Skip to content

New reporting requirements for beneficial ownership of Nova Scotia companies

Kimberly Bungay

In the spring sitting of the legislature, the Nova Scotia government introduced Bill 226, which amends the Companies Act (the “Act”) to require companies incorporated under the Act to create and maintain a register to collect information about individuals with significant control over the company. These amendments are part of a worldwide effort to increase corporate transparency and prevent tax-evasion and money laundering. Similar requirements have been implemented under the Canada Business Corporations Act, and in several other Canadian provincial jurisdictions, including Prince Edward Island. All Canadian jurisdictions are expected to have similar requirements soon.

A company incorporated under the Act will be required to prepare and maintain, at its registered office, or another place in Nova Scotia designated by the directors, a register of individuals with significant control over the company.

The requirement will apply to all companies formed under the Act, except certain public companies (reporting issuers and companies listed under a designated stock exchange).

Who has significant control?

An “individual with significant control” over a company is a person holding a significant number of shares, either directly or indirectly, or an individual with direct or indirect influence that, if exercised, would result in control in fact of a company.

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

This will require tracing corporate structures to determine what human beings hold direct or indirect rights and interests. Further consideration will then be required to determine whether they are “significant” for the purposes of the legislation.

Challenges may arise when determining whether a shareholder holds 25% or more of all of a company’s outstanding shares measured by fair market value, as this may change over time. As fair market value of a company changes, changes in who holds 25% of the value will need to be reflected in the registry. As well, for companies with complex share structures, determining who has ultimate significant control may be difficult, and will require considerable analysis of shareholders and share holdings.

Content of the register

For each individual with significant control the registry must include the following information:

  • Name, date of birth and last known address;
  • Jurisdiction of residence for tax purposes;
  • The day when the individual became, or ceased to be, an individual with significant control;
  • Description of how the individual has significant control over a company, including a description of any interests and rights they have in shares of the company;
  • Description of the steps taken by the company in each financial year to ensure the register is complete and accurate; and
  • Any other prescribed information required by regulation.

At least once in each of its financial years, the company 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.

Who will be able to access the register?

Information contained in the register will not be publically available, although this may change in future.

Information contained in the register will be available to directors, shareholders, and creditors of a company. Access must be granted to shareholders or creditors upon payment of a reasonable fee, and upon providing an affidavit setting out identifying information, and a statement that the information provided in the register will not be used to influence the voting of shareholders, in an offer to acquire securities of the company, or for any other matter relating to the affairs of the company.

The Nova Scotia Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, the RCMP, the provincial police, a municipal police department, the Nova Scotia Securities Commission, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada and certain taxing authorities may request a copy of the register, and upon such request, the company must provide a copy of the register.

Companies will be required 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, companies will be required to take “reasonable steps” to discern who the individuals with significant control in the company are, and to ensure the register is complete and accurate. Timeliness is critical – a company that becomes aware of information that must be included in the register has only 15 days to update it. Shareholders also must respond to inquiries from a company for information “accurately and completely as soon as feasible”.

Non-compliance could result in significant fines, imprisonment, or both, for companies as well as their directors, officers, and shareholders. Companies 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.  Directors and officers can be fined up to $200,000 or imprisoned for up to six months for failing to maintain the register, failing to respond to a request from an investigative body or allowing false or misleading information to be recorded in the register.  Shareholders will also face imprisonment for up to six months and fines of up to $200,000 for failure to meet their obligations to provide information for the register.

Passage of the amendments

The amendments to the Act received Royal Assent on March 10, 2020.


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

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership articles and updates.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2017 Proxy Season

February 8, 2017

In preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Client Update: The Future of Planning and Development on Prince Edward Island – Recent Amendments to the Planning Act

January 23, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…

Read More

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

Search Archive


Scroll To Top