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


 
 

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