Packed with valuable information, our publications help you stay in touch with the latest developments in the fields of law affecting you, whatever your sector of activity. Our professionals are committed to keeping you informed of breaking legal news through their analysis of recent judgments, amendments, laws, and regulations.

Advanced search
  • IIROC White Paper — Proposed changes to the current structure for distributing mutual funds in Canada

    On November 25, 2015, the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) published a White Paper for consultation. It is seeking comment on two proposals which, if approved and implemented, would change the current structure for distributing mutual funds in Canada. A “restricted practice” policy and a policy involving directed commissions are being proposed. RESTRICTED PRACTICE POLICY The proposal would allow an IIROC dealer member to use representatives who would not advise and would only offer mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (restricted dealing representatives). To do so, they would not have to be trained and qualified to advise or trade the other categories of securities normally offered by the dealer. An IIROC dealer member who wishes to hire restricted dealing representatives currently must ask IIROC for an exemption from the proficiency upgrade requirement for a mutual fund representative who will work for it. The considerations described in the White Paper stem from such an exemption request. According to a survey of around forty brokerage firms, the conclusions of which are described in the White Paper, this proposal raises the issue once again of a possible merger between the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (MFDA) and IIROC. It would also harmonize the respective missions of these self-regulatory organizations (SROs) regarding the regulation of mutual fund representatives, at least those who are registered as restricted dealing representatives by IIROC. DIRECTED COMMISSION POLICY The proposed directed commission policy would allow an IIROC dealer member to pay commissions directly to an unregistered personal corporation controlled by a representative. This proposal is being put forward to support the restricted practice proposal since the survey mentioned above showed that “for many registered firms and individuals, eliminating the proficiency upgrade requirement on the IIROC platform is of limited interest unless directed commissions are also allowed”. The MFDA already allows commissions to be directed to unregistered corporations provided a written agreement is signed by the mutual fund dealer, the representative and the representative’s personal corporation stating that the dealer and the representative must comply with MFDA requirements and the representative and the personal corporation must both provide the mutual fund dealer full access to their books and records. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO QUEBEC In Quebec, the Chambre de la sécurité financière has exclusive responsibility for self-regulating mutual fund representatives under An Act respecting the distribution of financial products and services (Distribution Act). This means that a new IIROC category of restricted dealing representatives would require legislative changes in Quebec to allow a mutual fund representative to only be a member of IIROC through a dealer member of that organi- zation. Such changes to the Distribution Act are unlikely in the foreseeable future, at least until the Department of Finance has completed its review of the enforcement of the Distribution Act. We would also add to this list of conditions the approval of changes to the orders recognizing IIROC as a securities self- regulatory organization and the possible re-examination of exemptions from certain requirements of Regulation 31-103 which are granted to IIROC and MFDA dealer members. Such a re- examination would be required since such orders and exemptions are not issued based on an overlapping of the regulation of mutual fund representatives attached to these respective categories of dealers. MFDA CONSULTATION Further to the publication of the White Paper, the MFDA recently released the results of a consultation held with 79% of its members on the potential impacts of the application of IIROC’s proposed policies. If the restricted practice policy is adopted, most MFDA member firms believe that they would either go out of business or be forced to merge with firms registered with IIROC. Such a step would only benefit MFDA member corporations that are also affiliated with an IIROC member corporation, which would allow them to reduce their operational costs, increase efficiency and be more competitive. MFDA members generally agree that the current SRO structure adequately protects investors and that the inevitable restructuring of this system that would result from the adoption of the restricted practice policy should be aimed at protecting investors, not reducing costs. MFDA members are therefore leaning in favour of the status quo with respect to the new policies discussed in the IIROC White Paper. The White Paper consultation will end on March 31, 2016.

