Skip to content

Navigating the waters: Compliance with multiple regimes

By Kim Walsh and Olivia Bungay

Compliance with Russian sanctions goes beyond complying with Canada’s Russia Regulations. Canadian individuals and businesses may be unaware of several other sanctions regimes that apply to them.

In conjunction with its sanctions against Russia, the Canadian Government has placed sanctions against Belarus (Special Economic Measures (Belarus) Regulations) and Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine (Special Economic Measures (Ukraine) Regulations). Similar to the Russia Regulations, the Belarus and Ukraine Regulations list several designated persons and prohibit any person or business in Canada, or any Canadian citizen or business outside of Canada to:

  • Deal in property, wherever situated, that is owned, held or controlled by designated persons or a person acting on behalf of a designated person;
  • Enter into or facilitate a transaction related to a prohibited dealing;
  • Provide any financial or related services in respect of a prohibited dealing;
  • Provide any goods or financial services to a designated person.

Together, the Russia, Belarus and Ukraine Regulations currently list over 2100 designated persons. Aside from prohibiting dealings with designated persons, the Russia, Belarus and Ukraine Regulations prohibit the import and export of certain goods and the provision of certain services in relation to the sanctioned areas. Care must be taken to ensure compliance will all of Canada’s sanctions that target Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Aside from Canada’s sanctions, Canadian individuals and businesses conducting business internationally may also be subject to international sanctions regimes. Multinational companies will typically need to follow the sanctions regimes of other countries if there is a sufficient nexus in their operations to that jurisdiction. Compliance with Canada’s sanctions may not equate to compliance with other countries’ sanctions since regimes, while somewhat coordinated, are not identical. Individuals and businesses should also take steps to ensure that their business partners are not “designated persons”/subject to an asset freeze under another country’s regime. Anyone conducting international business should take steps to identify international sanctions that apply to them and ensure they are complied with.

See our recent articles: Navigating Canada’s economic sanctions against Russia and Navigating Canada’s sanctions against Russia: New guidance on ownership and control of an entity


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 the author.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

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