Filtered-Insights

Canada Investment Summit 2026: Turning investment commitments into economic growth

Wed, 23 Sep 2026 00:00:00 Z

The Summit brought together international investors from nearly 30 countries, representing more than $100 trillion in assets, and generated nearly $500 billion in new investment commitments.

The critical challenge is converting this momentum into active development and long-term economic growth.

To explore what comes next, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP (BLG), PwC Canada, Ontario Centres of Innovation and Ontario Vehicle Innovation Network convened a closed-door discussion with senior leaders from government, industry and the investment community on the legal, commercial and strategic conditions required to move investment commitments toward execution.

Top investment themes driving Canada's economic growth

1. The growing importance of economic sovereignty in investment decision-making

Geopolitical uncertainty, shifting trade relationships and supply-chain disruptions have increased demand for strategic domestic capacity, resilient supply-chains and diversified export markets.

This shift affects strategic sectors that combine economic growth, national resilience and long-term global demand. National-interest considerations may affect deal timing, regulatory review, procurement eligibility, supply-chain requirements, data governance, financing conditions and government support.

For businesses and investors, these issues demand proactive counsel regarding foreign investment review, national security, procurement eligibility, supply-chain structuring, data governance and access to government programs.

2. The need for greater execution certainty to move projects from announcement to delivery

Capital is available for Canadian projects. Investors, lenders and project proponents will now focus on whether those projects can move through financing, regulatory review, permitting, procurement, construction and commercialization on predictable timelines.

Project certainty will remain central. Businesses and investors should assess timelines, permitting requirements, infrastructure availability, Indigenous consultation, stakeholder alignment, financing structures and commercial risk allocation before capital is committed. These issues can affect valuation, financing, closing conditions, public funding eligibility and project feasibility.

3. Sector opportunities will require tailored execution strategies

Summit-related opportunities may arise across defence and aerospace, major infrastructure, energy, critical minerals, technology, AI, advanced manufacturing and food supply chains. Each sector requires a tailored approach. Key considerations include:

Defence and aerospace: controlled-goods, security-clearance, procurement, intellectual property and supply-chain provenance issues.
Energy and critical minerals: coordinated permitting, environmental assessment, Indigenous consultation, offtake arrangements and financing structures.
Technology, AI and digital infrastructure: privacy, cybersecurity, data sovereignty, intellectual property, export controls and public funding conditions.

For senior business leaders and investors, the key question is whether a project is ready for execution. Legal planning at the outset can help project teams identify execution risks, test diligence assumptions and align project strategy with regulatory, financing, procurement and commercial requirements.

Navigating this transition from theoretical capital to tangible infrastructure requires experienced counsel to ensure execution certainty.

How BLG can help: Converting Canada Investment Summit commitments into operational assets

Turning the capital allocations and policy shifts announced at the Summit into shovel-ready projects requires navigating complex regulatory environments, multi-jurisdictional approvals and evolving financing structures.

BLG operates at the intersection of public policy, private capital and operational delivery. As a full-service national firm, we convene the necessary stakeholders and deploy the legal strategies required to move major mandates from initial capital allocation to commercial operation.

Strategic legal advisory across the capital lifecycle

Our national teams bridge the gap between strategy and execution across key project phases:

Foreign investment and supply-chain compliance: Securing national security clearances, navigating statutory investment reviews and protecting international trade corridors require proactive regulatory engagement. Our teams align cross-border capital with Canadian statutory requirements across defence and national security files and complex transportation and logistics networks.
Asset acquisition and site control: Scalable land rights, reliable power access and structured project financing are essential for long-term yield. We assemble the real estate foundations, municipal approvals and delivery models required for large-scale infrastructure projects, specialized commercial real estate portfolios and expanding data centres and digital infrastructure.
Resource development and energy transition: Moving major industrial initiatives forward requires managing grid interconnection, environmental assessments and operational risk. We structure project finance and joint ventures across energy and power projects while de-risking extraction through targeted strategies in the mining sector.
Consent and economic partnership: Sustainable project delivery in Canada depends on authentic economic partnership. We design equity models, navigate duty-to-consult obligations and negotiate long-term agreements backed by deep experience in Indigenous law.

Strategic next steps for project proponents and institutional investors

Execution delay erodes asset yield. Before deploying capital or finalizing project structures, connect with our national project execution partners to audit your regulatory strategy, assess structural risks and accelerate your capital deployment timeline.

New AI safety standard relevant to Canadian school boards

Wed, 23 Sep 2026 00:00:00 Z

As of September 2026, Microsoft has signed a new AI Safety and Privacy Standard (the Standard) that establishes detailed contractual protections for certain AI products used in U.S. schools.

The Standard does not presently give Canadian school boards a right to those protections, but it indicates what Microsoft has accepted as contractually feasible for educational AI. American school boards can use the Standard to:

seek equivalent protections from Microsoft and other AI vendors;
strengthen conventional data protection agreements for AI services; and
inform their own AI governance, particularly for student-facing and higher-risk uses.

Canadian school boards should pay particular attention to the Standard’s provisions on AI training, strict data minimization, profiling, AI memory and personalization, human oversight, AI companions, agentic AI and material product changes.

What is the Standard?

The Standard is contained in a binding memorandum of agreement between the National Academy for AI Instruction and Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft is currently the only participating AI provider identified in the signed agreement.

Beginning Nov. 1, 2026, U.S. school boards may ask Microsoft to incorporate protections meeting or exceeding the Standard into their existing Microsoft agreements. A school board does not become a party to the Academy’s agreement: its rights arise under its own amended agreement with Microsoft.

The Standard applies to authenticated generative AI products primarily designed and marketed for education, and excludes general-purpose productivity, collaboration, search, cloud and workplace-assistance products.

The Standard contains ten principles addressing:

use of student and educator data for AI training;
data minimization;
customer control, retention and deletion;
human oversight and explainability;
accountability and enforcement;
security;
transparency for families;
equity and accessibility;
feature changes and vendor lock-in; and
continuing responsibility for data after termination.

No training on school data

The Standard prohibits using student, educator or customer data to develop, fine-tune, update, benchmark or otherwise improve an AI model. The prohibition cannot be avoided by de-identifying or aggregating the data. School data also cannot be used to create synthetic training data. The restriction applies to historical data, extends to subprocessors and survives termination indefinitely.

Microsoft must provide, on request, an annual confirmation signed by a senior officer that school data was not used for AI training outside a narrow safety exception, and that such data or AI learnings did not cross from the exempted safety systems into other models or products.

Strict data minimization

The Standard permits the vendor to process only data “strictly necessary” to provide the specific educational product.

The Standard also restricts behavioural tracking, keystroke logging, passive attention monitoring, long-term profiling, precise location tracking, biometrics, gaze tracking and emotional inference.

Data minimization is integral to the safety of AI products. Data from students and educators not only assists AI to learn, but is also one mechanism of understanding human potential, and in the case of a school board, the human potential of students residing in that district.

Control over changing products

The Standard recognizes that AI products evolve during the contract term. Material new features involving new data, new processing or autonomous action require notice, and the vendor must allow the board’s administrators to enable or disable them.

Significance for Canadian school boards

Canadian availability and product scope remain unclear

While Microsoft’s express commitment applies only to U.S. educational entities, Canadian school boards can reasonably ask Microsoft and other AI vendors to explain why equivalent protections should not apply to Canadian students and educators.

Knowing that the Standard excludes AI products not primarily designed for education, Microsoft may argue that ordinary Microsoft 365 Copilot and Copilot Chat are outside the Standard’s scope. School boards should require clarification over the products and features covered by protections equivalent to those found in the Standard when contracting with Microsoft.

The Standard is valuable contractual leverage

Microsoft has accepted that detailed restrictions on training, derived data, memory, profiling, product changes and agentic functionality can be addressed by contract.

School boards should give the provision forbidding the use of data to train AI special attention. The Standard reveals that a comprehensive AI training clause might address:

fine-tuning and benchmarking;
prompts, outputs and metadata;
de-identified, aggregate and derived data;
synthetic data generation;
product improvement; and
subprocessors.

The Standard may influence expectations

While the Standard does not establish Canadian law, it does identify emerging areas of risk that school boards should understand for the purpose of policy development and potential liability.

For example, principle 4 states that educators are prohibited from using AI for:

automated grading without human review;
automated disciplinary decisions or recommendations;
automated placement, ability grouping or special education referrals;
emotional or psychological assessment; and
surveillance for behavioural prediction.

The Standard also:

prohibits the use of AI companions designed to foster emotional attachment or dependency, simulate friendship, prolong engagement beyond the learning task, or encourage sensitive disclosure;
requires agentic AI features to be capable of being turned off for students; where those features can take action outside the provider’s systems, they must be off by default unless an authorized administrator enables them with limited permissions, human oversight and audit logging; and
requires the customer to disable persistent memory or personalization that is not governed by the customer’s configured retention and deletion policies or equivalent controls. Where the product retains student data between sessions, it requires individuals, upon request and where applicable, to be able to see and erase the stored information, and turn off memory without losing access to the service.

These provisions may inform what parents, teaching staff, school principals, trustees, auditors and regulators expect school boards to have considered, even where the Standard itself does not apply.

Conclusion

AI contracting, governance, operational implementation and oversight should be addressed together. Strong contractual terms will not correct inappropriate application or weak oversight, and sound governance parameters will not compensate for inadequate vendor commitments and implementation. A robust governance framework and compliant contractual terms will still require ongoing oversight to ensure safety in a changing regulatory and liability landscape.

BLG lawyers would be pleased to assist your school boards with AI governance, privacy and security assessments, Microsoft Copilot deployments and AI-specific vendor contracting. Reach out to the authors or any of the key contacts below.

On the Sault Dock-et: Court of Appeal for Ontario updates test for leave to appeal

Mon, 21 Sep 2026 00:00:00 Z

What is the test for leave to appeal in civil matters to the Court of Appeal for Ontario?

The guiding principles were laid down over fifty years ago in the seminal decision of Sault Dock.¹ Under the Sault Dock test, a proposed appeal must raise an “arguable” question “of general interest to the public or a broad segment of the public”. Sault Dock identified several kinds of questions that might merit granting leave, while also recognizing that there may be “special circumstances” that would warrant granting leave to facilitate error correction.

In the recent decision of Knauff v Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal), 2026 ONCA 653 a five-judge panel of the Court of Appeal confirmed that Sault Dock remains the governing test, while providing an updated framework for the test. The two components of the updated framework are arguability and public importance, both of which were central to the Sault Dock test. Under the updated framework, these two components must be assessed separately; there is no longer a distinct category of “special circumstances” for error correction; the same test applies regardless of the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the Divisional Court (original or appellate); and the concept of “public importance” remains an expansive one.

Key takeaways

Knauff provides helpful guidance to parties, regardless of whether they are bringing or responding to a motion for leave to appeal.
Knauff confirms that the Sault Dock test remains the governing test for leave to appeal but provides an updated framework to evaluate whether the two components of arguability and public importance have been satisfied. Knauff also confirms that the same framework applies whether the Divisional Court was exercising original or appellate jurisdiction.
Knauff confirms that “public importance” is not a closed list. Matters of public importance can arise in many circumstances, such as evolving areas of law with unsettled legal issues and questions relating to the “behaviour of corporations and their directors” that are subject to the Ontario Business Corporations Act.
It remains to be seen whether the updated framework will result in leave being granted more often (or in different kinds of cases), or whether Knauff simply codified a framework that the Court of Appeal was already applying. A review of the Court of Appeal’s decisions from the preceding 12 months demonstrates that the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal from decisions of the Divisional Court in a range of legal areas beyond the realm of traditional “public law”.²

Background

Over the last fifty years, motions seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from decisions of the Divisional Court have been governed by the Sault Dock test. Under the Sault Dock test, a proposed appeal needed to raise an issue that was both “arguable” and of “public importance” in order to satisfy the Court of Appeal that leave ought to be granted. Sault Dock provided several non-exhaustive categories of arguable cases, such as “the interpretation of a statute or Regulation of Canada or Ontario including its constitutionality” and “the interpretation, clarification or propounding of some general rule or principle of law”. Sault Dock also recognized a residual category of other cases where leave might be appropriate, including those where the Divisional Court made a clear error.

In the decades after it was decided, Sault Dock did not receive material consideration in the caselaw because the Court of Appeal does not typically provide reasons when deciding leave to appeal motions. However, in December 2024, a panel of the Court of Appeal in West Whitby expressed concern about whether Sault Dock was being properly interpreted, especially in light of changes to the legal landscape over the last five decades, and questioned whether the Sault Dock categories were being interpreted too rigidly.³ In another decision issued two weeks later, a different panel of the Court of Appeal in Davis stated that Sault Dock continued to govern, absent a decision of a five-judge panel, and that West Whitby was merely a “helpful discussion and application” of the existing Sault Dock framework.⁴ In West Whitby, the Divisional Court exercised original jurisdiction while in Davis the Divisional Court exercised appellate jurisdiction—but neither decision referred to that difference as a relevant factor in discussing the framework.

In light of the decisions in West Whitby and Davis, the party seeking leave to appeal in Knauff asked the Court of Appeal to assemble a five-judge panel to reconsider Sault Dock.

The Court of Appeal’s decision

In Knauff, a unanimous five-judge panel affirmed that “the essential message of Sault Dock should be maintained”. In reaching this conclusion, the Court provided an “updated framework” for how the Sault Dock test is applied. Simply put, under this updated framework, there must be a question of law or mixed law and fact that is “arguable” and of “public importance”. These two central components — “arguability” and “public importance” — must be considered sequentially.

Arguability focuses on whether there is a real, arguable question of law or mixed law and fact at issue. A proposed appeal may face difficulty in satisfying this component if, for instance, it is about a purely factual question,⁵ involves a decision that attracts a high degree of deference on appeal or is moot. Notably, Knauff recognizes that: “Even where the Divisional Court has correctly identified and applied the existing law, an arguable question may still arise if that law, or the general principles that underlie it, should be reconsidered, expanded, qualified, clarified or changed.”

Public Importance is only considered if a proposed appeal raises a question that is arguable. There is no closed list of questions that qualify as being of “public importance”. Knauff affirms that although questions of public law “often fit this description,” matters of public importance “are not limited to that field.” Simply put, the “broader the category of persons affected by the resolution of the legal issue involved, and the more fundamental the interest that is affected, the more the question has the quality of public importance.” A related dimension is the legal importance of a question, i.e., whether it “goes to the development, progress, coherence, stability and predictability of the law, and thus the law’s ability to deliver justice in Ontario”.

In addition to explaining how these components relate to one another and how they are to be applied, Knauff provides two important clarifications to Sault Dock. First, it clarifies that the source of the Divisional Court’s jurisdiction, i.e., whether the Court was exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, does not change the leave analysis. The same framework applies in both cases. Second, there is no longer a special category of residual circumstances where leave may be appropriate. Rather, if the Divisional Court has made a clear error, this is something to be considered within the confines of the public importance component.

In applying the revised framework, the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Knauff’s motion for leave to appeal. The Court concluded that his motion did not satisfy the arguability component because the Divisional Court had applied “the well-established and undisputed test for mootness” and exercised its discretion not to hear his judicial review application despite it being moot.

SCC clarifies when administrative errors are “irregularities” requiring annulment of election

Fri, 18 Sep 2026 00:00:00 Z

In Sinclair-Desgagné v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), 2026 SCC 31, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a 6-3 decision, annulled the 2025 federal election in the electoral district of Terrebonne, Québec, after concluding that a mail-in ballot was not counted because of a serious administrative error by Elections Canada. The majority held that an “irregularity” under s. 524(1)(b) of the Canada Elections Act includes a serious administrative mistake, even where the mistake is honest and unintentional. Because the lost vote equalled the one-vote margin of victory, the election result was left in doubt and the election was annulled.

The decision is significant not only because it resulted in the rare annulment of a federal election, but because it clarifies how courts should balance electoral integrity and voter enfranchisement under the Canada Elections Act. The majority emphasized that serious administrative errors by election officials can undermine the right to vote even where there is no bad faith, fraud, or statutory breach. The majority's reasons also reinforce a voter-centred interpretation of s. 3 of the Charter, placing emphasis on protecting an individual’s right to vote, which could have implications for s. 3 jurisprudence more broadly.

Background

The dispute arose from the April 28, 2025 federal election in Terrebonne, Québec. Following a judicial recount, Liberal candidate Tatiana Auguste was declared elected by a margin of a single vote over Bloc Québécois candidate Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné.

Before the election, an Elections Canada employee had mistakenly printed an incorrect postal code on return envelopes for mail-in voting kits, an error that affected at least 40 electors. The employee discovered the error more than three weeks before election day but did not report it to supervisors or contact the affected electors. Although some ballots bearing the incorrect postal code were successfully delivered, one elector’s ballot was returned undelivered by Canada Post after the election and was never counted.

Sinclair-Desgagné challenged the election under s. 524(1)(b) of the Canada Elections Act, which provides that an eligible elector or candidate may apply to contest the election in their electoral district on the grounds that there were irregularities, fraud or corrupt or illegal practices that affected the result of the election, and where the grounds are established, the court may annul the election. Sinclair-Desgagné argued that the postal code error, coupled with Elections Canada’s failure to take corrective action after discovering it, constituted an irregularity that affected the result of the election, justifying an annulment of the election.

The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the application, finding that the error was merely an inadvertent human mistake without dishonesty or malicious intent, which did not constitute the type of serious error capable of undermining the integrity or honesty of the electoral process. The Superior Court therefore concluded that neither the error nor the actions of the Elections Canada employee after discovering it qualified as an “irregularity.” The Superior Court also stated that even if there had been an irregularity it would have been unreasonable to annul the election result in the circumstances. Sinclair-Desgagné appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada as of right under s. 532(1) of the Canada Elections Act.

The majority decision

Writing for the majority, Justice Jamal (on behalf of himself, Chief Justice Wagner, and Justices Côté, Rowe, Kasirer, and O’Bonsawin) applied and clarified the three-part framework established in Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj, 2012 SCC 55. Under that framework, a court must determine:

Whether there was an irregularity;
Whether the irregularity affected the result of the election by affecting the vote count; and
Whether the court should exercise its discretion to annul the election.

Step one: What constitutes an “irregularity”?

The majority rejected the view that an irregularity requires fraud, dishonesty, bad faith, or intentional wrongdoing. In the majority’s view, the text and purpose of s. 524(1)(b), interpreted in light of the constitutional right to vote under s. 3 of the Charter, supports a broader view. The majority emphasized that s. 3 protects each citizen’s meaningful opportunity to participate in the electoral process and that the Canada Elections Act must be interpreted in a manner than advances that enfranchising purpose. As a result, the majority focused on whether Elections Canada’s error and conduct interfered with an individual elector’s ability to exercise their right to vote.

The majority held that irregularities include:

breaches of statutory provisions designed to establish an individual’s entitlement to vote; and
serious administrative errors capable of undermining the integrity of the electoral process by directly affecting an individual’s right to vote.

The majority held that the lower court erred by treating the absence of wrongful or reprehensible intent as effectively dispositive of whether an irregularity had occurred. In the majority’s view, this improperly conflates irregularities with the separate ground of fraud or corrupt practices. Having rejected the notion that intentional misconduct is required, the majority found that the error in this case constituted an irregularity. Although no statutory provision had been breached, Elections Canada discovered the error with sufficient time to take corrective action but failed to do so. The majority concluded that the error directly affected an elector’s right to vote and therefore constituted an irregularity.

Step two: Did the irregularity affect the result?

The majority held that the second step focuses on whether the irregularity affected the vote count, rather than the election outcome.

In an important clarification, the Court stated that principles of ballot secrecy prevent courts from relying on evidence of an elector’s actual voting preference when assessing whether an irregularity affected the result. The question is whether a vote was improperly lost or counted, not which candidate would have received the vote.

The majority further rejected arguments based on ss. 239(2) and 240 of the Canada Elections Act, which place responsibility on mail-in voters to ensure their ballots are received on time. The majority held that those provisions are designed to address contingencies outside Elections Canada’s control, such as postal delays or voter inaction. They do not exonerate Elections Canada from the consequences of its own correctable errors.

The majority held that the second step is met because of the direct causal link between the irregularity and the lost vote that was not counted.

Step three: Should the election be annulled?

In considering whether to exercise its discretion to annul the election, the majority relied on the two factors identified in Opitz: whether the number of affected votes casts doubt on the true winner of the election, and whether the irregularity calls into question the integrity of the electoral process.

The majority assessed the first factor by applying the “magic number” test recognized in Opitz. Under that approach, an election should be annulled where the number of affected votes equals or exceeds the winner’s margin of victory. Here, one vote was affected, and the margin of victory was one vote. Accordingly, even without attributing the lost vote to any one candidate, there was doubt as to the true winner of the election.

The majority held that, in these circumstances, it would be unreasonable not to annul the election. Despite reiterating that step 3 is a matter within the court’s discretion, the majority appeared to do away with that discretion where the “magic number” test is met, saying it is “determinative” and where met it “requires that the election be annulled”.

The dissent

Justices Karakatsanis and Martin, with Justice Moreau concurring, would have dismissed the appeal.

The dissent agreed that the Opitz framework governed the analysis but disagreed on the interpretation and application of the first step of the test. The dissent emphasized that where the alleged irregularity is an administrative error, the reviewing court must look to both the seriousness of the conduct and its impact on the integrity of the electoral process. To be sufficiently serious, it must belong to the same category as fraud, corruption, and illegality. To impact the integrity of the electoral process, it must undermine public confidence in the legitimacy and finality of elections.

In the dissent’s view, the postal code mistake was an unintentional minor error affecting only one voter and was neither sufficiently serious nor capable of undermining public confidence in the electoral process.

The dissent placed significant weight on the statutory special-ballot regime. It emphasized that ss. 239(2) and 240 expressly assign mail-in voters the responsibility to ensure their ballots are received. In the dissent’s view, the risk that a mailed ballot may not arrive is a foreseeable consequence of the special-ballot system, regardless of whether the source of the problem is Elections Canada, Canada Post, or the voter.

Electors who choose to vote by mail accept the risks inherent in that process and bear the responsibility of taking available steps, such as tracking their ballot. The dissent therefore considered it illogical to characterize conduct as an “irregularity” when the statute simultaneously makes the voter responsible for countering the risks of that conduct.

