New reporting requirements for beneficial ownership of Nova Scotia companies
On April 1, 2023, the Nova Scotia government will proclaim into force Bill 226, which amends the Companies Act (the “Act”) to require companies formed under the Act to create and maintain a register of individuals with significant control over the company.
We want to ensure that you are aware of these new requirements for Nova Scotia companies, and have the opportunity to comply with them. Non-compliance can result in significant fines for a company, its shareholders, directors and officers, or potential imprisonment, for shareholders, directors and other relevant persons.
All companies formed under the Act, aside from public corporations, will be required to maintain a register of individuals with significant control (the “Register”).
Who has significant control?
An “individual with significant control” over a company is a person holding “a significant number of shares”, either directly or indirectly, or an individual with direct or indirect influence that, if exercised, would result in control in fact of a company.
Under the amendments, a “significant number of shares” means (1) shares that carry 25% or more of the voting rights attached to all of a company’s outstanding voting shares; or (2) that represent 25% or more of all of the company’s outstanding shares as measured by fair market value.
Content of the Register
For each individual with significant control the Register must include the following information:
- name, date of birth and last known address;
- jurisdiction of residence for tax purposes;
- the day when the individual became, or ceased to be, an individual with significant control;
- description of how the individual has significant control over a company, including a description of any interests and rights they have in shares of the company;
- description of the steps taken by the company in each financial year to ensure the Register is complete and accurate; and
- any other prescribed information required by regulation.
At least once in each of its financial years, the company 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 days.
Compliance and penalties
Companies may be fined up to $5,000 for failing to maintain a Register, or for failing to comply with a request for information from an investigative body. Directors and officers can be fined up to $200,000 or imprisoned for up to six months for failing to maintain the Register, failing to respond to a request from an investigative body or allowing false or misleading information to be recorded in the Register. Shareholders will also face imprisonment for up to six months and fines of up to $200,000 for failure to meet their obligations to provide information for the Register.
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 us at compliance@stewartmckelvey.com.
Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.
Archive
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 MoreRick 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 MoreBrian 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 MoreJonathan 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 MoreJennifer 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 MoreJennifer 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 MoreJoe 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 MoreOn 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 MoreOn April 1, 2016 New Brunswick’s Mortgage Brokers Act came into force, requiring businesses acting as mortgage brokerages or as mortgage administrators in New Brunswick to be licensed. A mortgage brokerage is a business that on behalf…
Read MoreIn May 2016, the Federal Court of Canada confirmed that copyright does not protect facts, even where a book’s author is clearly inspired by the content of a film (Maltz v. Witterick, 2016 FC 524 (CanLII)).…
Read More