    Read more
  • The TSX Venture Exchange reaches out to the VC community

    The TSX Venture Exchange (the “TSX-V”) has released a white paper which describes how it intends to become an attractive public market for early-stage companies from fast-growing sectors such as technology, clean technology, renewable energy and life sciences (the “high-growth sectors”) and how it intends to ensure that private equity firms, venture capital (“VC”) funds and angel investors consider the TSX-V as an effective strategy to exit the capital of such early-stage companies. The question remains whether these changes will result in a smaller-size IPO on the TSX-V becoming an attractive exit for the VC funds invested in a large number of these companies. REVIEW OF SOME OF THE CHANGES AND STRATEGIES PROPOSED BY THE TSX-V The TSX-V indicated that it intends to generally review its policies and tailor them to further reflect the needs of the companies from the high-growth sectors, recognizing that such policies were traditionally more adapted to the mining and oil and gas sectors. It also intends to hire a sales team dedicated to bring companies from these high-growth sectors to become listed on the TSX-V. The sales team will notably attempt to introduce the dealers community to companies from these sectors that can grow their business and create wealth for investors. The TSX-V recognizes that the reluctance for such companies to become listed on the TSX-V is in part the consequence of the administrative and compliance costs resulting from such a listing. It therefore proposes specific changes to its rules that are aimed at reducing the costs and simplifying the process for a company wishing to be listed on the TSX-V. One of the affected rules would be the sponsorship requirement. While this requirement can be waived, the TSX-V currently requires that an application to list on the TSX-V be sponsored by an existing member of the TSX-V or of the Toronto Stock Exchange. The TSX-V proposes to eliminate this requirement. Given that obtaining sponsorship typically takes several months and can cost a company between $50,000 and $100,000, the TSX-V believes that this change will allow companies wishing to achieve an IPO to save time and money. Another set of rules that might be reviewed is the escrow requirements. Securities regulators and the TSX-V each impose escrow requirements on the securities of the company completing an IPO held by the directors, officers, principal shareholders and promoters of the company, which typically includes all the VC funds invested in such company. These requirements result in the VC fund that has invested in the capital of the company requesting to be listed being typically required to enter into escrow agreements with an escrow agent whereby the shares or debt securities of the company held by the VC fund are put in escrow with the escrow agent for a period of 18 to 36 months after the IPO. The TSX-V has indicated in its white paper that it will abandon its own requirements and simply impose compliance with the requirements of the Canadian Securities Administrators (to which such companies were already subject to and which are similar to the escrow requirements of the TSX-V). Being subject to only one set of rules will simplify things in that regard. The TSX-V also intends to increase its general use of technological tools, particularly by offering an automated online filing system for additional types of transactions (the white paper does not specify which ones). This is intended to allow companies to file routine transactions themselves rather than having to use the services of external lawyers, and therefore reduce their costs. The TSX-V also seeks to develop mobile and web-based tools to stream summaries of securities offerings by companies listed on the TSX-V in order to facilitate more direct communications between the issuers and their investors. Other changes are proposed and can be found in the full version of the white paper available on the TSX-V’s website. CAN THE TSX-V BE SUCCESSFUL IN ITS APPROACH? All these changes aimed at increasing the listings by early-stage companies from the technology, clean technology, renewable energy and life science sectors should be welcomed by the VC community. IPOs remain an attractive exit for VC funds who often are major shareholders of these companies. It remains one of the best methods for a VC fund manager to establish a track record to attract investors for its follow-on funds in a context where such investors are often forced to rely on very few performance indicators to establish the skills of the VC fund manager and decide whether to invest in its follow-on funds or not. It should also be considered by entrepreneurs as one of the preferred methods of exit that they can provide to the VC funds that have invested in the capital of their company, given that it is one of the rare methods that will ensure to these entrepreneurs that they remain at the helm of the company. Other forms of exit, such as an acquisition or a secondary sale to a private equity fund focused on growth stage companies, will often result in forced changes to the management of the company, making the entrepreneur effectively lose the control of its business. In the context of an IPO, while the entrepreneur will have to report to its shareholders and may be vulnerable in the future to hostile take-over bids, the management team will generally remain in place in the short term (except for some additions to ensure that the necessary skills are present). Further, public markets remain the deepest source of capital, making IPOs being particularly well suited for these high-growth companies. However, to be fully effective, these initiatives will need to receive the support of the Canadian Securities Administrators, given that the major costs associated with an IPO are those associated with the rules imposed by these securities regulators and not by the TSX-V. In the meantime, Lavery intends to fully collaborate with the TSX-V in allowing it to become more attractive for these types of companies.