In interpreting what constitutes an “irregularity, the dissent also looked to s. 3 of the Charter, but emphasized that s. 3 is not limited to protecting an individual elector's ability to vote, but also safeguards the collective democratic interests of all voters through legitimate, and final election results. Annulling an election affects every elector in the riding because a by-election does not recreate the original election. Political circumstances change, turnout may differ, and voters may make different choices. Accordingly, the threshold for establishing an irregularity must be high and account for the integrity of the electoral process as a whole, and not only the impact on the individual voter.

The dissent cautioned that characterizing this type of error as an “irregularity” would set a low threshold and risk undermining the stability, certainty, and finality of election results.

Key takeaways

A serious administrative error can constitute an “irregularity” under the Canada Elections Act, even if it is inadvertent and does not involve fraud, bad faith, or a breach of a statutory provision.
Although the test under s. 524(1)(b) is a discretionary one, where the “magic number” test is satisfied—that is, where the number of votes affected by an irregularity are equal to or greater than the margin of victory—it requires that the election results be annulled.
The majority emphasized that the decision does not lower the threshold for electoral challenges. The Opitz framework remains stringent, and election annulments will continue to be extremely rare.
The decision provides important guidance for future electoral challenges and confirms that courts will scrutinize serious administrative errors that prevent electors from voting.
The decision may have implications beyond election challenges by reinforcing a broad, voter-centred interpretation of s. 3 of the Charter and affirming that electoral legislation should be interpreted consistently with its enfranchising purpose.

Canada proposes new Productivity Mega Deduction

Thu, 17 Sep 2026 00:00:00 Z

On Sept. 15, 2026, the federal government announced a proposed Productivity Mega Deduction (PMD) that would significantly expand immediate expensing for capital investments by Canadian businesses. The announcement stems from the inaugural Canada Investment Summit, where Prime Minister Mark Carney unveiled broader measures to encourage domestic and foreign investment.

Draft legislative proposals released with the announcement provide important details regarding eligible taxpayers, qualifying property and applicable limits. Providing further context on these rules, BLG partner Steve Suarez authored the article “Ottawa gets it on tax policy, gamechanger ‘mega deduction’ shows” in The Globe and Mail.

If enacted as proposed, the PMD allows taxpayers to deduct the full undepreciated capital cost of eligible property in the taxation year it becomes available for use, rather than deducting the cost over time under the capital cost allowance (CCA) system. The PMD is therefore a timing measure: it does not increase the total deduction available over the life of an asset, but it accelerates tax relief.

Beyond timing, the PMD serves as a crucial competitiveness measure. The federal government states that accelerated CCA measures announced in Budget 2025 reduced Canada’s marginal effective tax rate on new business investment from 15.4 per cent to 13 per cent and that the PMD further reduces that rate to 6.4 per cent. The same release compares the proposed Canadian rate with a 2026 U.S. rate of 16.9 per cent and, an OECD average of 19 per cent and as the lowest among G7 countries with an average (excluding Canada) of 26 per cent.

For multinational groups deciding where to locate new projects, a lower marginal effective tax rate may improve the relative attractiveness of Canadian investment, particularly for capital-intensive sectors such as manufacturing, infrastructure, technology, transportation, energy and resource development.

The broader policy rationale is straightforward. Canada faces persistent concerns about weak productivity growth and underinvestment in productivity-enhancing assets. For businesses with significant upfront capital costs, earlier deductions can improve cash flow, reduce the after-tax cost of capital and help support investment decisions that might otherwise be deferred or made outside Canada.

The proposed permanent nature of the PMD is a distinct structural advantage. Temporary incentives may accelerate investment already planned; a permanent rule can be built into longer-term capital allocation, project modelling and investment location decisions. The federal government has described the earlier Productivity Super-Deduction as covering about 15 per cent of capital asset investments, while the PMD extends immediate expensing to approximately two-thirds of such investments.

The PMD is part of a broader federal agenda to attract investment and improve Canada’s competitiveness. Related measures include a proposed “one project, one review, one year” framework for major project approvals, and the Canada Revenue Agency prioritizing advance income tax ruling requests for investments over $1 billion. The deduction also follows recent tax policy reversals, including cancelling the proposed capital gains inclusion rate increase and the government’s plan to repeal Canada’s digital services tax.

Which taxpayers and property qualify?

The proposed rules apply to eligible depreciable property acquired on or after Sept. 15, 2026. Corporations and partnerships may qualify. For individuals, trusts and partnerships with non-corporate members, the deduction is limited to income from the business or property where the asset is used. Therefore, these taxpayers cannot use it to create or increase a loss from that source.

Most prescribed CCA classes qualify, subject to specific exclusions. Excluded property generally includes:

Certain Class 1 and Class 3 buildings: most buildings and structural improvements, although manufacturing and processing buildings may still benefit from separate temporary immediate expensing measures;
Property in Classes 14 and 14.1: certain intangible property, including limited-period licences, franchises, concessions, goodwill and similar property;
Property in Class 51: certain natural gas distribution pipeline property;
Certain passenger vehicles and other specified vehicles, unless they satisfy the proposed Canadian assembly and new-use conditions;
Qualified Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) liquefaction equipment; and
Industrial mineral mines and certain timber limits.

Property that does not qualify for immediate expensing may still be eligible for the Accelerated Investment Incentive.

Rules for used property

Used property may qualify, but generally not if the taxpayer or a non-arm’s-length person previously owned it, or if the property was acquired in a transaction that preserves prior CCA history. These conditions target the incentive toward new third-party investments rather than internal transfers among related groups.

Special rules apply to vehicles. Certain used or foreign-assembled passenger vehicles and other specified Class 10 or 10.1 vehicles are excluded. Taxpayers may also elect to exclude a Class 10.1 vehicle from immediate expensing in their timely filed return for the acquisition year.

Immediate deduction for Canadian development expenses

The proposals also permit an immediate deduction for qualifying Canadian development expenses incurred on or after Sept. 15, 2026. The new rules exclude successored expenses and the cost of Canadian resource property acquired from a non-arm’s-length person or partnership. Flow-through share expenses may qualify only when taxpayers renounce them under an agreement entered on or after that date.

What businesses need to consider

Businesses contemplating significant capital expenditures should assess whether planned investments qualify, when the property will become available for use and whether any taxpayer-specific limitations apply. Taxpayers must pay particular attention to used property, related-party acquisitions, tax-deferred transfers, vehicles, partnerships, LNG facilities, Canadian development expenses and flow-through share arrangements.

From a planning perspective, taxpayers should revisit current and proposed capital budgets to identify assets expected to become available for use on or after Sept. 15, 2026. They must also confirm whether any exclusions or limitations could affect the timing or amount of the deduction. For resource issuers and investors, the treatment of Canadian development expenses renounced under flow-through share agreements will be particularly important.

BLG’s Tax Group will continue to monitor the proposals as they proceed through the legislative process.

CPL cancellation in B.C.: Court of Appeal clarifies protective actions and abuse of process

Tue, 15 Sep 2026 00:00:00 Z

A certificate of pending litigation (CPL) can effectively freeze title to real property before the underlying claim has been proven. In British Columbia real estate litigation, a CPL can impede a sale, refinancing, development, or other transaction involving the property. Because of those consequences, the Land Title Act requires litigants who register CPLs to diligently advance the underlying proceeding. Section 252 of the Land Title Act permits a property owner or other interested party to apply for cancellation of a CPL where no step has been taken by the plaintiff in the underlying claim for one year.

In 1316215 BC Ltd. v. Davis, 2026 BCCA 338, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia considered whether a s. 252 application could be sidestepped through procedural manoeuvring, specifically by the plaintiff filing a second “protective” proceeding and a second CPL.

While the Court of Appeal accepted that a plaintiff may commence a second “protective” proceeding in certain circumstances, it held that litigation strategy has limits. A litigant cannot use a fresh action and a new CPL to deprive a property owner of a crystallized right to seek cancellation of an existing CPL under s. 252 of the Land Title Act.

This decision provides important guidance on the purpose of s. 252 of the Land Title Act, the limits of protective proceedings, and the circumstances in which a litigant’s use of a second CPL may constitute an abuse of process.

Understanding CPLs and s. 252 of the Land Title Act: What you need to know

A CPL permits a litigant claiming an interest in land to register that claim against title while the litigation remains unresolved. Because a CPL can prevent or impede transactions affecting the property, it is presumptively prejudicial to the property owner.
A CPL is not a “set it and forget it” remedy. Section 252 of the Land Title Act protects against dormant litigation by permitting a cancellation application where no step has been taken in the underlying proceeding for one year.
Cancellation is not automatic. The court retains discretion to preserve the CPL where the presumed prejudice to the property owner is not serious or is outweighed by circumstances that would make cancellation unjust.

Background of the dispute

The dispute arose from allegations that a property in Squamish was jointly owned, had been sold without the alleged co-owner’s knowledge, and that the sale proceeds were used to acquire a property in Lake Country. An action advancing proprietary claims was commenced, and CPLs were registered against both properties.

More than a year passed without any litigation step being taken in that action. The owner of the Squamish property, 1316215 BC Ltd. (1316), then applied under s. 252 of the Land Title Act to cancel the CPL on the basis of that inactivity.

Before that application was heard, the plaintiff commenced a second action naming additional defendants. She then registered a second CPL against the same property, subsequently removed the original CPL, and discontinued the first action. Those steps eliminated the original proceeding and CPL to which 1316’s pending s. 252 application related, thereby preventing the application from being determined in the ordinary course.

Analysis

The Chambers Judge’s decision

The chambers judge recognized that while a multiplicity of proceedings involving the same issues may constitute an abuse of process, this is not always the case. Courts have accepted that a second proceeding may be commenced as a “protective action,” including where it is brought out of an abundance of caution and there is no intention to pursue both proceedings to judgment.

The judge found that there was evidence that the plaintiff only discovered the identity and alleged involvement of certain additional defendants after the first action was underway. In those circumstances, and given the potential limitation concerns, the commencement of a second action was a permissible protective measure.

1316 argued that commencing the second action and registering a fresh CPL improperly frustrated its pending application under s. 252. The chambers judge rejected that argument, concluding that the second action was a legitimate protective action and that the registration of the second CPL did not constitute an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal decision

On appeal, the central issue was not whether the second action had been commenced for a legitimate protective purpose. It was whether the subsequent registration of a fresh CPL, discontinuance of the original proceeding, and removal of the first CPL improperly defeated 1316’s accrued right to have its s. 252 application determined. The Court of Appeal concluded that those steps constituted an abuse of process and allowed the appeal.

Can a second action and CPL be filed as protective measures?

The Court of Appeal distinguished between the purpose for commencing a protective action and the manner in which the action is subsequently used. A second proceeding may be justified by limitation concerns or the identification of additional parties. That legitimate purpose, however, does not insulate the litigant’s later procedural choices from scrutiny.

In the Court of Appeal’s view, it was neither necessary nor appropriate, for the plaintiff to proceed as she did. After commencing the second action, the plaintiff could have sought to amend the first action, pursued joinder applications, or preserved the status quo until the existing cancellation application was determined. There was no compelling protective basis to register a new CPL, discontinue the first action, and remove the original CPL before 1316’s pending application could be heard.

When does the right to seek cancellation of a CPL crystallize?

Section 252 reflects the principle that a litigant who obtains the benefit of a CPL must diligently pursue the underlying claim. Once no litigation step has been taken for one year, the property owner or other interested party may apply for cancellation.

The Court of Appeal emphasized that once the statutory preconditions for a s. 252 application have been met, the property owner’s right to seek cancellation has “crystallized.” Although the court retains discretion to refuse cancellation, the property owner is entitled to have the application heard and determined on its merits.

By registering a new CPL, discontinuing the first action, and removing the original CPL, the plaintiff effectively deprived 1316 of its accrued right to pursue cancellation under s. 252. The Court of Appeal held that this frustrated both the purpose of the statute and the integrity of the CPL regime.

When can filing a second CPL constitute an abuse of process?

The abuse in this case arose from the manner in which the plaintiff used the second action and the second CPL.

The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff proceeded with full knowledge of the effect her actions would have on 1316’s pending application to cancel the CPL. In doing so, she intentionally disregarded and effectively thwarted 1316’s crystallized right to have its application to cancel the first CPL determined on the merits. It concluded that “[t]he manner in which Ms. Davis chose to proceed was so outside the range of reasonable strategic choices to qualify as an abuse of process.”

The Court of Appeal restored the lost s. 252 application

The Court of Appeal remitted the matter to the Supreme Court with directions to assess the new CPL as though the original s. 252 application had proceeded in the ordinary course.

In effect, the Court of Appeal sought to restore 1316 to the position it would have been in had the plaintiff not frustrated the statutory process. The Court described this as a “just and proportionate” remedy that both protected the integrity of the CPL regime and preserved 1316’s right to have its s. 252 application determined on its merits.

What does the decision mean for B.C. real estate litigation?

For property owners, developers, lenders, and other real estate stakeholders, the decision reinforces the importance of monitoring both the litigation record and the property’s transaction calendar. The ability to seek cancellation under s. 252 may become critical if a CPL threatens a sale, financing, development milestone, or other time-sensitive transaction.

Parties relying on a CPL should likewise ensure that the underlying claim continues to advance. If a second proceeding becomes necessary because of limitation concerns or newly identified parties, counsel should consider whether amendment, joinder, or preservation of the existing proceeding would protect those interests without interfering with an accrued cancellation right.

Key takeaways for B.C. property owners, developers, lenders and CPL plaintiffs

Because a CPL is an extraordinary pre-judgment mechanism that secures an unproven claim by tying up a property owner’s title, the party who obtains it must diligently advance the underlying claim.
Section 252 protects against dormant litigation. If no litigation step has been taken for one year, a property owner may seek cancellation of a CPL, reflecting the concern that property not remain tied up indefinitely.
A fresh action and CPL do not necessarily reset the clock. Once a property owner has accrued the right to seek cancellation under s. 252, a plaintiff cannot sidestep that process by registering a new CPL through a duplicative proceeding.
A proper protective action will not immunize or insulate later litigation conduct.
Courts will closely scrutinize litigation tactics that seek to defeat crystallized statutory rights or the integrity of the CPL regime. Steps that knowingly frustrate an opposing party’s accrued procedural rights may cross the line into abuse of process, and the question is whether a tactic is outside the range of reasonable strategic litigation choices.

BLG can assist

CPL disputes often require urgent coordination between litigation strategy and the commercial timetable for the property. If a CPL is affecting a proposed sale, financing, development, restructuring, or other transaction, early assessment of the available cancellation and preservation remedies may be critical. For advice concerning CPLs, real estate disputes, abuse of process, or remedies under the Land Title Act, please contact any of the key contacts below.

CRA releases updated CRS guidance: CRS 2.0 and other matters

Fri, 11 Sep 2026 00:00:00 Z

On July 2, 2026, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) published its updated Guidance on the Common Reporting Standard (Updated CRS Guidance).

The Updated CRS Guidance includes:

Long-awaited changes addressing the legislative amendments to Part XIX of the Income Tax Act (CRS) relating to the amendments to the Common Reporting Standard set out in the Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters, as amended and approved by the Council of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in June 2023 (commonly referred to as CRS 2.0, Amended CRS or ACRS); and
Other changes, referred to by the CRA as “small clarifications”, pertaining to CRS compliance.

The changes in the Updated CRS Guidance relating to CRS 2.0 generally take effect on Jan. 1, 2027. All other changes generally take effect by July 2, 2026.

This article summarizes certain key compliance changes that financial institutions (including investment funds, securities dealers, portfolio managers, custodians, banks, trust and loan companies, credit unions and insurance companies) should be aware of.¹

Compliance changes under CRS 2.0

New fields on the CRS return

CRS 2.0 requires the following new fields to be included in the CRS return for each reportable account, beginning with reporting for the 2027 calendar year:

For account holders that are passive non-financial entities with one or more reportable controlling persons, the financial institution must provide:
1. the role(s) by virtue of which each reportable person is a controlling person of the account holder, and
2. whether a valid self-certification has been provided for each reportable person²;
In the case of any equity interest held in an investment entity that is a legal arrangement, the role(s) by virtue of which the reportable person is an equity interest holder;
Whether the account holder has provided a valid self-certification;
The type of account;
Whether the account is a preexisting account³ or a new account⁴; and
Whether the account is a joint account (and if so, the number of joint account holders).

Transitional relief applies to accounts already opened as of Jan. 1, 2027 (each referred to as an Existing Account), but solely with respect to the new reporting fields in (a)(i) and (b) described above. These fields do not need to be completed for an Existing Account if such information is not available in the electronically searchable data maintained by the financial institution. The transitional relief is limited and may only be used by financial institutions for the 2027 and 2028 reporting periods.

Custodial account reporting relief

Under the current CRS rules, a financial institution that maintains a custodial account must report on the CRS return the total gross proceeds from the sale or redemption of financial assets that are paid or credited to the account during the reporting period.

Under CRS 2.0, a financial institution is exempted from reporting this information if it reports such information in the return filed for purposes of Part XXI of the Income Tax Act (CARF) relating to the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (unless the financial institution elects out of this reporting exemption for CRS). This measure helps prevent duplicative reporting under CRS and CARF for certain financial accounts related to crypto-assets.

Missing self-certifications

In exceptional circumstances where a financial institution cannot obtain a self-certification for a new account in time to meet its CRS obligations for the reporting period during which the account was opened, CRS 2.0 requires financial institutions to apply the due diligence procedures for preexisting accounts until the self-certification is obtained and validated.

Reliance on AML/KYC documentation

The Financial Action Task Force Recommendations — International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation, adopted in February 2012 and as amended from time to time (FATF Recommendations) are the international standards for the measures that countries should adopt domestically to implement anti-money laundering and know your customer (AML/KYC) rules. However, not all countries, including Canada, have enacted domestic AML/KYC legislation entirely consistent with the FATF Recommendations.

Information gathered for Canadian AML/KYC purposes is often used for CRS compliance purposes. For example, information gathered for AML/KYC purposes may be used to determine the controlling persons of an entity account holder or to assess the reasonableness of a self-certification. Under the current rules, financial institutions may rely on documentation collected for Canadian AML/KYC purposes to satisfy their CRS obligations.

Pursuant to CRS 2.0, financial institutions will no longer be able to rely on information collected and maintained pursuant to their AML/KYC procedures for their CRS due diligence obligations, if the financial institution’s AML/KYC procedures are not substantively consistent with the FATF Recommendations. To date, the CRA has not provided any guidance on the extent of the substantive discrepancies (if any) between Canadian AML/KYC rules and the FATF Recommendations, therefore, financial institutions are left to independently determine whether continued reliance on their AML/KYC documentation for CRS compliance purposes will be acceptable.

Multiple tax residences

An account holder (or an account holder’s controlling person) may be a tax resident in two or more jurisdictions based on the domestic laws of such jurisdictions. The CRA’s previous administrative position was that account holders with multiple tax residences may rely on an applicable tie-breaker rule in a tax treaty to resolve cases of dual tax residence.

Beginning in 2027, a dual resident account holder must provide all the jurisdictions of tax residence (i.e., without applying any tie-breaker rule in a tax treaty) on a self-certification and the financial institution must report all such jurisdictions on the CRS return.

To date, the CRA has not released updated self-certifications to address this change – the instructions in the current version of the CRA’s self-certifications indicate that account holders can rely on tie-breaker rules. We would expect, similar to other jurisdictions that have already implemented CRS 2.0, that the CRA’s next version of the self-certifications will be updated to indicate that account holders can no longer rely on the tie-breaker rules.

Preexisting accounts – reasonable efforts to obtain missing date of birth or TIN

Under the current CRS rules, financial institutions do not need to report the date of birth or TIN for preexisting accounts, if such information is neither (i) in the financial institution’s records nor (ii) otherwise required to be collected by the financial institution under the Income Tax Act.

Even though financial institutions do not need to report such information in those circumstances, they still have an obligation to use reasonable efforts to obtain the TIN or the date of birth (as applicable) with respect to a preexisting account by the end of the second calendar year following the year in which the preexisting account is identified as a reportable account. Pursuant to CRS 2.0, financial institutions will now also be required to use reasonable efforts to obtain the TIN or date of birth (as applicable) of a preexisting account whenever it is required to update the information relating to the account pursuant to AML/KYC procedures.

New types of non-reportable persons – publicly-traded entities and their related entities

Non-reportable persons are not reportable for purposes of CRS (regardless of their tax residency status). Under the current CRS rules, the list of non-reportable persons includes, but is not limited to, (i) a corporation the stock of which is regularly traded on one or more established securities markets or (ii) any corporation that is a related entity of the former.

CRS 2.0 expands the two above-noted categories beyond corporations, in order to capture all entities (e.g., trusts and partnerships) that have stock that is regularly traded on an established securities market and their related entities.

Updating the list of non-reporting financial institutions

A financial institution that is a non-reporting financial institution (NRFI) is not subject to CRS compliance obligations.

Under the current CRS rules, a governmental entity or international organization is a NRFI. CRS 2.0 limits the situations where such an entity can benefit from the NRFI status. In particular, a governmental entity or international organization will not be a NRFI in any of the following scenarios:

With respect to a payment that is derived from an obligation held in connection with a commercial financial activity of a type engaged in by a specified insurance company, custodial institution or depository institution; or
With respect to the activity of maintaining central bank digital currencies for account holders which are not financial institutions, governmental entities, international organizations or central banks.

New type of excluded account – incorporations and contributions of capital

Financial institutions do not have CRS compliance obligations with respect to an “excluded account”.

CRS 2.0 introduces a new type of “excluded account”, which is an account established in connection with a contribution of capital to, or the incorporation of, a corporation. In order for an account to fall within this new type of “excluded account”, the account must meet all of the following requirements:

The account is used exclusively to deposit amounts that are to be used for the purpose of the incorporation of, or the making of a capital contribution to, a corporation in accordance with applicable law;
Any amounts held in the account must be blocked until the financial institution obtains an independent confirmation regarding the incorporation or contribution of capital;
The account is closed or transformed into another account in the name of the corporation after the incorporation or contribution of capital;
Any repayments resulting from the failed incorporation or contribution of capital (net of service provider and similar fees) must be made solely to the persons who contributed the amounts; and
The account cannot have been established more than 12 months before that time.

