Skip to content

Beneficial Ownership Registry Rules Come to New Brunswick

By Alanna Waberski, Graham Haynes and Maria Cummings

On June 10, 2022, the Government of New Brunswick proclaimed into force Bill 95, which amends the Business Corporations Act (New Brunswick) (the “NBBCA”) to require corporations to maintain a register of all individuals with significant control over the corporation, among other things.

Non-compliance can result in significant fines for a corporation, its shareholders and other individuals.

Key Changes

1. Register Maintenance

Under Bill 95, all corporations formed under the NBBCA, aside from public corporations, are required to maintain a register of individuals with significant control (a “Register”).  An “individual with significant control” over a corporation is defined as an individual who:

  1. is the registered holder of a “significant number of shares”;
  2. is the beneficial owner of a “significant number of shares”; or
  3. has direct or indirect control over a “significant number of shares”.

A “significant number of shares” is defined as either any number of shares that carry 25% or more of the voting rights attached to all of the corporation’s outstanding voting shares, or any number of shares that is equal to 25% or more of all of the corporation’s outstanding voting shares.

A register must contain the following information about every individual with significant control:

  1. their full name, date of birth and last known address;
  2. their 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, including their interests and rights in respect of shares of the corporation;
  5. a description of each step taken to ensure the information is accurate; and
  6. any other prescribed information.

At least once during each financial year, 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, and must also update any information which has changed once it becomes aware of such change within fifteen (15) days.

2. Penalties

A corporation that, without reasonable cause, fails to maintain a Register or fails to comply with a request for information from an investigative body may be fined up to $10,200 for a first offence or, for a second or further offence, be fined up to $15,000 or such face imprisonment for up to 90 days.  A judge may also choose to levy a fine in an amount above the aforementioned maximums in certain circumstances.  Shareholders that fail to comply with requests for information from a corporation can also be subject to the same penalties for not complying.

3. Bearer Share Warrant Prohibition

Also under Bill 95, corporations are prohibited from issuing bearer share warrants (i.e., shares granting ownership to the person who physically possesses the bearer share warrant certificate) following the date of enactment.

If you would like our assistance in complying with these legislative changes and preparing your Register, or if you have any questions about the new disclosure requirements, please contact our Firm at compliance@stewartmckelvey.com.


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