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


 
 

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