Other compliance changes

Missing TIN

An account holder must provide a reasonable explanation on their self-certification if the account holder is not eligible to obtain a foreign TIN (e.g., the account holder’s jurisdiction does not issue a TIN to its residents) or is otherwise unable to secure a foreign TIN (e.g., the account holder has requested a TIN from its jurisdiction but has not yet received it as at the time the account is opened).

The CRA recommends that financial institutions have procedures in place to follow-up with the account holder and document any actions taken to support the financial institution’s “reasonable efforts” that were made to obtain the missing TIN.

Entity account holder certifies it has no residence

For a self-certification to be valid, the account holder must certify its jurisdiction(s) of tax residence. If an entity account holder (such as a partnership) certifies that it has no residence for tax purposes, the CRA’s previous administrative position was that the financial institution can rely on the address of the entity’s principal office to determine the entity’s jurisdiction of tax residence.

Under the Updated CRS Guidance, if an entity account holder certifies it has no residence for tax purposes, the financial institution should treat the account as not having a valid self-certification. In such circumstances, the CRA recommends that the financial institution should discuss with the account holder about what other information to consider for determining its tax residence (address of the entity’s principal office, place of effective management of the entity’s business, jurisdiction in which the entity is established, etc.) or refer the entity to seek professional tax advice. Accordingly, financial institutions cannot solely rely on the location of the entity’s principal office in these circumstances.

Securities of a fund issued in client name – written communications

Where securities of a fund are issued in the name of the beneficial investor (i.e., securities are issued in client name), the fund and the investor’s dealer both have obligations under CRS. In these circumstances, the fund and the dealer may take advantage of the “client name relief” (provided certain requirements are met), whereby the parties share the CRS compliance obligations as follows (see our article, New year, new compliance obligations: CRA releases updated CRS guidance, for more information):

Due diligence (this must be completed by the dealer) – The dealer collects a self-certification from the account holder, and communicates to the fund whether the account is reportable or non-reportable.
Reporting (this may be completed by either the dealer or the fund) – Whichever party is responsible for the reporting (the Filer) is required to inform the party that is not responsible for the reporting (the Non-Filer), in writing, that the Filer will perform the reporting.

In the Updated CRS Guidance, the CRA provides examples of “written communications” or “information in writing”, and such examples consist of electronic communications, notifications and notations. The CRA also makes it clear that any such communications are considered records, and they are therefore subject to the record keeping (including retention period) requirements imposed under CRS.

How financial institutions can prepare for the new changes

Financial institutions should consider taking the following action steps to prepare themselves for the compliance changes under CRS:

Update your policies and procedures – Your polices and procedures for CRS compliance should be updated to reflect the compliance changes. Given the changes impact only CRS at this time, financial institutions that have obligations under Part XVIII of the Income Tax Act (FATCA) should consider how this may impact their FATCA compliance procedures;
Prepare training sessions for your compliance team – Financial institutions are expected to have periodic trainings on CRS compliance. Financial institutions should begin planning training sessions in advance of the 2027 implementation date for CRS 2.0, as well as preparing the training materials for these sessions. Attendance logs and copies of all training materials should be retained, as they are often requested during an audit by the CRA of a financial institution’s CRS compliance program;
Update your computer systems to reflect the new CRS return – For financial institutions that rely on computer systems to prepare their annual CRS returns, it will be important to update the computer system to incorporate the new reporting fields required by the new CRS return. For example, financial institutions may complete due diligence by collecting a valid self-certification or by using publicly available information – it will now be important for financial institutions to track how the due diligence was completed in order to satisfy the new fields on the CRS return. For Existing Accounts where the new information to be reported on the CRS return is not in the computer system, financial institutions may need to manually review the client file to determine the required information to complete the applicable new field(s); and
Understand the differences between your AML/KYC procedures and the FATF Recommendations – CRS 2.0 emphasizes that financial institutions are required to follow the FATF Recommendations when complying with CRS, rather than their AML/KYC procedures which are established for the purposes of complying with the Canadian AML/KYC legislation. CRS compliance professionals should understand how the FATF Recommendations differ from the obligations under Canadian AML/KYC, in order to know whether information obtained for AML/KYC purposes can or cannot be used for CRS purposes.

For help assessing the impact of the Updated CRS Guidance on your financial institution, please contact the individuals below.

Authors: Grace Pereira, Tony Zhang, Brian Malczyk, Alex Gall

From duties to import bans: The Canada–U.S. tariff war after the collapse of negotiations

Fri, 11 Sep 2026 00:00:00 Z

Just after midnight on Aug. 22, 2026, the United States began collecting 50 per cent duties on approximately US$20 billion (C$27.6 billion) worth of Canadian goods under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Tariff Act). Our earlier insight examined this Depression-era provision after the underlying proclamations were signed in July.

Within hours, Prime Minister Carney made an announcement that Canada would match the U.S. duties “dollar for dollar.” On Aug. 25, the Department of Finance released the details of Canada’s response: counter-tariffs of 15 per cent, 25 per cent and 50 per cent on C$27.6 billion worth of U.S. goods, effective on Sept. 8, together with a C$7.5 billion support package.

Between those announcements, President Trump stated that tariffs on all Canadian cars, trucks, and automotive parts would increase to 50 per cent on Jan. 1, 2027, and that Canadian steel would also be subject to that rate.

Canada’s counter-tariffs took effect on Sept. 8.

Within hours, the President signed five further Section 338 proclamations: three impose outright import bans on specified Canadian alcoholic beverages, dairy products and motorcycles, effective Sept. 29, and two recalibrate the existing 50 per cent tariff lists, effective Sept. 15, adding products, removing others, and reversing the July carve-out for goods already subject to Section 232.

The President directed the removal of Canadian-origin products from a federal procurement channel the White House values at more than US$50 billion a year.

This update situates developments since the collapse of negotiations in the arc of the dispute we have tracked since November 2024 and considers what may come next for Canadian businesses.

1. How we got here

The most recent iteration of the Canada-U.S. trade dispute began on Nov. 25, 2024. That was when the then president-elect announced his intention a 25 per cent tariff on all goods imported from Canada and Mexico, citing concerns about fentanyl and border security.

The measures and responses that followed included tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the resumption of the tariff dispute in March 2025, Section 232 measures targeting steel, aluminum and automobiles, Canada’s WTO challenge, and successive rounds of Canadian counter tariffs. Canada ultimately withdrew most of its counter-tariffs in September 2025.

These events are chronicled in our Tariffs and Trade Resource Centre.

Two developments this summer reshaped the bilateral dynamics.

First, at the first CUSMA joint review on July 1, the United States declined to renew the agreement in its current form. CUSMA remains in force, but the parties are now on a cycle of annual reviews rather than securing a further 16-year term.

Second, on July 20, the President signed three proclamations under Section 338 of the Tariff Act, citing provincial bans on U.S. alcoholic beverages, Canada’s administration of tariff-rate quotas for cheese, and Canada’s 25 per cent tariff on non-CUSMA-qualifying U.S. vehicles.

The accompanying annexes extended well beyond those three sectors, covering products such as furniture, cement, plywood, apparel, cosmetics, toys and hockey equipment. The duties apply irrespective of whether the goods qualify as originating under CUSMA. As originally proclaimed, they did not apply to goods already subject to Section 232 measures but, as discussed below, that carve-out was reversed on Sept. 8.

The July proclamations set Aug. 19 as the effective date, reflecting Section 338’s minimum 30-day notice period. On Aug. 18, amid reports of progress in the negotiations, the President suspended the effective date by three days, to Aug. 22. The suspension proclamation recorded that Canada had “expressed a commitment” to remove the measures at issue.

2. The collapse: Two accounts

Late on Friday, Aug. 21, Prime Minister Carney announced that Canada was suspending negotiations and recalling its negotiators to Ottawa. He stated that, in the preceding days, the United States had proposed new terms that were “unfair, uneconomic, and called into question the reliability of any deal.”

At a press conference the following morning, the Prime Minister added that the United States had “asked too much and offered too little.” He said that the late-stage demands implicated Canada’s relationships with other trading partners, its automotive sector, and its cultural and French-language protections. He also confirmed that Canada had been prepared to remove its remaining counter-tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles had the United States lowered its own. When asked on Tuesday about Canada’s account of the eleventh-hour demands, the President replied, “I don’t deny anything.”

In various interviews in the following days, U.S. officials offered a different account. Shortly after midnight, the United States Trade Representative posted that Canada had “declined to finalize the trade deal under the terms agreed earlier this week” and that “new demands and walk backs of other commitments by Canada” had upended the balance struck earlier in the week. According to an X post by the United States Trade Representative, the U.S. offer included significant tariff reductions on steel, aluminum, automobiles and lumber, cooperation on aerospace, critical minerals and forced-labour enforcement, and the launch of formal CUSMA negotiations.

No agreement was reached, no further negotiations were scheduled and, according to the United States Trade Representative, the United States was “moving forward with measures that respond to Canadian retaliation.” Those measures arrived on Sept. 8.

3. Canada’s response

Canada’s countermeasures, announced on Aug. 25 and in force since 12:01 a.m. on Sept. 8, have three notable features.

First, the countermeasures are rate-matched, not merely value-matched. The targeted products are drawn from those covered by the U.S. Section 338 and Section 232 measures, with each product generally subject to the same tariff rate that the United States applies to the corresponding Canadian product.

The Sept. 8 list contains roughly 700 items and covers C$27.6 billion in annual imports, and imposes tariffs of:

50 per cent on steel and aluminum products;
25 per cent on furniture, clothing and apparel, appliances, dairy products, cheese, fish and seafood, and certain steel and aluminum derivatives; and
15 per cent on other products such as air conditioning units and tool parts.

Second, the government’s stated rationale has shifted. The Minister of Finance made clear that the primary objective is to improve the competitive position of Canadian producers relative to U.S. products in the Canadian market. As the government had stated in respect of steel sector counter-tariffs, it would be illogical to force Canadian producers to compete with U.S. imports, when Canadian products are denied entry into the U.S. market.

This is a candid acknowledgement of the leverage problem we identified in January 2025. Retaliation against U.S. imports is unlikely, on its own, to move the United States. At the same time, there is no question that Canadian retaliatory measures to date are having both an economic and a political impact – and, likely, a strategic one as well. Retaliatory measures of this sort typically pursue multiple objects, and Canada’s latest measures are not different.

Third, the implementation framework is familiar. Existing counter-tariffs, including those on automobiles, remain in place, while goods already in transit when the measures took effect on Sept. 8 were exempt.

The tariff remission framework also remains available to provide exceptional relief. The Canadian Government has also paired the countermeasures with a C$7.5 billion support package. The package includes regional liquidity support, a new Business Development Bank of Canada financing stream, a C$2 billion Canada Strong Diversification Fund, C$3.5 billion in worker supports, and additional flexibility under the Large Enterprise Tariff Loan Facility. These measures build on approximately C$25 billion in support announced since 2025.

4. The U.S. response: from duties to import bans

Canada’s counter-tariffs took effect at 12:01 a.m. on Sept. 8.

The United States responded the same day, on two fronts. In the morning, the President directed the General Services Administration, working with the USTR, to take steps to remove Canadian-origin products from GSA’s Multiple Award Schedules (long-term contracts through which federal agencies buy commercial goods and services) unless Canada restores “full and fair reciprocity” for U.S. suppliers in Canadian government procurement. That evening, he signed five further proclamations under Section 338.

Three of the five are import bans. Section 338 permits the President, where a foreign country “maintains or increases” its discrimination after additional duties have been imposed, to exclude that country’s products from importation altogether. The President has now invoked that power. Effective 12:01 a.m. on Sept. 29, specified Canadian products currently subject to the 50 per cent duty (most alcoholic beverages, certain dairy and related products, and motorcycles) will be prohibited from entry into the U.S market. The White House frames the alcohol ban as a response to Canada having “maintained and in fact increased” its discrimination against U.S. alcoholic beverages; the ban closely mirrors the provincial bans on U.S. alcohol in place since early 2025, and follows Saskatchewan’s 50 per cent markup on U.S. alcohol, which took effect the same day as Canada’s counter-tariffs. The USTR described the package as “a natural consequence of Canada’s continued discriminatory treatment” of U.S. exports.

The other two proclamations recalibrate the underlying tariff lists, effective Sept. 15, for the motor vehicle and alcoholic beverage actions. Each removes some products from the 50 per cent duty and adds others. The White House cites rock salt and cement among the removals, and all-terrain vehicles and additional dairy products among the additions; cheese, mattresses and motorboats also appear to be new entrants.

Two further features deserve attention.

First, the modified duties “apply in addition to” Section 232 duties, reversing the July carve-out under which goods already subject to Section 232 measures were excluded from Section 338 coverage. On the face of the Sept. 8 announcement from the White House, Canadian aluminum bars and tubes, and fabricated steel structures newly added to the list may attract both layers.

Second, the additions were made without a fresh 30-day notice period. Section 338 requires that additional duties take effect no earlier than 30 days after the President’s finding of discrimination. The administration’s position appears to be that supplementing an existing proclamation, which the statute expressly permits, is not a new imposition.

Canada’s reaction has so far been measured. Minister LeBlanc called the measures “unjustified,” said the government was assessing them, and confirmed he was in contact with Ambassador Greer. Hours earlier, the Prime Minister had told Canadians in a video address that Canada’s pivot away from the United States “will come at a cost,” though not one approaching “the cost of standing still.”

5. What comes next

Escalation. The President’s announcement concerning Jan. 1, 2027 would raise tariffs on all Canadian cars, trucks and automotive parts to 50 per cent, doubling the current headline tariff rate on automobiles and applying the announced 50 per cent rate expressly to automotive parts.

Because U.S. duties on Canadian steel are already 50 per cent, the practical significance of the President’s reference to steel remains unclear. The four-month lead time resembles a negotiating deadline more than a settled policy decision. Automotive businesses and supply-chain participants should not, however, plan on the assumption that the increase will be withdrawn or postponed.

The Sept. 8 measures show that the U.S. administration is prepared to use the full range of Section 338, from duties to outright bans. They also show a willingness to move beyond tariffs altogether: the procurement directive targets a channel that Section 338 does not reach, and that Canadian suppliers have generally treated as insulated from the tariff dispute.

Litigation. Unlike Section 122, which limits tariffs imposed under that provision to 150 days, Section 338 contains no comparable express time limit and, according to the U.S. Government’s interpretation, permits duties of indefinite duration.

Some U.S. scholars have questioned whether the provision survived the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, and legal challenges are widely expected. Importers exposed to the duties or bans should consider taking steps now to preserve their ability to seek refunds, rather than waiting for the courts to resolve those potential challenges.

CUSMA. The annual review cycle has effectively transformed CUSMA from a relatively settled framework into an ongoing negotiation. The United States Trade Representative’s proposed package purportedly included the launch of formal CUSMA negotiations, but that offer appears to have lapsed with the breakdown of the broader talks. Canadian officials reportedly see “little chance” of negotiations resuming before the U.S. midterm elections in November 2026.

Meanwhile, the U.S.–Mexico track continues: the U.S. Commerce Secretary travelled to Mexico on Sept. 9 to meet President Sheinbaum. Canada risks watching the agreement’s future being negotiated bilaterally around it.

6. What Canadian businesses should do now

Revisit the origin of your exports. The Section 338 duties apply regardless of whether goods qualify for preferential treatment under CUSMA. Canada’s counter-tariffs, by contrast, apply to goods considered to originate in the United States under the applicable marking rules. The analysis differs on each side of the border, and the answer for U.S.-assembled goods containing foreign inputs may not be straightforward.

Use the lead time before Sept. 15 and Sept. 29. The recalibrated U.S. lists take effect on Sept. 15 and the import bans on Sept. 29. Goods classified in newly added subheadings should be re-costed now; goods deleted from the lists should be checked for whether they were removed outright or merely narrowed to a statistical suffix. Goods in the banned categories cannot enter after 12:01 a.m. on Sept. 29, and shipments should be timed accordingly.

Preserve potential refund rights. Importers subject to the U.S. Section 338 duties should consider taking the steps necessary to preserve potential refund claims pending any litigation challenging those measures.

Review existing and future contracts. Business should examine tariff pass-through, price-adjustment and force majeure provisions in existing agreements and address tariff allocation expressly in new contracts – advice we first gave in March 2025 that has not aged.

Review U.S. federal procurement exposure. Canadian suppliers holding GSA Multiple Award Schedule contracts, and their U.S. resellers, should review origin documentation and contract terms.

BLG can assist

BLG’s International Trade and Investment Group has advised clients through every phase of this dispute, including on origin qualification, remission requests, classification and scope determinations, contractual risk allocation and refund preservation. For assistance, contact any member of our team, and follow developments on our Tariffs and Trade Resource Centre and The Tariff Home Companion podcast.

B.C. presale contracts declared unenforceable due to REDMA disclosure failures

Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 Z

Developers marketing presale units in British Columbia must continue to disclose material developments throughout the life of a project or risk losing the ability to enforce their purchase agreements.

In KingSett Mortgage Corporation v. Lumina Eclipse Limited Partnership, 2026 BCSC 1598 (Lumina Eclipse), the British Columbia Supreme Court held that a developer's failure to disclose material developments affecting a condominium project rendered 39 presale agreements unenforceable against the purchasers, notwithstanding that the project was subsequently completed over the course of a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding.

The decision provides important guidance on the scope of a developer's continuing disclosure obligations under the Real Estate Development Marketing Act (REDMA), the circumstances in which post-contract disclosure failures can engage s. 23 of REDMA and the interaction between REDMA and the CCAA. It also confirms that subsequent project completion or an insolvency proceeding will not necessarily cure earlier disclosure failures or protect pre-sale agreements from being rendered unenforceable.

What developers and purchasers need to know

REDMA is consumer protection legislation which regulates the marketing of presale development properties.
REDMA is built around a straightforward concept: purchasers are entitled to receive accurate and up-to-date information about the material facts of a development before and during the period in which they remain contractually committed to purchasing a unit. Material facts may include, among other things, construction stoppages and significant delays.
A developer's obligation to disclose material facts under REDMA continues after a presale agreement is signed.
A failure to disclose later-arising material facts can render a presale agreement unenforceable against the purchaser.
CCAA is a federal insolvency statute that grants courts broad discretion to stay proceedings and creditor rights while a debtor undertakes a restructuring or concludes strategic sales for the benefit of stakeholders. The objective of the CCAA is to facilitate an efficient and fair restructuring process, preserve and maximize asset value, protect the public interest and balance the competing interests of debtors, creditors and other stakeholders.

Background: The Lumina Eclipse presale development

This case arose from the 329-condominium unit development called Lumina Eclipse in Burnaby, B.C. After purchasers entered into presale agreements between 2021 and 2023, the project began experiencing serious financial and construction difficulties.

During construction, the project encountered significant financial and operational challenges, including a $12 million CRA judgment, suspension of warranty coverage, suspension of the building permit, cessation of construction activity, substantial delays and eventual CCAA proceedings. Throughout this period, the disclosure statement was not amended to disclose these changes to purchasers.

In January 2025, the project was petitioned into a proceeding under the CCAA by its primary secured creditor, Kingsett Mortgage Corporation. In the initial order granted in the CCAA proceeding a stay of proceedings was granted (among other things) to allow construction of the development to restart. The initial order stayed all proceedings and the exercise of rights against the respondents and relieved the respondents from any obligation to file or deliver new disclosure statements or amendments under REDMA while the stay remained in effect. By March 2025 the building was deemed substantially complete, and the purchasers were asked to close on their presale agreements.

The purchasers sought a declaration that certain presale condominium agreements are unenforceable due to alleged breaches of s. 23 of REDMA. The purchasers argued that the developer's failure to disclose material developments affecting the project, including its financial difficulties and construction setbacks, constituted breaches of REDMA that rendered the presale agreements unenforceable under s. 23. The respondents argued that the presale agreements remained enforceable notwithstanding the project's financial and construction difficulties. They contended that the alleged disclosure deficiencies did not fall within the circumstances that would render the agreements unenforceable under s. 23 of REDMA and that the relief sought was inconsistent with the remedial purpose of the CCAA and the initial order under the CCAA.

What is a material fact under REDMA?

In Lumina Eclipse, the Court adopted the three-part framework for assessing materiality from Bosa Properties (Esprit 2) Inc. v. Kim, 2012 BCSC 1013, which is based on: (i) common sense; (ii) the statutory and regulatory disclosure framework; and (iii) whether a fact or proposal affects or could reasonably be expected to affect the value, price or use of the unit or development property. The Court did not reference the leading British Columbia Court of Appeal case regarding "material facts", being Woo v. Onni Ioco Road Five Development Limited Partnership, 2014 BCCA 76, in its reasoning. Applying the three-part framework, the Court found that all three factors established that the following events all constituted material facts:

a $12 million CRA judgment;
suspension of new‑home warranty coverage;
suspension of the building permit;
cessation of construction;
significant changes to completion timing; and
other developments affecting the project’s financial and operational condition.

When must a developer amend a disclosure statement?

A central issue was whether the undisclosed developments constituted “material facts” for the purpose of REDMA. The Court concluded that they did.

The Court emphasized that the materiality analysis is objective. The question is whether the information could reasonably be expected to affect the value, price or use of the development property or unit.

Applying that test, the Court found that the CRA judgment, suspension of warranty coverage, suspension of the building permit, cessation of construction activity, significant delays and other financial developments all constituted material facts. In these circumstances, the project was objectively different from the project purchasers thought they were buying into and the Superintendent's own disclosure requirements specifically call for disclosure of exactly this kind of information. These events affected project viability, financial stability, anticipated completion and the developer’s ability to perform its obligations.

The Court rejected arguments that materiality should be assessed with hindsight. The fact that the project was eventually completed did not alter whether the information was material when disclosure should have occurred. Materiality was assessed at the time disclosure was required, not after the project’s outcome became known.

Having determined that the relevant events were material facts, the Court turned to the disclosure obligations imposed by s. 16.

