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:
- is the registered holder of a “significant number of shares”;
- is the beneficial owner of a “significant number of shares”; or
- 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:
- their full name, date of birth and last known address;
- their jurisdiction of residence for tax purposes;
- the day they became, or ceased to be, an individual with significant control;
- a description of how each individual has significant control over the corporation, including their interests and rights in respect of shares of the corporation;
- a description of each step taken to ensure the information is accurate; and
- 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.
Archive
IN THIS ISSUE: Putting Trust in your Estate Planning, by Paul Coxworthy and Michael McGonnell The Risks, for Insurers in Entering Administration Services Only (ASO) Contracts, by Tyana Caplan Angels in Atlantic Canada, by Allison McCarthy, Gavin Stuttard and Adam Bata…
Read MoreBill 31, An Act Respecting Human Rights, came into force on June 24, 2010 replacing the Human Rights Code (the “Code”). For more information, please download a copy of this client update.
Read MoreIN THIS ISSUE Expanded Fines and Penalties for Environmental Offences: The New Federal Environmental Enforcement Act Spam about to be Canned? Preparing a Business for Sale Business Disputes Corner – Place of Arbitration and Selected…
Read MoreThe Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has unanimously upheld the province’s legislative limits on general damage recovery for “minor injuries”. Today’s decision, authored by Chief Justice Michael MacDonald, completely affirms the January 2009 decision of…
Read MoreThe Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) announced helpful administrative positions concerning the new rules under the Fifth Protocol to the Canada-US Income Tax Convention, 1980 which will come into effect on January 1, 2010. The CRA…
Read MoreIN THIS ISSUE Contractor Held Liable for Business Interruption: Heyes v. City of Vancouver, 2009 BCSC 651 When Can a Tendering Authority Walk Away if Bids are Too High? Crown Paving Ltd. v. Newfoundland &…
Read MoreWithholding tax and other issues under the Fifth Protocol The Fifth Protocol to the Canada-US Tax Convention, 1980 introduced significant changes which may affect the use of most unlimited companies and other so-called ULCs. These…
Read MoreIN THIS ISSUE An Eye for an Eye: Alberta Court of Appeal Upholds Finding of Retaliation Liability as a Result of Generosity in Quebec Undue Hardship Established in Scent Case Parents of Twins Get Double…
Read More- « Previous
- 1
- …
- 62
- 63
- 64