Skip to content

Legislative amendments impacting Prince Edward Island companies

Margaret Anne Walsh and Graeme Stetson

Beneficial Ownership and Corporate Transparency

On September 1, 2020, the Government of Prince Edward Island proclaimed into force Bill no. 34 which amends the Business Corporations Act (“BCA”). The amendments place additional record keeping requirements upon privately held Prince Edward Island corporations. All corporations formed under the BCA, aside from public corporations, are now required to maintain a register of individuals with significant control (“ISC Register”) which must be updated annually.

An “individual with significant control” over a corporation is an individual who:

  1. directly or indirectly holds a significant number of shares;
  2. has direct or indirect control or direction over a significant number of shares of the corporation; or
  3. has direct or indirect influence that, if exercised, would result in control in fact of the corporation.

Under the BCA, a “significant number of shares” means (1) shares that carry 25% or more of the voting rights attached to all of the corporation’s outstanding voting shares; or (2) shares that represent 25% or more of all of the corporation’s outstanding shares as measured by fair market value.

At least once during each of its financial years, a corporation must take reasonable steps to ensure that it has identified all individuals with significant control, and ensure that the information in the register is accurate, complete and up to date.

The ISC Register must contain the following information about every individual with significant control:

  1. full name, date of birth and last known address;
  2. the jurisdiction of residence for tax purposes;
  3. the day they became, or ceased to be, an individual with significant control;
  4. a description of how each individual has significant control over the corporation;
  5. a description of each step taken to ensure the information is accurate; and
  6. any other prescribed information.

Non-compliance can result in fines up to $200,000, imprisonment up to six months, or both, for directors, officers and shareholders. Corporations may be fined up to $5,000 for failing to maintain a register or for failing to comply with a request for information from an investigative body.

Transition from the Companies Act to the Business Corporations Act

All companies incorporated under the Companies Act must be transitioned to the BCA by May 3, 2023. Any company that fails to be continued to the BCA by this deadline may be dissolved after 120 days’ notice to the company and publication of the notice in a publication generally available to the public.

To continue under the BCA, Companies Act companies must apply to the Provincial Director of Corporations. If this application has fulfilled all of the necessary requirements, a certificate of continuance will be issued.

Notably, the exercise of transitioning a company to the BCA provides a company with the opportunity to increase its share capital at no additional cost; otherwise, to increase the share capital of a Companies Act company, supplementary letters patent are required and a filing fee of $265 must be paid. In order to properly transition a company to the BCA, the specific share capital schedule for the company must be input into the province’s online corporate registry. We encourage you to reach out to us to assist with this process.

The BCA introduces significant protections for minority shareholders which are not provided for under the Companies Act. These protections mirror those available under the federal Canadian Business Corporations Act and under most other provincial legislation. Some examples of these protections are:

  1. individual shareholders have the right to bring a “derivative action”, meaning that a shareholder can bring an action for a legal wrong committed against a corporation by a third party when management of the corporation chooses not to bring one;
  2. the inclusion of the “oppression remedy”, which allows certain individuals to bring actions against the corporation if it has acted in a manner that has unfairly prejudiced their rights; and
  3. shareholders may dissent when corporations undergo “fundamental changes” entitling the dissenting shareholders to receive fair market value for their shares.

The BCA, like the Companies Act, does not require directors of a corporation to be residents of PEI, or Canada. However, if a corporation does not have directors who are residents of PEI, they will be required to have a certificate completed by a lawyer authorized to practice in PEI in order to incorporate.

The BCA also offers corporations increased flexibility over the Companies Act as it contemplates holding shareholder meetings via teleconference as opposed to requiring in-person meetings, allowing for director resolutions to replace director meetings and making it easier for corporations to provide loans to, or guarantees on behalf of, affiliated individuals.


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 a member of our Corporate Formation/Reorganization group.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: “Lien”-ing Towards Efficiency: Upcoming Amendments to the Builders’ Lien Act

June 29, 2017

By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…

Read More

Weeding Through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations

June 26, 2017

New Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…

Read More

Client Update: Elk Valley Decision – SCC Finds that Enforcement of “No Free Accident” Rule in Workplace Drug and Alcohol Policy Does Not Violate Human Rights Legislation

June 23, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…

Read More

Client Update: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction – Provincial Acts and Regulations under the Cannabis Act

June 22, 2017

By Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…

Read More

Client Update: Cannabis Act regulations – now we are really getting into the weeds!

June 15, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick

June 15, 2017

On April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…

Read More

How much is too much?: Disclosure in multiple accident litigation in English v House, 2017 NLTD(G) 93

June 14, 2017

Joe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…

Read More

Client Update: Court of Appeal confirms accounting firms may take on multiple mandates for the same company

June 14, 2017

Neil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…

Read More

Negligence claims in paper-only independent medical examinations: Rubens v Sansome, 2017 NLCA 32

June 13, 2017

Joe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…

Read More

Client Update: Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required

June 12, 2017

On June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top