Section 16 requires a developer to immediately file an amendment to a disclosure statement when it becomes aware that the disclosure statement contains a misrepresentation or otherwise fails to comply with REDMA.

The Court found that timely amendments were not made despite the occurrence of multiple material developments. Some matters remained undisclosed for many months and were not included in a formal amendment until the monitor filed a further amendment in November 2025.

The Court found that the failure to file timely amendments to reflect the material facts constitutes a misrepresentation and the developer breached its continuing disclosure obligations as subsequent events had presented an outdated picture of the development that no longer reflected the actual circumstances known to the developer.

Can a post-contract disclosure breach make a presale contract unenforceable?

The most significant aspect of the judgment concerns the Court’s interpretation of s. 23.

The respondents argued that s. 23 should apply only where a disclosure defect existed when the original purchase agreement was executed.

The Court focused on the language of s. 23, which applies where a developer has breached “any provision of Part 2.” Because s. 16 forms part of Part 2, the Court concluded that continuing disclosure breaches may engage s. 23.

The Court also relied on the wording of s. 23(2)(a), which refers to material facts that “were or would have been” reasonably relevant to purchasers. According to the Court, that language supports the conclusion that later-arising material facts may also engage the statutory provision where disclosure obligations are not satisfied.

The Court held that s. 23 applies broadly to any breach of Part 2 of REDMA, including a developer's continuing obligation to amend disclosure statements and after purchase agreements have been executed. In this regard, the Court held that REDMA’s ongoing disclosure regime would be substantially weakened if post-contract disclosure failures carried no meaningful consequence.

The Court held that neither of the statutory exceptions in s. 23(2) applied. The undisclosed project developments constituted a misrepresentation of material facts that were reasonably relevant to a purchaser's decision to enter into the purchase agreement, preventing the respondents from relying on s. 23(2)(a). The respondents were also unable to rely on s. 23(2)(b) because it was highly unlikely the developer was not aware of the material facts and the misrepresentations were never corrected through an amended disclosure statement within the timeframe required by REDMA.

Due to the developer’s breach of its continuing disclosure obligations, and failure to establish any of the exceptions contained in s. 23(2) of REDMA, the purchasers’ presale agreements were found unenforceable against them by the developers.

Can CCAA proceedings override REDMA unenforceability?

The decision is particularly significant because the project was subsequently placed under creditor protection under the CCAA, with construction of the project substantially completed over the course of that CCAA proceeding. Despite this positive outcome, the Court nevertheless held that neither the CCAA proceeding generally nor relief set out in the initial order granted therein can cure or override the consequences of the earlier REDMA breaches.

The relevant disclosure failures occurred before the CCAA proceeding commenced, and therefore the applicable pre-sale agreements were already rendered unenforceable from the outset. The Court clarified that although CCAA courts have broad discretion to stay proceedings, suspend remedies and restrain the exercise of contractual rights, they do not go as far to make a contract already rendered unenforceable by operation of another statue to be treated as enforceable against the purchasers under the CCAA. The Court also commented that there is no conflict or frustration between CCAA and REDMA as REDMA determines whether the developer possessed an enforceable right against the purchasers, while the CCAA governs the administration of the ensuing insolvency proceeding and treatment of rights and claims within that proceeding.

The Court declared the purchase agreements unenforceable, but did not declare them void, cancelled or rescinded. It also did not determine the purchasers’ entitlement to recover approximately $3.6 million in deposits. Those issues were left for a later hearing.

Immediate implications: Why this decision matters for developers and lenders

The decision immediately affects 39 purchasers whose deposits total approximately $3.6 million and whose purchase contracts total approximately $30.5 million.

The Court's reasoning is not unique to those purchasers. The disclosure failures identified by the Court were project-wide disclosure issues. The development consists of 329 units. As a result, the potential financial implications for the project extend well beyond the 39 contracts directly before the Court.

More broadly, the decision significantly highlights the legal and financial consequences of failing to promptly amend disclosure statements when material developments arise during construction. Developers, lenders, monitors and insolvency professionals involved in distressed presale projects should examine this decision closely.

Potential appeal issues

Given the significance of the ruling, the decision may be appealed. Potential appellate issues include whether s. 23 applies to post-contract disclosure breaches, the interpretation of the phrase "was or would have been reasonably relevant" in s. 23(2)(a) and the interaction between REDMA and the CCAA. Appellate guidance may further clarify how REDMA provisions operate where a development project is subject to insolvency proceedings.

Key takeaways: What the decision means for B.C. development projects

Developers should treat REDMA disclosure as a continuing compliance obligation throughout the marketing and construction of an event or other matter. Events that occur after a purchaser signs an agreement may require an amendment to the disclosure statement if they constitute a material fact or material change. Importantly, legal consequences under REDMA do not arise merely because a material fact exists. Rather, they can flow from a developer's failure to disclose that material fact in accordance with REDMA's continuing disclosure requirements. Where there is uncertainty as to whether a particular development constitutes a material fact, developers should generally err on the side of disclosure and promptly assess whether an amendment to the disclosure statement is required.

Particular attention should be given to:

significant construction delays or work stoppages;
material financing difficulties;
suspension or loss of warranty coverage;
suspension, cancellation or material alteration of building permits;
other developments that could reasonably affect a purchaser’s decision to complete the purchase.

A contractual right to extend completion dates will not necessarily address a separate failure to comply with REDMA. Nor should a developer assume that completing the project, obtaining occupancy or entering an insolvency restructuring will cure an earlier disclosure breach.

Developers and insolvency professionals should therefore consider establishing a documented process for regularly reviewing project developments against their REDMA disclosure obligations. Material events should be promptly assessed with legal counsel, and any required disclosure amendment should be prepared and filed without delay.

If you have questions about REDMA or presale disclosure obligations in British Columbia, please reach out to any of the key contacts below.

$name

Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 Z

Sommet canadien de l’investissement de 2026 : ce que doivent savoir les leaders du milieu des affaires

Tue, 01 Sep 2026 00:00:00 Z

Les 14 et 15 septembre 2026, à Toronto, le gouvernement du Canada tiendra la toute première édition du Sommet canadien de l’investissement. Ce sommet réunira les plus grands investisseurs du monde, dont des PDG, des entrepreneurs et des leaders mondiaux du monde des affaires, dans le but de stimuler les nouveaux investissements au Canada.

Au cœur de l’événement : des projets d’intérêt national et des possibilités connexes dans les domaines de la défense, des grandes infrastructures, des partenariats avec les peuples autochtones, des technologies, de l’énergie, des minéraux critiques et de la résilience alimentaire et agricole.

Selon l’annonce qu’a faite le premier ministre le 17 avril 2026, le Sommet s’inscrit dans un plan ambitieux visant à mobiliser au total 1 000 milliards de dollars en investissements sur cinq ans, à créer de nouvelles possibilités d’emploi pour les Canadiennes et les Canadiens et à soutenir la croissance et la résilience économiques au Canada. Pour attirer des investisseurs, le gouvernement s’appuie sur les ressources énergétiques et naturelles du Canada, sa main-d’œuvre spécialisée, sa situation budgétaire et l’accès privilégié qu’il offre à quelque 1,5 milliard de consommateurs par l’intermédiaire de 16 accords de libre-échange couvrant 51 pays.

Le présent bulletin résume les mesures fédérales qui sous-tendent le programme du Sommet et présente les principales questions juridiques et réglementaires dont devraient tenir compte les entreprises et les investisseurs évaluant des possibilités liées à cet événement.

Une mise en contexte plus globale vous serait utile? Le guide Faire affaire au Canada de BLG vous dira tout du régime juridique et réglementaire canadien qui encadrera la réalisation de ces possibilités.

Mesures fédérales liées au programme du Sommet

Plusieurs mesures fédérales récentes sont directement liées aux secteurs d’activité que le gouvernement fédéral priorisera dans le cadre du Sommet. En effet, le Canada a conclu plus de 20 partenariats économiques et de défense et mobilisé quelque 97 milliards de dollars d’investissements étrangers depuis septembre 2025. Parallèlement, la superdéduction à la productivité vise à renforcer la compétitivité du Canada en matière d’investissements, tandis que le plan de diversification commerciale du Canada cherche à rendre l’économie canadienne de moins en moins tributaire d’un nombre limité de marchés d’exportation. Ces mesures peuvent soulever des considérations pratiques liées à la fiscalité et à la structuration, par exemple la nécessité d’intégrer les aspects fiscaux tôt dans la planification d’un projet.

Les investisseurs étrangers devraient également tenir compte de la Loi sur Investissement Canada dès les premières étapes de la planification d’une opération. En particulier si les investissements touchent des secteurs comme ceux des minéraux critiques, de la défense, de l’intelligence artificielle (IA) ou des infrastructures, qui peuvent nécessiter des examens relatifs à la sécurité nationale, indépendamment de la valeur de l’opération ou de l’acquisition ou non du contrôle par l’investisseur. Concrètement, les délais d’examen, les obligations de dépôt et l’imposition potentielle de conditions ou de mesures correctives devraient être intégrés à la structure de l’opération, au financement et aux modalités de clôture.

L’article de BLG Investissements étrangers au Canada : Comprendre le processus d’examen explique plus en détail le cadre d’examen.

Stratégie industrielle de défense : développement de capacités nationales

La Stratégie industrielle de défense du Canada vise à renforcer les capacités nationales de défense, à repenser l’approvisionnement et à soutenir les fournisseurs canadiens. Elle prévoit l’injection de 6,6 milliards de dollars sur cinq ans pour soutenir l’industrie, de même qu’un cadre construire-collaborer-acheter axé sur l’aérospatiale, les munitions, l’IA, les systèmes numériques et les systèmes autonomes et sans équipage. Les fournisseurs devraient donc tenir compte non seulement des capacités techniques, mais aussi des attestations de sécurité, de la conformité relative aux marchandises contrôlées, de la composition des chaînes d’approvisionnement, des conditions de propriété intellectuelle et de l’admissibilité aux marchés publics.

L’article de BLG Le projet de loi C-31 propose des modifications à la Loi sur la production de défense et l’approvisionnement en défense s’intéresse à des projets de modifications législatives connexes qui touchent à l’approvisionnement en défense.

Bureau des grands projets : accélération des projets d’intérêt national

Le Bureau des grands projets soutient actuellement 18 projets et neuf stratégies de transformation qui représentent en tout 192 milliards de dollars en nouveaux investissements. Bien que ce bureau coordonne le processus décisionnel fédéral et élimine des obstacles liés aux politiques et au financement, il ne remplace ni les autorisations prévues par la loi ni l’obligation de l’État de consulter les groupes autochtones. En conséquence, les promoteurs devraient vérifier tôt si un projet répond aux critères prévus par la Loi visant à bâtir le Canada, puis déterminer les exigences provinciales, les consultations à mener, la séquence d’obtention des permis et les étapes clés de financement nécessaires à l’avancement du projet.

Dans son article Fast-tracking Canada’s future: Recent projects announced by the Major Projects Office (en anglais seulement), BLG fournit plus de détails sur les projets en question et leurs implications.

Partenariats avec les Autochtones et élaboration de projets

Le développement de collaborations porteuses avec les peuples autochtones fait partie intégrante de la réalisation des grands projets au Canada. L’obligation de consulter qui incombe à l’État est intégrée dans les exigences réglementaires et les processus de délivrance de permis et d’approvisionnement; elle façonne les attentes et oriente la conception, l’approbation et le financement des projets. Les projets bien réfléchis, dont la stratégie d’exécution intègre les partenariats, seront appelés à réussir le mieux. Le Programme de garantie de prêts pour les Autochtones et des programmes provinciaux comparables sont conçus pour faciliter l’accès au capital et la prise de participations financières pour les groupes autochtones. Il est recommandé que les considérations relatives à la structuration soient intégrées dès le début dans le contrôle diligent et dans les documents relatifs au financement et à la gouvernance.

Comme nous l’expliquions dans notre article Des titres miniers aux projets nucléaires : évolution du rôle de la DNUDPA en droit canadien, les normes de consultation et les décisions réglementaires continuent d’évoluer, d’où toute l’importance d’engager le dialogue avec les communautés autochtones dès la conception des projets.

Technologies, IA et fabrication de pointe

Avec la Stratégie nationale en matière d’intelligence artificielle du Canada : L’IA pour tous et la stratégie automobile du Canada, le gouvernement souhaite soutenir l’adoption de l’IA et le développement des infrastructures connexes, la fabrication en sol canadien, la technologie des batteries, l’automatisation et les composants de pointe. Dans ce contexte, les organisations en quête de financement public ou d’occasions d’approvisionnement ont tout intérêt à se pencher dès la conception sur les questions entourant la souveraineté des données, la protection des renseignements personnels, la cybersécurité, la propriété intellectuelle, la composition de la chaîne d’approvisionnement et les besoins en main-d’œuvre spécialisée, car elles peuvent toutes jouer tant sur l’admissibilité que sur la répartition des risques.

Nos articles IA pour tous : perspective commerciale sur la gouvernance de l’IA, son adoption et la souveraineté des données et Nouvelle stratégie automobile du Canada expliquent ce que supposent concrètement ces deux stratégies pour les entreprises des secteurs visés.

Énergie et minéraux critiques

Dans les secteurs de l’énergie et des minéraux critiques, la politique fédérale s’appuie sur Propulser un Canada fort : Une stratégie nationale pour une économie canadienne électrifiée et la Stratégie canadienne sur les minéraux critiques. La stratégie d’électrification mise sur la production d’électricité et l’expansion des réseaux, tandis que celle des minéraux critiques préconise l’extraction, la transformation et l’affinage des minéraux en sol canadien.

Notre article Nouvelle stratégie canadienne d’électrification : horizon 2050 s’intéresse aux questions de mise en œuvre, de compétences et de financement associées à ce programme. Des outils connexes, dont le Fonds du premier et du dernier kilomètre et le projet de Fonds souverain pour les minéraux critiques, pourraient combler des lacunes en matière d’infrastructures et de financement. Les promoteurs devront tout de même établir des accords d’enlèvement et des structures de financement à long terme qui tiennent compte des risques liés à la construction et aux prix des matières premières.

Résilience alimentaire et agricole

La sécurité alimentaire relève d’un cadre d’investissement et de réglementation distinct. Le Partenariat canadien pour une agriculture durable a pour priorités le renforcement des capacités, la compétitivité, la résilience climatique, le développement des marchés, le commerce et l’innovation. Des projets de production, de transformation ou d’entreposage des aliments ou encore d’agriculture en milieu contrôlé peuvent être assujettis à des contraintes touchant l’utilisation des terres, l’environnement, la salubrité des aliments, la main-d’œuvre, le transport et la chaîne du froid.

Comme l’illustre l’article de BLG Le protocole d’entente ACIA-Chine sur la salubrité des aliments, la coopération réglementaire et les exigences de salubrité des aliments peuvent influer sur l’accès aux marchés agricoles. Dans ce contexte, il faudra donc évaluer l’admissibilité au financement en tenant compte des autorisations, des exigences commerciales et des infrastructures nécessaires pour exercer des activités à grande échelle.

Forum sur l’investissement au Canada organisé par BLG

Le 15 septembre 2026, BLG tiendra un forum sur l’investissement au Canada à Toronto, en partenariat avec le Réseau ontarien d’innovation pour les véhicules et PwC Canada.

Thème central de ce forum privé qui se tiendra en marge du sommet organisé par le gouvernement du Canada : comment fait-on passer les investissements dans les secteurs prioritaires du Canada du stade d’ambitions stratégiques à celui de projets concrets?

Il y sera question des possibilités que présentent les secteurs de la défense, de l’automobile, de la fabrication de pointe, de l’énergie, des minéraux critiques et de l’IA. Ce sera aussi l’occasion d’avoir des échanges pragmatiques sur le financement, le risque d’investissement, la capacité souveraine et des projets prêts à démarrer.

Consultez le programme et la liste des conférencières et conférenciers sur la page de l’événement.

Cet événement est proposé à un public trié sur le volet, et le nombre de places y est strictement limité. Les membres de la haute direction et les cadres supérieures et cadres supérieurs peuvent signaler leur intérêt ici.

BLG peut vous accompagner

BLG conseille les entreprises, les gouvernements et les investisseurs sur les grands projets, le financement de projets, les incitatifs fiscaux, l’approvisionnement en défense, les partenariats avec les peuples autochtones, les questions liées au commerce et aux chaînes d’approvisionnement, de même que les structures de co-investissement institutionnel. Grâce à notre expertise des questions sectorielles dont traite ce bulletin, nous aidons nos clients à évaluer l’alignement de leurs projets avec les priorités gouvernementales, à repérer les processus d’approbation qui se chevauchent et à structurer leur financement et leurs partenariats, en plus de les conseiller sur les risques liés à la réglementation, à la fiscalité, à l’approvisionnement et à la mise en œuvre.

Pour en savoir plus sur l’incidence que le Sommet pourrait avoir sur votre organisation ou un projet, n’hésitez pas à communiquer avec l’une ou l’autre des personnes-ressources ci-dessous.

Paiement rapide dans le secteur de la construction en Colombie-Britannique : échéancier, différends et arbitrage

Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:00:00 Z

Le paiement rapide des projets de construction arrive en Colombie-Britannique.

Le 27 novembre 2025, la Construction Prompt Payment Act (la « CPPA » ou la « Loi ») a reçu la sanction royale. Elle introduira un système de paiement rapide à l’échelle de la Colombie-Britannique et modifiera la Builders Lien Act (la « BLA ») de plusieurs façons. La CPPA, ainsi que les changements connexes apportés à la BLA et à la Strata Property Act (la « SPA »), entreront en vigueur à une date fixée par règlement.

La CPPA vise à améliorer le flux de trésorerie des projets de construction. Elle instaurera des délais de paiement à respecter, des exigences strictes en matière d’avis et un processus rapide pour régler à l’amiable les différends afférents : les maîtres d’ouvrage auront 28 jours pour payer une facture en règle suivant sa réception, et leurs entrepreneurs devront payer leurs sous-traitants dans les 7 jours subséquents. Les contrats conclus à compter de la date d’entrée en vigueur de la CPPA devront respecter les dispositions de cette dernière.

On s’attend à ce que la réglementation fournisse des directives supplémentaires pour faciliter la transition, à l’instar de ce qui a été observé dans les autres provinces où s’applique l’obligation de paiement rapide.

Fonctionnement du paiement rapide dans les projets de construction en Colombie-Britannique

1. Délais de paiement rapides pour les maîtres d’ouvrage, les entrepreneurs et les sous-traitants

Les paiements suivent la chaîne contractuelle. En règle générale, le maître d’ouvrage paie l’entrepreneur, l’entrepreneur paie ses sous-traitants, les sous-traitants paient leurs propres sous-sous-traitants et fournisseurs, et ainsi de suite.

Un retard de paiement ou un litige peut facilement perturber, voire interrompre, le flux de trésorerie, entraîner des arrêts de travail et exercer une pression financière sur tous les maillons de la chaîne contractuelle. C’est pourquoi la CPPA fixe des délais stricts que les maîtres d’ouvrage, les entrepreneurs et les sous-traitants doivent respecter.

Elle stipule entre autres que les maîtres d’ouvrage doivent payer les entrepreneurs dans les 28 jours suivant la réception d’une facture en règle. Les entrepreneurs et les sous-traitants doivent payer leurs sous-traitants et sous-sous-traitants respectifs dans les 7 jours suivant le versement du paiement, ou dans le délai déterminé par leur position dans la chaîne contractuelle (par tranches de 7 jours). Si l’entrepreneur ne reçoit qu’un paiement partiel de la part du maître d’ouvrage, il doit tout de même verser à ses sous-traitants un montant calculé au prorata dans un délai de 7 jours, en fonction du travail qu’ils ont effectué ou des matériaux qu’ils ont fournis.

2. Qu’est-ce qu’une facture en règle aux termes de la CPPA?

La Loi définit comme suit les exigences minimales auxquelles doit satisfaire une facture pour être en règle :

Il doit exister une facture écrite ou un autre type de demande de paiement pour les travaux effectués ou les matériaux fournis dans le cadre d’une amélioration prévue par un contrat.
Cette facture ou cette demande doit être remise au maître d’ouvrage au moins une fois par mois, à moins que le contrat ne prévoie d’autres modalités, par exemple l’envoi d’une facture en règle à chaque étape importante du projet.
La facture ou la demande doit contenir :
- le nom et l’adresse professionnelle de l’entrepreneur;
- la date de remise ainsi que la période, l’étape ou tout autre critère pertinent sur la base duquel le paiement est exigé;
- les renseignements permettant d’identifier l’autorité en vertu de laquelle les travaux ont été effectués ou les matériaux fournis (tel que stipulé dans le contrat ou ailleurs);
- une description des travaux effectués ou des matériaux fournis, y compris les quantités, s’il y a lieu;
- le montant demandé à titre de paiement et les modalités correspondantes, ventilées en fonction des travaux effectués ou des matériaux fournis;
- le nom, le titre et les coordonnées de la personne à qui le paiement doit être versé;
- toute autre exigence prévue dans le contrat;
- les renseignements prévus dans la réglementation.

3. Avis de non-paiement dans des litiges liés à la construction en Colombie-Britannique

Si un maître d’ouvrage conteste un montant figurant sur la facture d’un entrepreneur, il doit envoyer un avis de non-paiement dans les 14 jours suivant la réception de la facture en règle. Toutefois, si le maître d’ouvrage estime que la facture n’est pas en règle, il doit remettre l’avis dans les 7 jours suivant sa réception. À l’expiration de ce délai, la facture est réputée être « en règle ».

L’avis doit préciser le montant non payé, la raison sous-jacente et tout autre élément prescrit par règlement.

Si un entrepreneur conteste une partie de la facture d’un sous-traitant ou reçoit un avis de non-paiement de la part du maître d’ouvrage, il doit alors envoyer son propre avis de non-paiement à son sous-traitant. Celui-ci doit être remis au plus tard 7 jours après la réception de celui du maître d’ouvrage ou à la date limite liée à la position du sous-traitant dans la chaîne contractuelle, selon la plus courte des deux échéances.

