Skip to content

New reporting requirements for beneficial ownership of Nova Scotia companies

By Kimberly Bungay

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.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

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

Client Update: Requirement to register as a mortgage brokerage and mortgage administrator in New Brunswick

July 7, 2016

On 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 More

Copyright does not monopolize facts – documentary filmmakers’ claim against book author and publisher fails

June 29, 2016

In 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

Search Archive


Scroll To Top