups described above.

What are the consequences of not disclosing?

Distributing Corporations who fail to comply with these new rules can be found guilty of an offence and its directors can be personally fined up to $5,000 or liable for up to six months imprisonment.


This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above, please contact a member of our Securities Group.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

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

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

Search Archive


Scroll To Top