Bien que l’entrepreneur puisse retenir le paiement dû à un sous-traitant en vertu d’un avis de non-paiement émis par le maître d’ouvrage, il est tenu de remettre au sous-traitant une copie de cet avis et de s’engager à soumettre le litige à l’arbitrage intérimaire.

Litiges relatifs au paiement dans le secteur de la construction qui peuvent faire l’objet d’un arbitrage intérimaire en vertu de la CPPA

L’arbitrage intérimaire est un processus simplifié de règlement des différends qui se déroule en dehors des tribunaux. La mise en place d’un mécanisme d’arbitrage intérimaire pour appuyer le régime de paiement rapide prévu dans la CPPA vise à offrir aux parties contractantes un moyen efficace et adapté au secteur de la construction pour régler leurs différends. La Loi établit dans quel contexte on peut se tourner vers l’arbitrage intérimaire. Notamment :

si un paiement est exigé en vertu d’un contrat (ce qui comprend les différends relatifs aux ordres de modification, approuvés ou non);
s’il y a défaut de paiement, en totalité ou en partie;
si les parties ne s’entendent pas sur la valeur des services ou des matériaux fournis dans le cadre d’un projet;
si une partie juge qu’une facture n’est pas en règle en vertu de la Loi;
pour des questions touchant les avis de non-paiement;
pour des enjeux qui concernent tout ce qui est prévu dans la réglementation;
pour toute autre question que les parties conviennent de soumettre à l’arbitrage intérimaire.

Il est possible de mettre fin à une procédure d’arbitrage intérimaire après la production de l’avis de renvoi si les parties le souhaitent, mais elles doivent le faire avant qu’une décision ne soit rendue. De plus, l’arbitre intérimaire peut quitter ses fonctions ou en être démis conformément aux procédures prévues dans le règlement.

1. Entamer une procédure d’arbitrage intérimaire pour régler un litige relatif au paiement dans le secteur de la construction

Dès qu’un avis de renvoi à l’arbitrage intérimaire est remis à une partie par une autre, la procédure devient obligatoire.

L’avis doit cependant être remis dans les 90 jours suivant la survenance des événements déclencheurs, faute de quoi la procédure ne peut se poursuivre. En cas de litige relatif au contrat principal, l’avis doit être signifié dans les 90 jours suivant l’achèvement, l’abandon ou la résiliation dudit contrat. Dans l’éventualité d’un différend se rapportant à un sous-contrat, l’avis doit être signifié dans les 90 jours suivant la première des éventualités suivantes :

la date à laquelle le contrat principal a été mené à terme, abandonné ou résilié;
la date à laquelle le sous-contrat a été certifié comme étant terminé;
la date à laquelle le sous-traitant a fourni pour la dernière fois des services ou des matériaux dans le cadre de travaux d’amélioration pour le sous-contrat en question.

Si un entrepreneur remet un avis de non-paiement à un sous-traitant en raison du non-paiement du maître d’ouvrage, il doit s’engager à entamer une procédure d’arbitrage intérimaire contre le maître d’ouvrage dans les 21 jours suivant la remise de cet avis.

2. Qui peut agir à titre d’arbitre intérimaire?

Une autorité d’arbitrage est prévue dans la réglementation. L’arbitre intérimaire doit être inscrit comme tel auprès de cette autorité; il sera désigné soit par consensus, soit par l’autorité. Les parties ne seront pas autorisées à convenir à l’avance de l’arbitre intérimaire qui entendra leur éventuel dossier.

Une fois nommé, l’arbitre intérimaire peut mener la procédure de la manière qu’il juge appropriée compte tenu des circonstances; à cette fin, plusieurs pouvoirs lui sont conférés, notamment ceux-ci :

donner des directives concernant le déroulement de la procédure;
tirer des conclusions à partir du comportement des parties;
faire appel à un expert;
effectuer des inspections sur les lieux du projet.

La décision d’un arbitre intérimaire a force exécutoire pour les parties, sauf si :

une ordonnance est rendue par un tribunal;
une partie présente une demande d’examen judiciaire;
les parties conviennent par écrit de régler leur différend;
les parties concluent une entente écrite visant à nommer un arbitre en bonne et due forme.

La décision écrite de l’arbitre intérimaire doit être rendue dans les 30 jours suivant la réception de certains documents prévus par la CPPA, ou selon les modalités convenues avec les parties.

Changements à la BLA de la Colombie-Britannique ayant une incidence sur les paiements en construction

La CPPA apporte un certain nombre de modifications à la BLA.

Par exemple, la période de retenue sera réduite de 55 à 46 jours, et ce, également pour les achats de copropriétés en vertu de la SPA. La CPPA ne change pas la durée du privilège.

La CPPA précise expressément qu’une personne ne possède aucun privilège en vertu de la Loi quant à une retenue obligatoire. Bien que la retenue continue d’assurer le paiement des revendications de privilège présentées par les parties engagées par la personne qui détient cette somme ou agissant pour son compte, les modifications à la Loi éliminent le privilège autonome sur la retenue qui était auparavant reconnu en Colombie-Britannique en vertu de l’arrêt Shimco Metal Erectors Ltd. v. Design Steel Constructors Ltd..

De plus, les travaux de démolition sont désormais expressément inclus dans la définition du terme « amélioration » (improvement) figurant au paragraphe 1(1) de la BLA.

Enjeux en suspens

Parmi les choses que nous ne savons pas encore, une question évidente et cruciale ressort d’entrée de jeu : quand la CPPA entrera-t-elle en vigueur? Plusieurs autres aspects importants restent aussi à éclaircir.

La CPPA s’appliquera-t-elle aux architectes et aux ingénieurs?

Compte tenu de la définition du terme « entrepreneur » (contractor) donnée dans la CPPA, à savoir une personne qui fournit des services ou des matériaux dans le cadre de travaux d’amélioration, il semble que les prestataires de services professionnels, tels que les architectes et les ingénieurs, ainsi que les fournisseurs de matériaux, seront visés par le régime de paiement rapide.

Ces personnes seraient donc tenues de respecter les délais prévus par la Loi, à moins d’en être expressément exemptés par règlement. À noter qu’à ce stade, aucune exemption de ce type n’a été annoncée.

À quoi ressemblera l’organe d’arbitrage?

Si la structure de l’organe d’arbitrage de la Colombie-Britannique sera officiellement déterminée par règlement, ce qui a été fait dans d’autres provinces peut fournir certaines indications. Ailleurs au Canada, les provinces dotées de régimes de paiement rapide et d’arbitrage intérimaire ont désigné des autorités de nomination autorisées ou reconnues chargées de superviser leurs systèmes, de tenir à jour les listes d’arbitres et de gérer les procédures d’arbitrage.

Ontario : L’organisme Règlement des différends en matière de contrats de construction de l’Ontario est l’autorité de nomination autorisée de la province en vertu de la Loi sur la construction.
Alberta : L’Alternative Dispute Resolution Institute of Alberta, l’Institut d’arbitrage et de médiation du Canada et le Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors agissent conjointement en tant qu’autorité de nomination sous le nom de ARCANA (AB), the ADR Institutes/RICS Construction Adjudication Nominating Authority (Alberta).
Saskatchewan : Le gouvernement provincial a mandaté le Construction Dispute Resolution Office pour agir à titre d’autorité d’arbitrage pour le secteur de la construction en vertu de la BLA.

La nouvelle Loi interdira-t-elle les clauses contractuelles de type « paiement sur paiement »?

Le paragraphe 47(2) de la CPPA stipule que toute disposition contractuelle prévoyant que la Loi ne s’applique pas, ou que les recours prévus par celle-ci ne peuvent être invoqués, est nulle. La réponse courte est donc probablement « oui ». Cela dit, les parties pourraient tout de même disposer d’une certaine marge de manœuvre pour moduler, par voie contractuelle, la manière dont certains aspects du nouveau régime s’appliquent. Tout dépendra en fin de compte de la réglementation et de la manière dont les tribunaux interpréteront la Loi.

Quels projets seront exemptés de l’obligation de paiement rapide?

La CPPA ne s’appliquera pas à certains projets; les précisions à ce sujet ne sont toutefois pas connues à l’heure actuelle et seront établies par règlement. On peut néanmoins en avoir une idée générale en observant ce que d’autres provinces ont fait.

Par exemple, plusieurs d’entre elles accordent une dérogation aux projets dont les dépenses en capital dépassent un certain seuil, ce qu’on pourrait appeler des « mégaprojets ». Il n’a pas encore été annoncé si la Colombie-Britannique prévoira des exemptions similaires.

Répercussions pour les projets de construction en Colombie-Britannique

Les échéances de paiement rapide et l’arbitrage obligatoire devraient faire en sorte que les litiges relatifs aux paiements dans le secteur de la construction en Colombie-Britannique se règlent plus rapidement que jamais. Une préparation adéquate est essentielle :

Mettre à jour tous les documents contractuels (contrats de construction, sous-contrats, bons de commande, ententes de consultation), afin qu’ils tiennent compte des exigences de paiement rapide et d’arbitrage.
Réviser les modèles de factures pour qu’ils respectent les exigences de la CPPA concernant les factures en règle et s’assurer qu’ils contiennent tous les renseignements obligatoires.
Préparer des modèles d’avis, notamment de contestation et de non-paiement, afin qu’ils puissent être produits dans les délais prévus par la Loi.
Offrir des formations sur les formulaires prescrits et les délais exigés par la CPPA.
Mettre en place ou mettre à jour des systèmes de rappel et de suivi afin de surveiller l’envoi et la réception des factures en règle, ainsi que toutes les échéances correspondantes en matière de paiement et d’avis.
Surveiller les échéances de facturation et de paiement dans toute la chaîne contractuelle, car le compteur se déclenche dès que la première facture en règle est soumise au maître d’ouvrage.
Adapter les processus comptables internes de façon à garantir que les paiements puissent être examinés, approuvés et effectués dans les délais prescrits.
Tenir des dossiers de projet organisés et exacts dans l’optique d’appuyer ou de contester d’éventuelles réclamations en arbitrage.
Former des équipes chargées des réclamations capables de réagir rapidement aux avis de non-paiement ou de renvoi à l’arbitrage.

La tenue rigoureuse de registres et le suivi attentif des activités revêtiront plus d’importance que jamais en vertu de la CPPA. Les sous-traitants, en particulier, devront surveiller le moment où l’entrepreneur remet une facture en règle au maître d’ouvrage, car bon nombre des délais de paiement et d’avis prévus par la Loi commencent à courir à compter de cette date. Autrement, ils risquent de ne pas respecter le délai légal pour produire un avis de non-paiement ou pour effectuer un paiement en fonction de leur place dans la chaîne.

Les parties doivent en outre être prêtes à entamer une procédure d’arbitrage intérimaire ou à y répondre rapidement. Compte tenu des délais serrés et des exigences documentaires du processus d’arbitrage intérimaire, il est essentiel de maintenir des dossiers organisés, complets et à jour. Il ne s’agit pas que d’une pratique optimale, mais bien d’une façon de protéger ses droits et de respecter les échéances dictées par la CPPA.

BLG peut vous aider

N’hésitez pas à communiquer avec le groupe Construction de BLG si vous avez des questions concernant l’incidence potentielle de la CPPA sur votre entreprise. Jetez aussi un œil à notre page Canada's Prompt Payment Legislation - A national perspective (en anglais seulement) pour de plus amples détails sur les régimes de paiement rapide et d'arbitrage en vigueur à travers le pays, comprenant une carte interactive.

L’Ontario accepte un recours en diffamation sur les médias sociaux, fait payer le motionnaire anti-SLAPP

Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:00:00 Z

Les projets d’aménagement suscitent souvent de vifs débats publics, en particulier dans les petites localités où les décisions sur l’utilisation du territoire peuvent être farouchement contestées. L’affaire Solmar Inc. v. Hall, 2026 ONCA 367, nous rappelle que même sur les médias sociaux, il existe des lignes à ne pas franchir.

La Cour d’appel de l’Ontario y approuve le rejet d’une motion anti-SLAPP déposée par un utilisateur Facebook ayant accusé un promoteur immobilier de pratiques commerciales malhonnêtes et les autorités municipales d’en tirer un avantage indu. Même si les publications portaient sur une question d’intérêt public, la Cour a jugé que le recours en diffamation pouvait se poursuivre et confirmé qu’une ou un motionnaire anti-SLAPP débouté peut se voir condamné aux dépens si l’expression contestée pourrait avoir été animée d’une intention malveillante.

Cette décision pose d’importants principes concernant les poursuites pour diffamation sur les médias sociaux, les motions anti-SLAPP et les limites de la critique en ligne lorsqu’il s’agit d’allégations de corruption et d’inconduite.

Comprendre la législation et les motions anti-SLAPP : ce qu’il faut savoir

Les lois anti-SLAPP visent à protéger la liberté d’expression sur des questions d’intérêt public et à éviter que la peur du coût et du fardeau d’un litige ne nuise au débat public.
La Cour suprême du Canada reconnaît que les poursuites stratégiques contre la mobilisation publique (SLAPP, en anglais) sont un moyen tactique d’inhiber l’expression sur certains sujets d’intérêt public¹.
Pour détecter les poursuites en lien avec les débats publics et écarter ce genre de tactiques, certaines provinces (comme la Colombie-Britannique et l’Ontario) ont adopté des lois anti-SLAPP².
En Colombie-Britannique et en Ontario, la partie visée par une SLAPP présumée peut demander au tribunal de rejeter de façon sommaire cette poursuite si elle peut prouver que celle-ci découle de l’expression d’une opinion sur un sujet d’intérêt public.
Pour faire rejeter une motion anti-SLAPP, la partie demanderesse doit convaincre le juge qu’il y a lieu de croire que : (1) la poursuite est fondée; (2) la partie intimée n’a pas de défense valable; et (3) le préjudice causé à la partie demanderesse du fait de l’expression est suffisamment grave pour que l’intérêt public à permettre la poursuite de l’instance continue de l’emporter sur l’intérêt public à protéger cette expression.
Si la motion anti-SLAPP est accueillie, la règle implicite est que la partie intimée se voie accorder ses dépens selon le principe de la réparation intégrale. En revanche, si la partie demanderesse réussit à se défendre, elle n’obtient pas automatiquement le remboursement de ses dépens. Dans les deux cas, la ou le juge saisi de la motion conserve le pouvoir discrétionnaire d’adjuger autrement les dépens.
La législation anti-SLAPP ne protège pas tous les propos diffamatoires. Elle oblige simplement les tribunaux à trouver un juste équilibre pour l’intérêt public entre protéger la liberté d’expression et permettre le déroulement de poursuites possiblement fondées, notamment pour rétablir la réputation des personnes visées.

Contexte du litige

Les parties demanderesses, le promoteur immobilier Benny Marotta et la société Solmar Inc. (Solmar), étaient engagés dans un projet controversé qui prévoyait la construction d’un luxueux hôtel à Niagara-on-the-Lake, ville ontarienne d’environ 19 000 personnes. Le projet avait été approuvé par le conseil municipal à l’issue d’un vote serré de cinq voix contre quatre.

Le lendemain, Stewart Hall, résident retraité de Niagara-on-the-Lake, a publié dans un groupe Facebook d’environ 3 100 habitants de la région un message accusant M. Marotta (et Solmar) de tactiques commerciales [Traduction] « corrompues et agressives » et faisant allusion à la possibilité que le personnel municipal ou les membres du conseil aient secrètement accepté de l’argent ou des cadeaux.

Dans un autre commentaire, il a ajouté que le contenu de son message relevait entièrement [Traduction] « du domaine public, saupoudré de quelques opinions personnelles » et précisé qu’il n’avait « aucune preuve » qu’une somme avait été offerte à quelqu’un d’autre qu’un certain conseiller.

M. Marotta et Solmar ont intenté une poursuite pour diffamation. M. Hall a déposé une motion anti-SLAPP en vertu de l’article 137.1 de la Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires de l’Ontario, s’appuyant sur la défense de commentaire loyal. Le juge saisi de cette motion l’a rejeté, a autorisé la poursuite de l’affaire (Solmar Inc. v. Hall, 2025 ONSC 1703), et a ordonné à M. Hall de payer aux parties demanderesses 89 000 $ pour couvrir la presque totalité de leurs dépens (Solmar Inc. v. Hall, 2025 ONSC 2578).

En rejetant la motion, il a conclu que, bien que l’expression porte sur une question d’intérêt public, il y avait lieu de croire que la poursuite était fondée et que M. Hall ne disposait d’aucune défense valable. En concluant qu’il n’y avait pas de raison de croire que M. Hall pouvait légitimement invoquer la défense de commentaire loyal, le juge a aussi déterminé que M. Hall avait agi avec malveillance en faisant preuve d’un mépris flagrant de la vérité, d’une intention cachée et d’une volonté de nuire aux parties demanderesses en faisant obstacle à l’approbation du projet.

Tout compte fait, comme la comparaison des préjudices subis par chacune des parties favorisait la poursuite de l’action en justice, le juge a choisi de rejeter la motion.

M. Hall a interjeté appel du rejet de sa motion et de sa condamnation aux dépens. La Cour d’appel a rejeté cet appel et maintenu l’ordonnance permettant la poursuite de l’instance, mais réduit le montant de dépens attribué.

Analyse

Interprétation de l’expression dans les médias sociaux

Le raisonnement de la Cour d’appel est marquant, notamment pour l’interprétation qu’on y fait de l’expression dans les médias sociaux. M. Hall faisait valoir que le juge saisi de la motion n’avait pas, dans son analyse du sens de cette expression, tenu compte du caractère conversationnel de Facebook, que M. Hall décrit comme un lieu d’échanges informels où l’expression n’est pas toujours mesurée ou précise.

Or, la Cour d’appel a écarté cet argument. Selon elle, le juge avait, à juste titre, évité d’analyser les messages [Traduction] « phrase par phrase », tenu compte globalement du contexte des médias sociaux et compris que les questions rhétoriques peuvent raisonnablement être perçues comme des accusations voilées. Rien ne permettait donc de remettre en cause son interprétation.

Réseaux sociaux et défense de commentaire loyal

La Cour d’appel a aussi revu l’analyse de la défense de commentaire loyal. Elle a convenu que le juge initial avait commis une erreur en évaluant le caractère [Traduction] « équitable » des propos de M. Hall plutôt que de voir si ceux-ci pouvaient être réputés sincères au regard des faits prouvés, mais cette erreur ne change pas l’issue.

Après s’être repenchée sur la question, la Cour d’appel a conclu qu’il y avait lieu de croire que la défense serait rejetée, car un juge raisonnable pourrait considérer les allégations de corruption et de pots-de-vin comme des affirmations, à savoir que M. Marotta et Solmar s’étaient réellement livrés à de tels actes, plutôt que comme de simples opinions. La Cour d’appel signale que les publications mentionnent des dons d’argent, des [Traduction] « avantages » et des actes de [Traduction] « corruption », et que M. Hall affirme s’appuyer sur des faits rendus publics.

Dans ce contexte, un lecteur raisonnable pourrait interpréter ces messages comme contenant des allégations factuelles d’inconduite. Comme la défense de commentaire loyal protège les opinions, et non les affirmations déguisées, il y avait lieu de croire qu’elle ne serait pas retenue. Comme l’a fait remarquer la Cour d’appel, les allégations de comportement criminel pourraient aussi, selon le contexte, ne pas s’inscrire dans la protection accordée aux commentaires loyaux.

L’analyse de l’intention malveillante est également digne de mention. La Cour d’appel a retenu la conclusion du juge saisi de la motion selon laquelle il y avait lieu de croire que M. Hall avait agi avec malveillance. Bien que la Cour d’appel ne souscrit pas à tous les éléments du raisonnement donné par le juge saisi de la motion, elle convient que le dossier appuie les constatations d’imprudence et d’intention de nuire aux parties demanderesses.

En particulier, les allégations de corruption n’étaient pas étayées par les sources invoquées par M. Hall, et le contenu ainsi que le moment des publications permettaient de déterminer que celles-ci visaient à ternir la réputation de M. Marotta plutôt qu’à faire avancer le débat public.

Préjudice grave et motions anti-SLAPP

Enfin, la décision de la Cour d’appel pose un principe utile quant au critère du préjudice grave pour le rejet de la motion.

Les parties demanderesses n’ont pas à prouver l’existence d’une perte pécuniaire réelle au stade de la procédure anti-SLAPP. La question est plutôt de savoir si le dossier permet de croire à la probabilité d’un préjudice grave. Sur le fond, la Cour d’appel a confirmé la conclusion du juge saisi de la motion selon laquelle les publications pouvaient nuire à la réputation de M. Marotta et de Solmar ainsi qu’à leurs relations futures avec les instances municipales, surtout dans la petite localité où le projet reste soumis à des autorisations futures et à l’examen public.

Conséquences financières pour les motionnaires déboutés

L’attribution des dépens est un élément important de la décision sur le plan commercial. Selon le paragraphe 137.1(8) de la législation anti-SLAPP de l’Ontario, on peut présumer que la partie intimée d’une motion rejetée n’a pas droit aux dépens, à moins que la ou le juge l’estime approprié dans les circonstances. Le juge en question a exercé cette discrétion pour attribuer 89 000 $ en dépens indemnitaires substantiels.

La Cour d’appel est d’accord que la constatation d’une intention malveillante suffisait pour appuyer cette discrétion, mais a réduit le montant des dépens à 40 000 $ (indemnité partielle), car l’indemnité substantielle n’est accordée qu’en cas de comportement répréhensible, scandaleux ou inacceptable, fait que le juge saisi de la motion n’a pas pu prouver. La Cour d’appel a aussi ordonné à M. Hall de payer 12 500 $ en frais d’appel.

La question des dépens a de l’importance en dehors de la province. La Protection of Public Participation Act (Loi sur la protection de la participation publique) de la Colombie-Britannique prévoit un régime de frais asymétrique semblable : la ou le motionnaire a droit, en principe, au remboursement intégral de ses dépens si l’action est rejetée, contrairement à la partie intimée qui obtient gain de cause, à moins que le tribunal l’estime approprié dans les circonstances. L’issue de l’affaire Solmar Inc. v. Hall rappelle donc aux parties d’un litige, tant en Ontario qu’en Colombie-Britannique, que les règles relatives aux dépens pour les motions anti-SLAPP visent à décourager les poursuites abusives, mais qu’elles ne dispensent pas pour autant les motionnaires déboutés de toute responsabilité si l’expression contestée pourrait avoir été être animée d’une intention malveillante, par exemple d’une insouciance ou d’une volonté de nuire.

