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


 
 

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