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


 
 

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