Points à retenir

L’affaire Solmar Inc. c. Hall confirme que la critique et le débat publics sur les projets d’aménagement, la conduite des entreprises et les autorisations municipales restent protégés par la législation anti-SLAPP, mais que si l’expression dépasse la critique du bien-fondé (par exemple, d’un projet) et comprend des allégations graves et non étayées de corruption, de pots-de-vin ou d’autres actes d’inconduite criminelle, une poursuite pour diffamation peut être autorisée.
Les publications sur les médias sociaux doivent être examinées du point de vue d’une personne raisonnable. Les questions rhétoriques et le ton informel propre aux médias sociaux ne protègent pas nécessairement une personne des poursuites en diffamation si le message dans son ensemble peut raisonnablement être interprété comme comportant des accusations voilées visant à nuire à la réputation de la partie demanderesse aux yeux d’une personne raisonnable.
Selon le contexte, les allégations d’actes criminels peuvent être considérées comme des allégations de fait et non des commentaires protégés.
La partie demanderesse qui s’oppose à une motion anti-SLAPP n’est pas tenue de prouver qu’elle a subi un préjudice financier réel. Les preuves d’un préjudice grave et probable pour la réputation ou les activités commerciales peuvent suffire à satisfaire à l’analyse de l’intérêt public.
Pour les parties intimées qui envisagent de présenter une motion anti-SLAPP, cette affaire rappelle qu’elles pourraient s’exposer à des dépens si la motion échoue. Même si les parties intimées qui obtiennent gain de cause ne sont pas présumées avoir droit au remboursement de leurs frais, le tribunal peut faire autrement s’il a des motifs de croire que l’expression contestée était malveillante, imprudente ou animée d’une volonté inappropriée de nuire à la partie demanderesse.

BLG peut vous aider

Si vous avez des questions sur les plaintes pour diffamation commerciales ou les motions anti-SLAPP, n’hésitez pas à joindre l’une des personnes-ressources ci-dessous.

Le FNB d’à côté? L’OCRI et les ACVM définissent les obligations des FNB étrangers

Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:00:00 Z

Le 29 juillet 2026, l’Organisme canadien de réglementation des investissements (OCRI) et les Autorités canadiennes en valeurs mobilières (ACVM) ont publié l’Avis conjoint 81-339 – Pratiques sectorielles à l’égard des fonds négociés en bourse à l’étranger (l’« avis sur les FNB étrangers » ou l’« avis »).

Cet avis traite de trois aspects en particulier :

des cas où une activité de commercialisation d’un FNB étranger au Canada pourrait entraîner l’obligation de prospectus et l’obligation d’inscription à titre de gestionnaire de fonds d’investissement (GFI);
de l’application aux courtiers inscrits et aux représentants de courtiers des obligations de connaissance du produit, de connaissance du client et de détermination de la convenance lors de la recommandation ou de l’achat de FNB étrangers;
de la recommandation aux courtiers-exécutants de fournir de l’information préalable supplémentaire aux investisseurs qui prévoient souscrire un FNB étranger.

Les autorités de réglementation indiquent expressément que les indications contenues dans l’avis sur les FNB étrangers s’appuient sur les obligations réglementaires existantes en valeurs mobilières et ne modifient aucune obligation légale actuelle ni n’en créent de nouvelles. Cela dit, les indications encadrent l’application des exigences actuelles aux FNB étrangers et recommandent des pratiques à adopter.

À certains égards, l’avis soulève de nouvelles questions sur l’interprétation à donner aux attentes du personnel de l’OCRI et des ACVM, surtout lorsque ces attentes et les pratiques actuelles divergent.

Analyse des obligations de prospectus et d’inscription à titre de GFI

L’avis rappelle que l’obligation de dépôt d’un prospectus visé ne se fonde pas uniquement sur la seule souscription par des investisseurs canadiens de titres sur une bourse étrangère. Elle se fonde plutôt sur l’exécution d’activités assimilables à un « placement » de titres au Canada. On souligne dans l’indication qu’un gestionnaire de FNB étranger qui « prend activement des mesures » pour commercialiser ou promouvoir la vente des titres à des investisseurs individuels du Canada accomplit un acte visant la vente de titres, ce qui constitue un placement. Dans ces cas, le FNB étranger doit déposer un prospectus, sauf s’il est dispensé de cette obligation.

L’avis donne des exemples d’activités assimilées à des « mesures activement prises » pour commercialiser ou promouvoir un FNB étranger, notamment l’activité de gros, c’est-à-dire la sollicitation active de courtiers afin qu’ils offrent ou recommandent un FNB étranger en particulier à leurs clients. Un autre exemple est la diffusion de publicité sur des médias sociaux ou via d’autres canaux numériques ciblant des investisseurs au Canada... Beaucoup se demanderont comment les autorités de réglementation entendent déterminer si une telle campagne « cible » bien les investisseurs au Canada.

Les gestionnaires de FNB étrangers qui ont bénéficié d’un afflux important d’investisseurs canadiens devraient se pencher sur la façon de démontrer que leurs campagnes de marketing ne ciblent pas les investisseurs au Canada. Ils doivent également tenir compte de toute autre mesure prise par toute autre personne ou entité agissant au nom du FNB étranger afin d’encourager des investisseurs canadiens à acheter des titres, comme des démarches ou des communications proactives et ciblées en vue de solliciter un investissement.

Il est également rappelé aux gestionnaires de FNB étrangers qu’ils sont tenus de s’inscrire à titre de GFI en Ontario, au Québec de même qu’à Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador s’ils dirigent ou gèrent l’entreprise, les activités et les affaires d’un fonds d’investissement dans ces territoires, et s’ils placent des titres auprès des résidents de ces territoires. La commercialisation d’un FNB étranger dans ces territoires pourrait entraîner l’obligation d’inscription à titre de GFI.

L’avis indique qu’à moins d’être dispensé de l’obligation d’inscription à titre de GFI, le gestionnaire d’un FNB étranger qui n’est pas inscrit en cette qualité ne sera généralement pas autorisé à commercialiser le FNB étranger dans ces territoires. Rien n’est dit, par contre, sur les cas où un gestionnaire de FNB étranger pourrait se prévaloir d’une dispense d’inscription à titre de GFI en Ontario, au Québec ou à Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador.

L’indication revêt une importance particulière pour les institutions qui offrent des titres de FNB canadiens et étrangers. En effet, il leur faudra bien encadrer les réponses de leurs grossistes aux demandes d’information des courtiers sur les FNB étrangers et déterminer s’il faut prendre des mesures supplémentaires en vue de prévenir la commercialisation « active » de FNB étrangers au Canada.

Placement

Connaissance du produit

L’avis sur les FNB étrangers vient resserrer les exigences en matière de conformité pour le placement de FNB étrangers, ce qui pourrait alourdir le fardeau réglementaire des courtiers visés.

Pour remplir leurs « obligations de contrôle diligent du produit », établies par les autorités de réglementation, les courtiers ne peuvent offrir aux clients de titres de FNB étranger que s’ils ont pris des mesures raisonnables pour faire ce qui suit : évaluer les aspects pertinents des titres, notamment leur structure, leurs caractéristiques et leurs risques, ainsi que les frais initiaux et continus qui y sont associés et leur incidence; approuver les titres qui seront offerts aux clients; surveiller les titres relativement à tout changement significatif qui s’y rapporte.

Le personnel de l’OCRI et des ACVM applique toujours le principe de la proportionnalité aux exigences de connaissance du produit, en ce que la profondeur de l’examen pourrait dépendre de la complexité des titres qu’il offre, des risques qui y sont associés et de son modèle d’affaires. Selon le personnel, pour un FNB étranger, il pourrait s’agir d’évaluer notamment les aspects suivants :

l’information qui est accessible aux investisseurs;
les implications fiscales générales découlant d’un tel placement;
les principales incidences en matière de change (conversion et exposition);
la question de savoir si le gestionnaire du FNB étranger est inscrit à titre de GFI dans le territoire du Canada applicable et, dans la négative, les implications générales, pour les investisseurs, de l’inapplicabilité des dispositions de la législation canadienne en valeurs mobilières assurant leur protection;
les implications, pour les investisseurs, du fait que les dispositions de protection applicables dès lors que les titres d’un fonds d’investissement sont placés par voie de prospectus au Canada ne s’appliquent pas.

Les courtiers devront déterminer comment consigner le contrôle diligent des titres de FNB étrangers, notamment le degré de diligence appliqué et les limites relatives à la disponibilité ou à la comparabilité de l’information. On ne connaît toujours pas la portée de l’évaluation que les courtiers devraient faire des différences entre les FNB étrangers et canadiens en ce qui a trait à l’information disponible et les protections juridiques, ni les mesures à prendre, le cas échéant.

De plus, l’avis reste muet sur les différences entre FNB canadiens et étrangers en ce qui a trait à la disponibilité et à la comparabilité de certaines données sur les dépenses.

Connaissance du client

Les courtiers et leurs représentants ont l’obligation d’obtenir des renseignements suffisants sur les connaissances du client en matière de placement, notamment sur sa compréhension des divers types de placements. Dans l’avis, on encourage les représentants de courtiers à déterminer, avant d’acquérir des titres d’un FNB étranger pour le client ou de les lui recommander, si ce dernier comprend les principales différences entre un placement dans un FNB étranger et dans un FNB canadien, notamment les risques et les limites relatifs des FNB étrangers par rapport aux FNB canadiens.

L’avis ne donne aucune indication concernant le degré de précision de l’information sur les principales différences entre les FNB canadiens et étrangers, c’est-à-dire une comparaison générale, fondée sur les exigences des territoires de compétence ou exhaustive pour chaque produit, ce qui exigerait, dans ce dernier cas, de tenir compte des caractéristiques, des risques, des coûts, des aspects fiscaux et de l’information à fournir sur les FNB étrangers.

Obligation de convenance

L’avis sur les FNB étrangers prévoit que le courtier peut uniquement recommander les titres d’un FNB étranger s’il a établi de façon raisonnable que la mesure convient au client et qu’elle donne préséance à son intérêt, en fonction des facteurs suivants :

l’information recueillie au sujet du client;
la compréhension qu’a le courtier du FNB étranger;
les conséquences du placement dans le FNB étranger sur le compte du client, notamment en ce qui a trait à la concentration et à la liquidité;
l’incidence réelle et potentielle des coûts sur les rendements des placements du client;
un ensemble raisonnable d’autres mesures qu’il peut adopter au moment de l’évaluation de la convenance au client, notamment d’autres produits comme des FNB canadiens qui offrent une position similaire.

L’indication sur la détermination de la convenance s’applique aux gestionnaires de portefeuille et aux représentants-conseillers qui exercent un pouvoir discrétionnaire à l’égard de l’achat de titres de FNB étrangers au nom du client. L’obligation de considération d’un ensemble raisonnable d’autres mesures, notamment des FNB canadiens similaires, soulève encore une fois la question du degré de précision de l’information comparative requise en vue de la recommandation d’un FNB étranger.

Obligations d’information des courtiers-exécutants

Puisque les courtiers-exécutants n’évaluent pas la convenance des titres des FNB étrangers avant d’en acheter, le personnel des ACVM les encourage à prendre en considération la possibilité, préalablement à l’opération, de transmettre une alerte ou une notification aux investisseurs à un ou plusieurs moments clés en vue de les informer :

du fait que les titres qu’ils envisagent d’acheter sont ceux d’un FNB étranger;
des différences clés entre un FNB étranger et un FNB canadien – régimes applicables (ce qui pourrait se traduire par des protections différentes pour les investisseurs), implications fiscales, application de frais de change pour les comptes qui ne détiennent pas la monnaie étrangère visée.

Points à retenir

Les gestionnaires de FNB étrangers et les courtiers qui offrent des FNB étrangers doivent tenir compte des éléments suivants :

Pratiques de commercialisation et activités de gros des gestionnaires concernant les FNB étrangers pour déterminer si elles constituent de la commercialisation « active » et établir l’applicabilité des obligations d’inscription et de prospectus.
Adéquation des processus de connaissance du produit relativement à l’approbation et à la surveillance des FNB étrangers.
Processus de détermination de la convenance et de connaissance du client pour les FNB étrangers, notamment les pratiques des représentants pour déterminer et attester que le client comprend les principales différences entre les FNB canadiens et étrangers.
Pour les courtiers-exécutants qui offrent des FNB étrangers, transmission d’alertes ou notifications contenant l’information recommandée.

Le registre des agents d’influence étrangers est en vigueur : voici ce qu’il faut savoir

Thu, 20 Aug 2026 00:00:00 Z

Le 4 août 2026, la Loi sur la transparence et la responsabilité en matière d’influence étrangère, L.C. 2024, ch. 16, art. 113 (LTRIE), et le Règlement sur la transparence et la responsabilité en matière d’influence étrangère, DORS/2026-152, sont entrés en vigueur.

Ce qu’il faut savoir :

La LTRIE instaure un régime d’enregistrement visant à accroître la transparence en ce qui a trait à l’ingérence et à l’influence étrangères au Canada.
Les personnes et les organisations doivent enregistrer certains arrangements conclus avec des commettants étrangers qui portent sur des activités visant à influencer les processus politiques ou gouvernementaux au Canada.
Le nouveau commissaire à la transparence en matière d’influence étrangère (le « commissaire ») tiendra un registre public des arrangements enregistrés et présentera annuellement un rapport au ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection civile, pour dépôt devant le Parlement.
Anton Boegman, ancien directeur général des élections de la Colombie-Britannique, est le premier commissaire.

Quels types d’arrangements doivent être enregistrés?

La LTRIE oblige les personnes et les organisations à enregistrer ce qui répond à la définition d’« arrangement », soit tout arrangement au titre duquel une personne s’engage à exercer, sous l’autorité d’un commettant étranger ou en association avec lui, certaines activités à l’égard d’un processus politique ou gouvernemental au Canada.

La LTRIE définit largement la notion de commettant étranger. Le terme recouvre ce qui suit :

État étranger et subdivisions politiques, groupe d’États étrangers, entité qui appartient, en totalité ou pour une partie importante, à un État étranger ou groupe d’États étrangers ou qui est contrôlée en droit ou de fait par un État étranger ou groupe d’États étrangers;
gouvernement d’État étranger, entité faisant ou prétendant faire fonction de gouvernement pour un territoire étranger, ainsi que les factions politiques cherchant à prendre le pouvoir dans un État étranger;
groupe ou association formé de puissances étrangères, notamment s’il fait intervenir un groupe terroriste;
toute personne agissant sur l’ordre d’une puissance étrangère, en collaboration avec elle ou pour son profit.

Il doit être question d’une ou de plusieurs des activités suivantes liées à un processus politique ou gouvernemental :

communiquer avec le titulaire d’une charge publique;
communiquer ou diffuser par quelque moyen que ce soit, notamment les médias sociaux, des renseignements relatifs au processus politique ou gouvernemental;
distribuer de l’argent ou des objets de valeur;
fournir un service;
mettre à disposition des installations.

La notion de titulaire d’une charge publique est définie largement et englobe ce qui suit :

les représentants des gouvernements fédéral, provinciaux, territoriaux et municipaux et leur personnel;
les dirigeants et les employés des gouvernements fédéral, provinciaux, territoriaux et municipaux et des organismes publics, y compris les ministères, les agences, les sociétés d’État, les commissions, les conseils et les tribunaux, ainsi que les commissaires scolaires et les dirigeants ou les employés d’un conseil scolaire ou d’une commission scolaire;
les membres et les employés d’un conseil de bande ou d’un gouvernement autochtone.

Un processus politique ou gouvernemental peut être fédéral, provincial, territorial, municipal ou autochtone. La notion englobe ce qui suit :

toute procédure législative;
l’élaboration de propositions législatives, ou l’élaboration ou la modification d’orientations ou de programmes;
la prise de décisions par le titulaire d’une charge publique ou un organisme gouvernemental, notamment l’attribution d’un marché;
la tenue d’une élection ou d’un référendum;
la nomination d’un candidat ou l’élaboration d’une plate-forme électorale par un parti politique.

Quels arrangements sont exclus?

Les arrangements dont est partie le gouvernement fédéral ou un gouvernement provincial, territorial ou municipal du Canada sont exemptés d’enregistrement.

Les procédures judiciaires et arbitrales sont également exclues. Les juges de cours fédérales, provinciales et territoriales sont expressément exclus de la définition de « titulaire d’une charge publique ». Les procédures judiciaires devant un tribunal et les procédures privées ne sont pas non plus considérées comme des « processus politiques ou gouvernementaux », tel qu’il est expliqué dans le Bulletin d’interprétation : Application aux professionnels du droit agréés du commissaire et l’Avis aux professions juridiques de la Fédération des ordres professionnels de juristes du Canada. Enfin, ne constitue pas une activité d’influence la fourniture de conseils juridiques protégés par le secret professionnel de l’avocat.

Les professionnels du droit sont néanmoins assujettis à la LTRIE. Le commissaire note que les professionnels du droit peuvent être tenus de s’inscrire s’ils concluent un arrangement portant sur des activités telles que les suivantes :

représenter un commettant étranger lors d’engagements avec des titulaires de charges publiques dans le but d’obtenir un soutien financier pour des projets;
soumettre des réponses à des questions réglementaires, législatives ou d’autres questions gouvernementales, comme des demandes de propositions, au nom d’un commettant étranger;
rencontrer un titulaire d’une charge publique au nom d’un commettant étranger pour influencer l’élaboration de programmes, de politiques ou de règlements;
mener des campagnes de promotion pour le compte d’un commettant étranger.

Selon la LTRIE et le bulletin d’interprétation, n’est pas dispensée d’inscription la représentation d’un commettant étranger dans le cadre d’une procédure administrative devant un conseil, une commission ou un tribunal canadien.

Renseignements à fournir

Le Règlement établit les renseignements à fournir dans le registre, notamment :

des renseignements permettant d’identifier les individus et les entités qui ont conclu l’arrangement;
des renseignements sur le commettant étranger;
les détails de chaque arrangement, y compris son but et les types d’activités d’influence en cause.

Il est formellement interdit de communiquer à escient des renseignements faux ou trompeurs au commissaire.

Par ailleurs, la LTRIE ne remplace pas les obligations de déclaration prévues par la Loi sur le lobbying.

Quels sont les délais à respecter?

Un arrangement doit être enregistré dans les 14 jours suivant sa conclusion. Tout changement apporté à un arrangement doit être signalé au plus tard 14 jours après avoir eu lieu.

Comment la LTRIE est-elle appliquée?

Le commissaire peut enquêter sur des violations potentielles des obligations prévues par la LTRIE et contraindre une personne à témoigner ou à produire des documents. Le fait d’entraver le travail du commissaire constitue une infraction.

Une violation peut entraîner l’imposition d’une sanction administrative pécuniaire ou une procédure pénale, mais pas les deux.

Sous le régime des sanctions administratives pécuniaires, si le commissaire a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu’une violation a été commise, il peut dresser un procès-verbal établissant la sanction proposée. L’auteur prétendu de la violation peut soit payer la sanction administrative pécuniaire, soit présenter des observations au commissaire. Si des observations sont présentées, le commissaire décidera si une violation a été commise et, dans l’affirmative, s’il imposera ou non la sanction proposée. Une décision constatant une infraction doit être rendue publique et peut faire l’objet d’une révision judiciaire devant la Cour fédérale.

Les sanctions administratives pécuniaires prévues par la LTRIE vont de 250 $ à 1 000 000 $.

Si une violation fait l’objet d’une procédure pénale, les peines possibles comprennent une amende maximale de cinq millions de dollars et un emprisonnement maximal de cinq ans, ou l’une de ces peines. Il est possible d’invoquer la défense fondée sur la diligence raisonnable.

BLG peut vous accompagner.

Pour en savoir plus sur la LTRIE, ses exigences d’enregistrement ou les mesures à prendre après la signification d’un procès-verbal pour non-conformité, veuillez communiquer avec l’un des auteurs ou un membre de l’équipe Défense de cols blancs au criminel et enquêtes visant les entreprises de BLG.

Les ACVM proposent d’autres modifications de la dispense pour financement de l’émetteur coté

Wed, 19 Aug 2026 00:00:00 Z

Les Autorités canadiennes en valeurs mobilières (ACVM) ont publié pour consultation un projet de modification du Règlement 45-106 sur les dispenses de prospectus (les « modifications proposées »). Ces modifications visent notamment à inscrire dans la réglementation le rehaussement des limites de financement, à revoir la méthode de calcul du seuil de dilution, à élargir l’admissibilité des émetteurs et à simplifier les conditions et les obligations d’information sous le régime de la dispense pour financement de l’émetteur coté prévue à la partie 5A du Règlement 45-106 (la « dispense »).

Une bonne partie des modifications proposées, notamment l’augmentation de la limite de financement et la révision de la méthode de calcul du seuil de dilution, figurent déjà dans une décision générale temporaire portant sur la dispense et devant expirer à la prise d’effet des modifications proposées.

Ce qu’il faut savoir

Les modifications proposées auraient les effets suivants : Inscrire dans la réglementation les principaux éléments de la Décision générale coordonnée 45-935 relative à la dispense de certaines conditions de la dispense pour financement de l’émetteur coté (la « décision générale »), c’est-à-dire l’augmentation des limites de financement, la révision du calcul du seuil de 50 % de dilution et les mécanismes connexes de protection des investisseurs.
Les émetteurs seraient autorisés à recueillir le montant le plus élevé entre 25 millions de dollars et 20 % de la valeur de marché globale des titres inscrits, à concurrence de 50 millions de dollars au cours d’une période de 12 mois.
Les ACVM proposent de remplacer l’exigence actuelle de suffisance des fonds pour une période de 12 mois par une exigence voulant que l’émetteur s’attende raisonnablement à avoir des fonds disponibles pour répondre à ses besoins de trésorerie à court terme.
Les modifications proposées permettraient également à certains émetteurs absorbants de se prévaloir de la dispense, simplifieraient l’exigence d’attestation, permettraient d’omettre le prix d’offre pour certains placements sur le marché et feraient passer la durée du placement de 45 à 60 jours.
La consultation sur le projet de modification des ACVM se termine le 21 octobre 2026.

Mise en contexte : les origines de la dispense

Introduite en novembre 2022, la dispense visait à accélérer la mobilisation de capitaux pour les émetteurs assujettis dont les titres sont inscrits à la cote d’une bourse reconnue et qui ont déposé tous les documents d’information continue requis.

En mai 2025, les ACVM ont adopté la décision générale coordonnée 45-935 (la « décision générale ») pour offrir un allègement largement harmonisé relativement à certaines conditions de la dispense, notamment l’augmentation des limites de financement et la révision de la méthode de calcul du seuil de dilution de 50 %.

La décision générale a considérablement fait augmenter le recours à la dispense. Auparavant, entre le 22 novembre 2022 et le 15 mai 2025, 280 émetteurs ont mobilisé 1,1 milliard de dollars au total et 3,9 millions de dollars en moyenne. Après, entre le 15 mai 2025 et le 15 mai 2026, 349 émetteurs ont mobilisé 3,7 milliards de dollars au total et 10,6 millions de dollars en moyenne, 40 émetteurs ayant mobilisé plus de 25 millions de dollars.

Principales modifications proposées

Les modifications proposées inscriraient dans le règlement 45-106 les éléments principaux suivants de la décision générale :

Rehaussement des limites de financement – Les émetteurs seraient autorisés à recueillir le montant le plus élevé entre 25 millions de dollars et 20 % de la valeur de marché globale des titres inscrits, à concurrence de 50 millions de dollars au cours d’une période de 12 mois.
Révision de la méthode de calcul du seuil de dilution – Le seuil de dilution de 50 % serait calculé en fonction de la date du communiqué annonçant le placement, si l’émetteur n’a pas clos de placement antérieur de l’émetteur coté au cours de la période de 12 mois précédant immédiatement la date du communiqué, ou de la date du communiqué annonçant le premier des placements antérieurs de l’émetteur coté effectués pendant cette période.
Traitement des bons de souscription – Les titres pouvant être émis à la conversion des bons de souscription seraient exclus du calcul du seuil de dilution si ces derniers ne sont pas convertibles dans les 60 jours suivant la clôture du placement.
Protections contre le changement de contrôle – Le placement sous le régime de la dispense n’a pas pour effet d’ajouter une nouvelle personne participant au contrôle ni ne donne lieu à l’acquisition de droits de vote suffisants pour élire la majorité des administrateurs de l’émetteur.

Autres modifications proposées

Les ACVM proposent également plusieurs modifications visant à assouplir et faciliter le recours à la dispense :

Suffisance des fonds – À l’heure actuelle, l’émetteur doit s’attendre à avoir des fonds afin d’atteindre ses objectifs commerciaux et répondre à ses besoins de trésorerie pour les 12 mois qui suivent, ce qui serait remplacé par les besoins de trésorerie à court terme. Pour les émetteurs qui ne tirent aucun produit des activités ordinaires, l’indication des ACVM précise qu’ils doivent disposer des fonds pour atteindre le prochain jalon. Les émetteurs qui tirent des produits de leurs activités ordinaires doivent disposer de fonds suffisants pour poursuivre leurs activités à court terme, soit 12 mois selon les ACVM.
Placements sur le marché – Les émetteurs seraient autorisés à omettre le prix d’offre dans le document de placement sous réserve de certaines conditions, notamment le dépôt d’un document de placement modifié contenant l’information omise au plus tard le deuxième jour ouvrable suivant la détermination du prix d’offre ou à la date du contrat d’achat, si elle survient avant. Cela dit, dans leur version actuelle, les modifications proposées prévoient exiger de l’émetteur de divulguer la fourchette de prix prévue dans le communiqué de presse annonçant le placement, ce qui pourrait annuler en grande partie l’utilité et la souplesse visées pour les placements sur le marché.
Émetteurs absorbants – Certains émetteurs absorbants, tels que définis dans le Règlement 44-101 sur le placement de titres au moyen d’un prospectus simplifié, seraient autorisés à se prévaloir de la dispense s’ils ont acquis la quasi-totalité de leurs activités auprès d’une entité qui était un émetteur assujetti au Canada au cours des 12 mois précédant immédiatement l’acquisition.
Information sur la situation financière – De l’information supplémentaire serait requise si les derniers états financiers déposés faisaient état d’incertitudes importantes concernant la continuité de l’exploitation, ou si la situation financière de l’émetteur s’est détériorée depuis le dépôt de ces états financiers au point de donner lieu à une telle déclaration dans les prochains états financiers.
Exigence relative à l’attestation – L’exigence relative à l’attestation serait simplifiée avec la suppression de la possibilité d’indiquer une date de référence et l’établissement de la période de référence à 18 mois.
Durée du placement – La durée du placement sous le régime de la dispense passerait de 45 à 60 jours.

Prochaines étapes

Les ACVM ont demandé qu’on transmette les commentaires sur les modifications proposées au plus tard le 21 octobre 2026. L’adoption des modifications proposées intégrerait le cadre de financement élargi établi dans la décision générale et offrirait plus de souplesse aux émetteurs assujettis qui entendent accéder aux marchés publics.

Notons que les ACVM sollicitent des commentaires précis sur les aspects suivants : (i) les modifications proposées concernant la suffisance des fonds et la pertinence d’abroger l’exigence purement et simplement; (ii) la pertinence d’ajouter les débentures convertibles pouvant être converties en titres de capitaux propres inscrits aux titres pouvant être placés sous le régime de la dispense; (iii) l’adéquation du seuil de dilution établi dans les modifications proposées.

Avec le bond du montant moyen de capitaux mobilisés (10,6 millions de dollars) depuis la prise d’effet de la décision générale, de nouvelles modifications des limites relatives à la capitalisation boursière et au calcul du seuil de dilution pourraient s’imposer pour que les émetteurs puissent se prévaloir des limites de financement prévues dans la dispense.

Globalement, les modifications proposées permettent à la fois d’accroître l’efficacité des marchés de capitaux canadiens et d’assurer leur intégrité, malgré le flou qui entoure leur possible forme définitive.

Les auteurs aimeraient remercier Carson Easy, étudiant d’été, pour sa contribution à la rédaction de cet article.

Federal Financial Institutions Legislative and Regulatory Reporter – June 2026

Fri, 14 Aug 2026 00:00:00 Z

The Reporter provides a monthly summary of Canadian federal legislative and regulatory developments of relevance to federally regulated financial institutions. It does not address Canadian provincial financial services legislative and regulatory developments. In addition, purely technical and administrative changes (such as changes to reporting forms) are not covered.

June 2026

Published	Title and Brief Summary	Status (if applicable)
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI)
June 25, 2026	Streamlined Approvals Framework for Targeted New Entrants OSFI has launched a streamlined approvals framework for targeted new entrants. It is intended to give eligible new entrants, including entities with innovative or emerging banking models and credit unions, a quicker, clearer, and more predictable path to becoming federally regulated financial institutions. The new framework would move applicants through three phases, from an early readiness assessment to ministerial approval and commencement of operations. Each phase has a defined timeline. A public dashboard will show application status throughout the approval process. OSFI has provided eligibility criteria for targeted new entrants, overviews of the application process and application assessment process, and an application toolkit of required documents, guides and forms.
June 19, 2026	OSFI Lowers Domestic Stability Buffer to 3.0 per cent so Canada's Largest Banks Can Deploy More Capital OSFI has announced that it is lowering the Domestic Stability Buffer (DSB) to 3.0% from 3.5% of total risk-weighted assets. This is the first change in the DSB level since June 2023. In addition, OSFI is lowering the range of the DSB to 0 to 3% from 0 to 4%. OSFI expects all domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) to target a Common Equity Tier 1 ratio of at least 11.0% of total risk-weighted assets. In addition, OSFI is lowering the range of the DSB to 0% to 3% from 0% to 4%. OSFI provides additional background information on the decision in a Decision Summary Note.	DSB took effect June 19, 2026.
June 4, 2026	Modernizing How We Collect Data From Institutions OSFI’s Data Collection Modernization initiative, which runs from May 2023 to April 2028, is intended to modernize its regulatory data collection technology platform, and to advance prioritized data initiatives and enhance data quality. Its new platform, called Regulatory Data Hub (RDH), will go live late in the fall of 2026, and will be implemented in phases until spring 2028. As part of its industry engagement initiative, OSFI is launching a Basel Capital Adequacy Reporting (BCAR) Working Group in September 2026; it is soliciting participation from stakeholders in banks and loan and trust companies.	Stakeholders interested in participating in BCAR Working Group should register by August 14, 2026.
Bank of Canada
June 29, 2026	Reminder: PSP Reporting Obligations Under the RPAA The Bank of Canada has issued a communication to remind all payment service providers (PSPs) registered under the Retail Payment Activities Act (RPAA) of their ongoing reporting obligations. Responsibilities are listed under the following headings, with links to relevant policies and guidance: Incident reporting: PSPs must report any incident they become aware of that has a material impact on an end user, a payment service provider or a clearing house of a clearing and settlement system. Significant change or new activity reports: PSPs are required to notify the Bank of any significant change to their operations if the change could reasonably be expected to have a material impact on operational risks or the manner in which end-user funds are safeguarded, or before performing a new retail payment activity. Notification is required at least 5 business days before the change is made. Reporting changes to registration information: PSPs must inform the Bank whenever there is a change, or anticipated change, to certain information the PSP provided during the registration process. Acquisitions of control and prescribed changes: PSPs are required to submit a new application for registration, and become re-registered under that new application, before making certain changes to their organizational structure. Annual reports: PSPs must submit an annual report to the Bank by March 31 of the year following the calendar year being reported on (reporting year).
June 29, 2026	Reporting Changes to Registration Information Under the Retail Payment Activities Act (RPAA) and the Retail Payment Activities Regulations (RPAR), registered payment service providers (PSPs) must inform the Bank when there are changes or anticipated changes to certain information that the PSP provided during the registration process. The timing requirements for informing the Bank of these changes vary depending on the nature of the information. The Bank of Canada has issued an updated supervisory policy explaining how they expect registered PSPs to comply with requirements to provide updated registration information.
June 12, 2026	Bank of Canada to begin publishing Notices of Violation by Payment Service Providers The Bank of Canada has announced that it will soon start publishing Notices of Violation related to Payment Service Providers (PSPs) that are subject to the Retail Payment Activities Act (RPAA) and the associated Retail Payment Activities Regulations. After a PSP has received a Notice of Violation, and once the period for making representations has expired, the notice will be published on the Enforcement decisions section of the Bank’s website. The enforcement decision will provide some details on the nature of the violation, as well as the amount of any administrative monetary penalty. The violation will also be noted on the PSP’s entry on the Bank of Canada’s Registry of PSPs.
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)
June 23, 2026	FINTRAC Guidance Related to the Ministerial Directive on Financial Transactions Associated With the Islamic Republic of Iran This guidance explains the requirements of the Ministerial Directive on Financial Transactions Associated with the Islamic Republic of Iran. This Ministerial Directive includes requirements that: Enhance existing obligations of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Regulations; and Extend the obligations of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Regulations. In section 3.3, “Additional measures required,” the following requirement has been added: Assess the client information to determine whether you have property in your possession or control that is owned or controlled by or on behalf of a listed person or entity, for which you are required to make a disclosure to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and report a Listed Person or Entity Property Report to FINTRAC. Information about Casino Disbursement Reports, which must be used after December 26, 2026, has been updated, and specific deadlines for reporting virtual currency transactions and casino disbursements have been added to the guidance.	Casino Disbursement Reports must be used after December 26, 2026.
June 22, 2026	Private-to-Private Information Sharing (Updated) This guidance explains the requirements for reporting entities that voluntarily choose to engage in private-to-private information sharing the exchange of personal information without an individual’s knowledge or consent between reporting entities that participate in an approved code of practice) under section 11.01 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. The guidance has been updated with the addition of a new section 7, entitled “What FINTRAC Expects from Participants in an Approved Code of Practice.”
Payments Canada
June 22, 2026	PRD-002 -Procedures for foreign currency transfers within Canada This procedure, part of the rules for Lynx, provides that members within Canada shall provide Swift transfer of U.S. funds and foreign currencies to other members within Canada in accordance with the procedures detailed in the following sections if the account of the beneficiary is domiciled in Canada. “Members” refers to both Canadian banks and non-bank financial institutions acting on their own behalf or on behalf of their foreign branches, affiliates and/or subsidiaries. A current list of members can be found in Appendix I. Members may request that all USD or foreign currency items be settled via Swift.
Bank for International Settlements (BIS)
June 2, 2026	Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Risk Management: Range of Practices Information and Communications Technology (ICT) is a key component of operational risk management, playing a vital role in supporting the broader goal of achieving operational resilience. Banks’ operational resilience to ICT incidents has become increasingly important in an evolving and digitalised technology landscape. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision has analyzed ICT risk management practices across jurisdictions to address non-malicious ICT incidents. This report is part of an effort to strengthen banks' operational resilience to information and communication technology (ICT) incidents in an increasingly digitalised world; it complements the Committee’s 2018 report on cyber resilience. The Committee will continue to monitor developments related to the digitalisation of finance and financial technology from a prudential perspective.
Financial Action Task Force (FATF)
June 23, 2026	International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation: The FATF Recommendations The FATF Recommendations set out a comprehensive and consistent framework of measures which countries should implement in order to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, as well as the financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Countries have diverse legal, administrative and operational frameworks, and different financial systems, and so cannot all take identical measures to counter these threats. New amendments include changes to Recommendation 6, which requires countries to implement targeted financial sanctions to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions (UNSCRs) relating to the prevention and suppression of terrorism and terrorist financing. The updated Standards will require countries to comply with the humanitarian exemption contained in UNSCRs 2664 and 2761, as well as 2615. The updated Standards are intended to ensure that sanctions measures do not block the flow of funds, assets, resources, goods, and services necessary for humanitarian assistance and basic human needs in line with the UN framework.	This version is as amended June 2026.
June 23, 2026	FATF Launches Public Consultation on Guidance to Increase Payment Transparency FATF is inviting the views of stakeholders on new guidance to support the implementation of strengthened FATF Standards on payment transparency when they come into effect. The revisions to FATF’s Recommendation 16, agreed upon in June 2025, are intended to keep pace with changes in the payment landscape, and strengthen the safety and security of the international payment system by increasing the transparency of information that accompanies cross-border payments and requiring the introduction of tools to protect against fraud and error. All countries around the world are expected to be ready to implement the changes by the end of 2030. The FATF is soliciting feedback from stakeholders, including financial institutions worldwide with different business models and capacity, payment system operators, civil society and the research community. It has provided as support a Public Consultation Explanatory Memorandum and a copy of Draft R16. Guidance for consultation.	Comments are due August 21, 2026.
June 2026	2022 Methodology for Assessing Technical Compliance with the FATF Recommendations and the Effectiveness of AML/CFT/CPF Systems The FATF assesses each member’s implementation of the FATF Recommendations and its actions to tackle money laundering, terrorist financing and the financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction on an ongoing basis. The Methodology for Assessing Technical Compliance with the FATF Recommendations and the Effectiveness of AML/CFT/CPF Systems (The FATF Methodology in short) sets out the process by which the FATF assesses each member’s implementation of the FATF Recommendations and its actions to tackle money laundering, terrorist financing and the financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction on an ongoing basis. The FATF Methodology focuses on two distinct areas: Effectiveness: each assessment will have a significant focus on effectiveness, to ensure that countries are implementing and making use of the laws, regulations and policies that are being passed. Technical compliance: each assessment also looks at whether a country has all the necessary laws, regulations and legal instruments in place, in line with the technical requirements of the 40 FATF Recommendations. The FATF commenced its 5th round of evaluations under this methodology in 2024, and FATF-Style Regional Bodies will also progressively use this methodology once they complete their previous round of evaluations.	This version is as amended June 2026.
Financial Stability Board (FSB)
June 10, 2026	Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI): Consultation Report This consultation report highlights the benefits and risks associated with AI use in the financial system. To facilitate responsible AI adoption by financial institutions, it proposes 12 sound practices that financial institutions could apply in their organisation-wide AI governance and management of the relevant stages of AI development and deployment (AI lifecycle). It draws upon case studies drawn from real-world AI implementation practices by financial institutions. FSB is soliciting comments on the consultation report and a set of questions.	Comments were due July 22, 2026.
International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS)
June 23, 2026	Technical note – Credit Rating Agencies and ICS Rating Category Mapping This technical note clarifies the Insurance Capital Standard (ICS) Rating Categories (RC) Mapping for the Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs) listed in Table 1, which originated during the monitoring period and was retained at ICS adoption for practical reasons. It also outlines the pathways under the ICS to recognize ratings from other CRAs.
June 17, 2026	FSI and IAIS Publish Joint Insights Note on the Cyber Insurance Market Financial Stability Institute (FSI) and IAIS have jointly published a note on the cyber insurance market, entitled FSI Insights on policy implementation No 75: Cyber insurance unpacked: the corporate digital safety net. Based on desktop reviews and interviews with supervisors, insurers, reinsurers, brokers and other market participants, this note takes stock of the evolving cyber insurance landscape. In particular, it examines cyber insurance product coverage, pricing and underwriting practices, and explores the insurance protection gap. The note also highlights key considerations for supporting the sound and sustainable development of cyber insurance.
Legislation
June 27, 2026	[Proposed] Regulations Amending the Financial Consumer Protection Framework Regulations The Budget Implementation Act, 2025, No. 1, introduced amendments to the Bank Act to combat consumer-targeted fraud. Once the relevant legislative amendments are in force, these amendments will require banks to have policies and procedures to address consumer-targeted fraud, allow consumers to adjust maximum transaction amounts, obtain express consent to enable certain prescribed account capabilities, allow consumers to disable certain account features, and require banks to collect and report prescribed fraud data to the Commissioner of the FCAC. These proposed regulations would provide more specificity to support these legislative amendments, such as prescribing additional policies and procedures banks would need to have, the account capabilities that banks must allow consumers to enable and disable, how banks must obtain express consent before enabling these capabilities, when banks must enable transaction limit increases requested by consumers, and the specific data points banks will need to collect and report to the FCAC with respect to consumer-targeted fraud. The intention is for the consumer-targeted fraud legislative amendments to come into force on the same day as the proposed Regulations.	Closes for comments July 27, 2026.
June 27, 2026	[Proposed] Consumer-Driven Banking Regulations The Consumer-Driven Banking Act (the Act), which received royal assent in March 2026, and the proposed Consumer-Driven Banking Regulations (the proposed Regulations), introduces a secure framework overseen by the Bank of Canada that enables Canadian individuals and businesses to share their financial data with accredited service providers of their choice. The proposed Regulations include requirements related to accreditation, security, national security, authentication and consent, reporting, record keeping, framework transparency, technical standards, assessments, and violations. The proposed Regulations also include the timelines and information requirements to support the national security review process related to the Minister of Finance’s national security authorities under the Act.	Closes for comments August 26, 2026.
June 18, 2026	Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act, S.C. 2026, c. 22 (Bill C-30) Among its provisions to implement the 2026 Spring Economic Update, the following measures of Bill C-30 affect federally regulated financial institutions: Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Bank Act to provide that the Investment Canada Act does not apply in respect of certain transactions made by foreign banks or entities associated with a foreign bank if the transactions are subject to an approval under the Bank Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act or the Insurance Companies Act. Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Bank of Canada Act to combine into a single act the Bank of Canada’s powers, duties and functions related to the recovery of costs incurred by it for or in connection with the administration of certain acts. It also makes related amendments to other acts. Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Payments Act to provide immunity for the Canadian Payment Association and certain individuals from any civil liability, other than in contract, for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in the administration or discharge of any powers or duties conferred under that act.	House Third Reading June 18, 2026. Senate First Reading June 18, 2026. Senate Second Reading June 18, 2026. Senate Third Reading June 18, 2026. Royal Assent June 18, 2026. Division 1 of Part 3 comes into force on October 16, 2026 (the 120th day after the day on which Bill C-30 receives Royal Assent). Division 2 of Part 3 comes into force on proclamation but see coming into force provisions for section 20. Division 3 of Part 3 is in force on Royal Assent.
June 18, 2026	Canadian Payments Association By-law No. 10 — RTR, SOR/2026-133 This new Canadian Payments Association by-law is being implemented in connection with the planned introduction of the Real-Time Rail, a real-time payment exchange, clearing and settlement system (the RTR system or RTR). The RTR by-law reflects the RTR’s financial risk framework, key operational requirements, and policy requirements governing how the system operates. These policy requirements include, for example, the provision of payment amounts to payees and participant obligations in processing payments. The by-law also refers to the RTR rules, which will provide detailed technical and business process requirements for participants. The RTR by-law focuses on Payments Canada’s operation of the RTR system and the rights and responsibilities of system participants. It establishes the general eligibility criteria for RTR participation. Participation is voluntary and any Payments Canada member is eligible to become an RTR participant if it meets the requirements set out in the RTR by-law and rules. The RTR by-law establishes the classes of payment items acceptable for exchange, clearing, and settlement in the RTR. It also sets out the circumstances in which a payment will be cleared and settled in the RTR, key steps, and certain rights and obligations of participants related to the clearing and settlement process. The RTR by-law requires a receiving participant to make the amount of an RTR payment available to the payee (such as an individual customer) according to the time frames and procedures established in the rules, except under certain circumstances. It contemplates the possibility that the RTR, or a participant’s use of the RTR, may be disrupted. The by-law allows the President of Payments Canada to take a variety of actions to respond to disruptions or other emergencies. In conjunction with the RTR rules, the emergency provisions in the by-law will enable Payments Canada, working with the Bank of Canada and system participants, to safely and effectively respond to potential disruptions.	In force August 24, 2026.
June 18, 2026	Bill C-29, Financial Crimes Agency Act Bill C-29 establishes the Financial Crimes Agency (FCA) as a specialized federal law enforcement agency whose mandate is to investigate financial crimes and to contribute to the recovery of proceeds of crime. It also makes consequential amendments to certain acts and regulations. The FCA will be headed by a commissioner, employ its own staff and have powers to investigate serious and complex financial crimes. It will also participate in international efforts to combat these crimes and report on its operations. In addition, the bill provides a role and specific powers to the Attorney General of Canada regarding certain financial crime prosecutions that would normally fall under the authority of the provincial attorneys general. The bill also makes consequential amendments to a number of acts and regulations, in part to authorize the sharing and disclosure of information between the FCA and certain federal ministers and entities.	House Second Reading June 18, 2026. In force on Royal Assent, except for section 27, which comes into force on the first anniversary of the day on which Bill C-30 received Royal Assent. Section 29 comes into force on the day on which section 33 of the Public Complaints and Review Commission Act comes into force or, if it is later, on the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent.
June 17, 2026	Bill S-6, Federal Law–Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 4 Bill S-6 is the fourth in a series of enactments drafted in the course of the harmonization of federal statutes by the Department of Justice of Canada resulting from the coming into force of the Civil Code of Québec in 1994. Among the acts amended by Bill S-6 are acts governing financial institutions: the Bank Act, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Trust and Loan Companies Act. The amendments are made in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law.	Senate Third Reading June 17, 2026.
June 15, 2026	Bill C-36, An Act to enact the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act, to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make amendments to other Acts Bill C-36 enacts the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act to govern the protection of personal information of individuals while taking into account the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information in the course of commercial activities. Consequently, it repeals Part 1 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and changes the short title of that Act to the Electronic Documents Act. As a consequential amendment, it replaces references in the Bank Act, Insurance Companies Act, Cooperative Credit Associations Act and Trust and Loan Companies Act to Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act with Electronic Documents Act.	House First Reading June 15, 2026. Act, except sections 1 and 51 and Part 3, to come into force on proclamation (but that day must not be before the day on which that Part 3 comes into force). See also s. 52(1) with respect to the coming into force of Bill C-34, Safe Social Media Act.
June 15, 2026	An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 2026, c. 9 (Bill C-8) Bill C-8 establishes a regulatory framework to protect systems and services essential to public safety or national security. Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act to add the promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system as an objective of the Canadian telecommunications policy and to authorize the governor in council and the minister of Industry to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system. Part 2 enacts the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act (CCSPA) to provide a framework for the protection of the critical cyber systems of services and systems that are vital to national security or public safety and that are delivered or operated as part of a work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of Parliament. The CCSPA imposes onerous cyber security obligations on “designated operators” of federally regulated critical cyber systems. These operators carry out vital services or systems (that is, infrastructure essential to preserving national security and public safety). These obligations include, among others: Developing, maintaining, and regularly reviewing cyber security programs (CSPs); Reporting material changes in ownership, control, or use of third-party products and services to the appropriate regulator, as to mitigate supply-chain and third-party risks; and preserving detailed records of cyber security programs and incidents. The CCSPA delegates broad, sector-specific powers to the appropriate regulators, including banking systems overseen by OSFI and the clearing and settlement systems overseen by the Bank of Canada. The CCPSA will allow the regulators to, inter alia, enter any place (subject to limitations) to examine records and data, order internal audits, and issue compliance orders. The CCPSA also introduces significant administrative monetary penalties for violations. While the proposed regime is designed to promote compliance, fines could amount to $15 million per violation, per day, for organizations, and $1 million per violation, per day, for individuals. Moreover, directors and officers of designated operators could be held personally liable if they were complicit in committing a violation.	Senate Third Reading June 4, 2026. Royal Assent June 15, 2026. Part 2 (Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act) in force on proclamation. Remainder of Act in force on Royal Assent.
June 3, 2026	Bill C-31, Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 Bill C-31 implements certain measures put forward in the November 4, 2025, Budget. Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to prohibit financial institutions from issuing documents in bearer form and provide for the replacement of documents that are currently in bearer form. Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to provide that no action lies against His Majesty in right of Canada and federal government officials for any acts or omissions made in good faith under those acts. Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act to require an institution to offer or sell deposit products in a non-discriminatory manner in certain circumstances. Division 6 of Part 4 amends Schedule II to the Access to Information Act to prohibit the disclosure of confidential information obtained under the Retail Payment Activities Act or prepared from information obtained under that act.	House Second Reading June 3, 2026. Division 1 of Part 4 in force on Royal Assent. Division 2 of Part 4 in force on Royal Assent. Division 3 of Part 4 in force on proclamation. Division 6 of Part 4 in force on Royal Assent.

Disclaimer
This Reporter is prepared as a service for our clients. It is not intended to be a complete statement of the law or an opinion on any subject. Although we endeavour to ensure its accuracy, no one should act upon it without a thorough examination of the law after the facts of a specific situation are considered.

Federal Financial Institutions Legislative and Regulatory Reporter – May 2026

Fri, 14 Aug 2026 00:00:00 Z

May 2026

Published	Title and Brief Summary	Status (if applicable)
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI)
May 21, 2026	Draft Guideline B-12 Interest Rate Risk Management Consultation OSFI has informed banks and trust and loan companies by letter of a consultation with respect to targeted adjustments to Guideline B‑12 – Interest Rate Risk Management. The adjustments would update the interest rate shock scenarios in the guideline to align with recent revisions from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). BCBS published its revised Recalibration of shocks for interest rate risk in the banking book in July 2024. The guidance would also be updated with respect to how institutions should consider different types of balance sheet scenarios against earnings measures. In addition, details related to public disclosures would be replaced by a reference to OSFI’s Pillar 3 disclosure guidelines. The current version of Guideline B-12 was published in May 2019. The letter and draft Guideline are accompanied by a Backgrounder.	Comments are due July 20, 2026. OSFI plans to publish the final guideline on September 10, 2026. The guideline will come into effect on November 1, 2026 (for October 31 year ends) or January 1, 2027 (for December 31 year ends)
May 21, 2026	Draft Capital and Liquidity Treatment of Crypto-asset Exposures (Banking) Guideline (2027) OSFI has informed banks and trust and loan companies by letter of a consultation with respect to draft revisions to the Capital and Liquidity Treatment of Crypto-asset Exposures (Banking) Guideline. OSFI states that the revisions, building on the latest version of the guidance (in effect in Q1 2026), are meant to respond to developments in the crypto market, but also ensure that the capital and liquidity treatment of crypto‑asset exposures continues to reflect the underlying risks faced by institutions, and remains prudent in light of the dynamic nature of the crypto market. Targeted revisions would recognize cross‑exchange hedging for Group 2a crypto‑assets traded on regulated exchanges. OSFI states that the current draft revision does not address several key issues noted in its October 29, 2025, letter to industry, such as the risk weight applied to Group 2a crypto‑assets and Group 2a crypto-assets’ eligibility as collateral. The draft guideline is accompanied by a backgrounder.	Comments are due July 20, 2026. Final version of revised guideline will come into effect on November 1, 2026, or January 1, 2027 for institutions with a fiscal year ending October 31 or December 31, respectively.
May 21, 2026	Draft Liquidity Adequacy Requirements Guideline (2027) OSFI has informed banks and trust and loan companies by letter of a consultation with respect to draft revisions to the Liquidity Adequacy Requirements (LAR) Guideline. OSFI states that the revisions are aimed at ensuring that liquidity requirements continue to align with the underlying risk faced by institutions; at enhancing the clarity of its liquidity rules; and at improving the consistency of the application of those rules. It proposes: A new Level 1B high-quality liquid assets (HQLA) category to acknowledge the market liquidity of certain instruments that do not currently qualify as Level 1 HQLA; Adjustments to the transactions approved for interdependent asset and liability treatment under the Net Stable Funding Ratio; Updates to the guideline intended to improve structure and reliability, ensure alignment with other OSFI guidelines, and improve coherence.	Comments are due July 20, 2026. Final version of revised guideline will come into effect May 1, 2027.
May 21, 2026	Consultation on Pillar 3 Disclosure Guidelines for Interest Rate Risk in the Banking Book OSFI has informed Banks and Trust and Loan Companies by letter of a consultation with respect to draft amendments to Pillar 3 disclosure guidelines for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) and small- and medium-sized banks (SMSBs) on interest rate risk in the banking book (IRRBB) disclosure expectations. The amendments incorporate the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision disclosure standard on interest rate risk in the banking book and align with draft amendments to Guideline B-12 – Interest Rate Risk Management. The amendments have no impact on capital or liquidity expectations for institutions in scope. For small- and medium-sized banks, disclosure expectations are applied in proportion to the nature, size, and complexity of the deposit-taking institution.	Comments are due July 20, 2026. Final version of revised guideline is expected to be published in September 2026, with disclosure expectations expected to come into effect for fiscal Q4 2027 reporting periods.
May 21, 2026	Draft Internal Liquidity Adequacy Assessment Process Guideline (2027) – Letter OSFI has informed banks and trust and loan companies by letter of a consultation with respect to a draft Internal Liquidity Adequacy Assessment Process (ILAAP) Guideline, with feedback intended to inform a final guideline that would take effect on May 1, 2027. The draft Guideline is intended to enhance alignment of liquidity requirements with underlying risks faced by institutions, improve clarity, and promote a more consistent application of liquidity rules. Feedback from a May 2025 discussion paper exploring Pillar 2 liquidity concepts about improving liquidity supervision and what should be taken into account when drafting an ILAAP guideline emphasized the need for a more proportionate approach for smaller, less complex deposit-taking institutions, with sufficient transition time built into the implementation to all for governance, data, and stress-testing enhancements. With respect to a more proportionate approach, OSFI states that while it expects the final guideline to apply to all deposit-taking institutions, it acknowledges that some of the Pillar 2 liquidity risks will not be applicable to all deposit-taking institutions; it has reflected this in the draft ILAAP Guideline. OSFI is proposing a proposing a three-year phased implementation schedule in the draft ILAAP Guideline, applicable to all deposit-taking institutions.	Comments are due August 19, 2026. OSFI proposes a phased implementation schedule, beginning in May 2027 and building to maturity by 2029 fiscal year-end.
May 21, 2026	Draft Guideline B-2 Large Exposure Limits (2028) OSFI has informed banks and trust and loan companies by letter of a consultation with respect to draft revisions to Guideline B-2 – Large Exposure Limits. The current version of Guideline B-2 applies to domestic systemically important banks (D‑SIBs); these draft amendments extend the scope of Guideline B-2 to Category 1 and Category 2 small‑ and medium‑sized banks (SMSBs). They would replace the 1994 large exposure guideline currently applicable to these institutions. In addition, under these revisions, Category 3 SMSBs and foreign bank branches will no longer be subject to the large-exposure guideline. Changes to Guideline B-2 will include the following: Expanding the scope of application of the guideline to Category 1 and Category 2 SMSBs at the consolidated entity level; Applying a general large exposure limit of 25% of Tier 1 capital for SMSBs, consistent with the approach for D‑SIBs; Aligning exposure measurement for SMSBs with the Capital Adequacy Requirements Guideline, including the recognition of eligible credit risk mitigation techniques; Updating the criteria for SMSBs to identify groups of connected counterparties to promote more consistent aggregation of exposures; Introducing quarterly large exposure reporting for SMSBs, using the same reporting template that currently apply to D‑SIBs; making minor SMSB‑specific adjustments to certain measurement approaches to support proportionality and limit regulatory burden.	Comments are due August 19, 2026. Final version of revised guideline will come into effect on November 1, 2027 or January 1, 2028 for institutions with a fiscal year ending October 31 or December 31, respectively.
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)
May 6, 2026	Administrative Monetary Penalties: Changes Following Legislative Amendments FINTRAC has issued a document explaining how FINTRAC will implement a new approach to administrative monetary penalties (AMPs), pursuant to amendments put in place by the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act, S.C. 2026, c. 4 (Bill C-12). It describes how FINTRAC is updating its AMP policy and developing new guidance to reflect the changes resulting from the legislative amendments. The new guidance will explain how penalties are administered under the new legislative framework and will include guidance on compliance agreements and compliance orders as well as an updated approach to calculating penalties. According to FINTRAC, the new administrative monetary penalties framework will give it the authority to: Define prescribed violations and compliance order violations subject to penalties; Apply increased maximum penalty amounts (up to 40 times current limits); Consider ability to pay as part of the criteria for determining a penalty amount; Require mandatory compliance agreements for prescribed violations; Introduce compliance orders as an additional enforcement tool.	New legislative requirements will apply to violations that occur after March 26, 2026.
Payments Canada
May 27, 2026	CACPA Code STP Formatting Best Practices Payments Canada has released best practices and formatting guidelines for Canadian routing numbers, or CACPA codes, to facilitate straight-through processing (STP). This industry guideline is designed specifically for domestic and international payment originators who are sending wire transfers within or destined for Canada.
May 21, 2026	National Fraud Strategy: Payments Canada Feedback Department of Finance Canada issued a National Anti-Fraud Strategy Discussion Paper in April 2026, requesting feedback on three initial measures that might be taken to advance the strategy. Payments Canada has submitted its feedback, emphasizing the following: Multi-sector collaboration, uniting financial sector, telecommunications providers and digital platforms; Payment modernization; Consistent regulation, and proportionate and consistent application of anti-fraud requirements; Enhanced information sharing across sectors and with regulators; Coordinated oversight that includes a central coordinating function and sector-specific regulators; Consumer education; Law enforcement support.
Financial Stability Board (FSB)
May 6, 2026	Report on Vulnerabilities in Private Credit FSB has issued a report that highlights that private credit brings benefits but also vulnerabilities, including complex interlinkages with banks, borrower credit quality concerns, and valuation opacity. It reports that although the growth of private credit may bring benefits, it also brings potential vulnerabilities. Private credit at its current size and scope has not been tested during a severe economic downturn, which could expose leverage and borrower credit quality vulnerabilities. The report argues that authorities should work to close data gaps, harmonise definitions to enhance monitoring, and deepen analysis of financial interconnections and liquidity issues, while sharing supervisory insights.
Legislation
May 26, 2026, 2026	Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026 Among its provisions to implement the 2026 Spring Economic Update, the following measures of Bill C-30 affect federally regulated financial institutions: Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Bank Act to provide that the Investment Canada Act does not apply in respect of certain transactions made by foreign banks or entities associated with a foreign bank if the transactions are subject to an approval under the Bank Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act or the Insurance Companies Act. Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Bank of Canada Act to combine into a single act the Bank of Canada’s powers, duties and functions related to the recovery of costs incurred by it for or in connection with the administration of certain acts. It also makes related amendments to other acts. Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Payments Act to provide immunity for the Canadian Payment Association and certain individuals from any civil liability, other than in contract, for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in the administration or discharge of any powers or duties conferred under that act.	House of Commons Second Reading on May 26, 2026. Referred to Standing Committee on Finance. Division 1 of Part 3 comes into force on the 120th day after the day on which Bill C-30 receives Royal Assent. Division 2 of Part 3 comes into force on proclamation but see coming into force provisions for section 20. Division 3 of Part 3 is in force on Royal Assent.
May 20, 2026	By-law Amending the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Deposit Insurance Policy By-law, SOR/2026-81 Act to implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, S.C. 2026, c. 7, amended Schedule IV of the Bank Act to clarify how a country or territory acceding to an existing trade agreement is treated under Schedule IV of the Bank Act. Accordingly, the reference to Schedule IV of the Bank Act in the Policy By-law is amended by this By-law to ensure alignment with the amendments to Schedule IV to the Bank Act.	In force on the day Act to implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, S.C. 2026, c. 7, s. 11, comes into force.
May 6, 2026	Act to implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, S.C. 2026, c. 7 (Bill C-13) Bill C-13 implements the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, done July 16, 2023. It includes consequential amendments to the definition of “regulated foreign entity” in sections 2 of the Bank Act, Insurance Companies Act and Trust and Loan Companies Act, respectively.	Royal Assent May 6, 2026 Act comes into force on proclamation.
May 6, 2026	Bill C-31, Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 Bill C-31 implements certain measures put forward in the November 4, 2025, Budget. Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to prohibit financial institutions from issuing documents in bearer form and provide for the replacement of documents that are currently in bearer form. Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to provide that no action lies against His Majesty in right of Canada and federal government officials for any acts or omissions made in good faith under those acts. Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act to require an institution to offer or sell deposit products in a non-discriminatory manner in certain circumstances. Division 6 of Part 4 amends Schedule II to the Access to Information Act to prohibit the disclosure of confidential information obtained under the Retail Payment Activities Act or prepared from information obtained under that act.	House of Commons First Reading on May 6, 2026. Division 1 of Part 4 in force on Royal Assent. Division 2 of Part 4 in force on Royal Assent. Division 3 of Part 4 in force on proclamation. Division 6 of Part 4 in force on Royal Assent.

Disclaimer

This Reporter is prepared as a service for our clients. It is not intended to be a complete statement of the law or an opinion on any subject. Although we endeavour to ensure its accuracy, no one should act upon it without a thorough examination of the law after the facts of a specific situation are considered.

Ce que les OSBL de l’Ontario doivent savoir sur la mise à jour de leurs conditions d’adhésion

Wed, 12 Aug 2026 00:00:00 Z

La Cour supérieure de justice de l’Ontario, dans l’affaire Barrie & District Association of Realtors v. Information Technology Systems Ontario, 2025 ONSC 3388, a confirmé que les organismes sans but lucratif ontariens peuvent modifier leurs conditions d’adhésion, même si ces changements ont une incidence sur le statut de membre de certaines personnes.

Ce jugement est le bienvenu pour les conseils d’administration, puisqu’elle clarifie dans quels cas les tribunaux s’en remettront aux décisions de gouvernance prises à l’interne, en vertu de la Loi de 2010 sur les organisations sans but lucratif de l’Ontario (la « LOSBL » ou la « Loi »), et dans quels cas ils seront appelés à intervenir.

Points à retenir

Les organismes sans but lucratif ontariens peuvent modifier leurs conditions d’adhésion afin de répondre à des préoccupations légitimes en matière de gouvernance ou de fonctionnement.
Les conseils d’administration doivent veiller à ce que les changements soient rédigés clairement, adoptés en bonne et due forme et conformes aux intérêts de leur organisme.
Les tribunaux s’en remettent généralement aux décisions des conseils d’administration, sauf en cas de violation de la loi, d’iniquité procédurale ou de mauvaise foi.

Contexte du différend

Barrie & District Association of Realtors (« Barrie ») était membre d’Information Technology Systems Ontario (« ITSO »), un organisme sans but lucratif proposant un service interagences à ses associations immobilières membres.

Après avoir appris que Barrie fusionnait avec le Toronto Regional Real Estate Board, organisation que ITSO considérait comme un concurrent, ce dernier a modifié ses règlements administratifs pour exiger que ses membres conservent la même structure organisationnelle et le même contrôle qu’ils avaient au moment de leur adhésion.

Barrie a contesté ce changement en vertu de l’article 191 de la LOSBL, au motif qu’il était rétroactif, imprécis et incompatible avec la Loi, en plus d’avoir été adopté de mauvaise foi pour lui nuire expressément.

Décision de la Cour supérieure

La Cour, citant le fait que les tribunaux s’abstiennent généralement de s’immiscer dans les affaires internes des organismes sans but lucratif – sauf en cas de violation des documents constitutifs ou de la Loi, de déni de l’équité ou de mauvaise foi – a rejeté la demande de Barrie et maintenu la modification du règlement administratif.

Il n’y avait pas là de rupture de contrat rétroactive, étant donné qu’aucune entente ne stipulait que les conditions d’adhésion devaient rester les mêmes pour toujours.

L’argument selon lequel le libellé du changement était trop vague a aussi été rejeté. L’obligation de maintenir la même structure et le même contrôle était suffisamment claire en contexte; par ailleurs, rien dans la Loi n’indique que les règlements administratifs doivent énumérer tous les facteurs pris en compte par le conseil d’administration dans l’exercice de son pouvoir discrétionnaire.

Enfin, la Cour a conclu que la mise à jour des conditions d’adhésion n’avait pas été faite de mauvaise foi. ITSO avait raison de craindre qu’un concurrent prenne le contrôle de l’une de ses associations membres, et a suivi la procédure appropriée pour y remédier.

Nous joindre

Pour toute question concernant l’affaire dont il est question dans cet article ou sur la LOSBL, communiquez avec le groupe Organismes de bienfaisance et sans but lucratif de BLG.

OSBL de l’Ontario : résolutions extraordinaires et modification de règlements administratifs

Tue, 11 Aug 2026 00:00:00 Z

La décision Chifor et al. v. Windsor/Essex County Humane Society, 2026 ONSC 667 a récemment clarifié l’interaction entre les articles 17 et 103 de la Loi de 2010 sur les organisations sans but lucratif de l’Ontario (la « LOSBL » ou la « Loi ») en précisant quand la modification de règlements administratifs doit être approuvée par les membres d’un organisme au moyen d’une résolution extraordinaire.

Fournissant des orientations sur un volet de la LOSBL qui était resté flou depuis son entrée en vigueur, le tribunal a confirmé que les organisations qui veulent modifier leurs règlements administratifs doivent s’assurer de suivre le processus d’approbation approprié pour écarter les risques de contestation et de non-conformité.

Que s’est-il passé?

Le tribunal a conclu que les modifications touchées par les alinéas 103(1)g), k) et l) de la LOSBL devaient être approuvées par résolution extraordinaire.

Pourquoi est-ce important?

Les organisations ont maintenant l’heure juste quant à un élément de la Loi auparavant plutôt vague. Bien que la LOSBL autorise généralement les conseils d’administration à adopter, modifier et abroger des règlements administratifs, ce pouvoir est soumis à l’approbation des membres, que ce soit par voie de résolution ordinaire ou extraordinaire.

Quoi en retenir?

Les organisations qui envisagent d’apporter des modifications à leurs règlements administratifs devront obtenir l’autorisation de leurs membres par résolution extraordinaire si les fins visées par ces dernières sont celles mentionnées aux alinéas 103(1)g), k) et l), soit le transfert des adhésions, le changement de la manière d’aviser les membres votants et le changement de la manière dont les membres absents d’une assemblée peuvent voter.

BLG peut vous aider

Pour obtenir de plus amples renseignements sur la conformité aux exigences de la LOSBL ou sur les examens de gouvernance, communiquez avec le groupe Organismes de bienfaisance et sans but lucratif de BLG.