    Read more
  • Crowdfunding: Enhanced capital raising opportunities for startups

    Equity crowdfunding will soon have a new framework in which to operate in Canada and this is excellent news for investors and startups alike. On November 5, 2015, the Canadian Securities Administrators announced that regulatory authorities in Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia published the final version of Multilateral Instrument 45-108 - Crowdfunding (the “Equity Crowdfunding Prospectus Exemption”), which is expected to come into force on January 25, 2016. Crowdfunding will no longer be limited to advance purchases of goods and services in Canada, as the new Equity Crowdfunding Prospectus Exemption will allow startups to raise capital by issuing and selling securities to the public, using online funding portals, without having to file a prospectus. An offering document that meets regulatory requirements will nonetheless have to be prepared and published on the electronic funding portal. The document must contain certain particular information on the corporation, its officers, and the terms of the offering. ISSUER ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Under the Equity Crowdfunding Prospectus Exemption, eligible issuers may raise a maximum of $1,500,000 per 12-month period. The main eligibility criteria for an issuer are namely that it be incorporated under Canadian laws and headquartered in Canada, that a majority of its directors reside in Canada, and that the issuer is not an investment fund. SUBSCRIPTION LIMITS FOR EACH INVESTOR Subscription limits for investors will vary depending on whether an investor is an accredited investor (as defined in the securities regulations) or not. In Ontario only, another category of investors, “permitted clients” (as defined in the securities regulations), is subject to its own specific investment limits. Investments by non-accredited investors will be limited to $2,500 per private placement (up to an annual maximum of $10,000, only in Ontario). Investments by accredited investors will also be limited, albeit to a greater amount of $25,000 per investment (up to an annual maximum of $50,000, only in Ontario). In Ontario, investors who are classified as permitted clients will not be limited in the amount of capital that they can invest. LEAD INVESTOR INCENTIVES It is no coincidence that accredited investors qualify for higher investment limits. The intention is to encourage them to act as lead investors who can set the pace for less experienced, non-accredited investors, by providing skills and expertise in management for the benefit of all investors. The emergence of lead investors is also encouraged by the fact that issuers will be able to distribute their securities under other prospectus exemptions during the crowdfunding distribution period with different prices, terms and conditions from those being distributed under the Equity Crowdfunding Prospectus Exemption. This type of model has already proven advantageous in the United States, where equity crowdfunding syndicates have been developed. Such syndicates, which are made up of angel investors and venture capital funds, allow small investors to invest their money in tandem with more experienced investors. CONTINUOUS DISCLOSURE Issuers who issue securities pursuant to the Equity Crowdfunding Prospectus Exemption will also be subject to certain continuous disclosure obligations, including the obligation provide the relevant securities commissions with financial statements and to make such financial statements available to investors within 120 days of their financial year end. The extent of such continuous disclosure obligations will vary in accordance with the total amount of funds raised by the issuer pursuant to one or more prospectus exemptions, from its date of formation to the end of its last financial year, based on the following thresholds: $249,999 or less: no requirement Between $250,000 and $749,999: financial statements accompanied by an examiner’s report or an auditor’s report $750,000 or more: financial statements accompanied by an auditor’s report In all cases, if the issuer is already a reporting issuer as defined by securities regulations, it will still be subject to any continuous disclosure obligations that already applied. CONCLUSION The Equity Crowdfunding Prospectus Exemption will open up markets to investors big and small, and allow them to build valuable relationships with startups early on. It will be interesting to see if the Equity Crowdfunding Prospectus Exemption will generate sufficient lead investors for equity crowdfunding syndicates to be put into place, as they have been in the United States.

    Read more
  • Your investors : Who are they?

    New requirements for private placements (“Regulation 45-106”) Obligation to know your investor well Issuer’s obligations: Ask questions Verify the investor’s declared income and assets Confirm the relationship between the investor and the issuer Obtain proof of the investor’s status Keep the documents on file Last May, the Canadian Securities Administrators amended Regulation 45-106 respecting Prospectus Exemptions (“Regulation 45-106”) as well as the Policy Statement to Regulation 45-106 (“Policy Statement”). Recap We will first review the scope of the application of Regulation 45-106. The main purpose of this regulation, which was first adopted in September 2005, was to uniformize the Canadian rules for the distributions of securities under an exemption from the requirement to prepare a prospectus. An important reform of this regulation dealt with the rules applicable to private issuers (previously known as closed companies). Since then, the issuance of securities by a private issuer constitutes a public offering, but remains exempt from the requirement to prepare a prospectus provided the issuer’s securities are subject to restrictions on transfer and are owned by not more than 50 persons, not including employees and former employees of the issuer or its affiliates. Furthermore, private issuers’ securities can only be distributed to the persons described in section 2.4 of Regulation 45-106. These persons include officers, directors, employees, founders, family members of the officers and directors, close personal friends, close business associates and accredited investors. Recent amendmentsRecent amendments made to Regulation 45-106 and to the Policy Statement deal in particular with: the requirements for verifying the investor’s status; the definition of accredited investor; the requirement to obtain a risk acknowledgement form from certain investors; and the exemption for the minimum amount investment. Let us consider these amendments in greater detail. Responsibility and due diligence The CSA has clarified and set out in detail the requirements for issuers relying on a prospectus exemption in regard to their responsibility to verify that the conditions have been met. Some of the exemptions are based on income or assets tests. Other exemptions are based on relationships between the purchaser and a director, executive officer, founder or control person of the issuer, such as that of a family member, close personal friend, or close business associate. Issuers that distribute securities under these exemptions must obtain certain information from the purchaser in order to determine whether the purchaser has the requisite income, assets or relationship to meet the terms of the exemption. For example, the CSA expects the issuer to ask questions on the purchaser’s net income, financial assets or net assets, or to ask other questions about the purchaser’s financial circumstances; and to ask questions designed to confirm the nature and length of the relationship. It should also confirm the nature and length of the relationship with the director, executive officer, founder or control person identified by the purchaser. Don’t get caught The CSA has clearly indicated that standard representations included in a subscription agreement or initials beside a category of investor are insufficient as a representation unless the issuer has taken reasonable steps to verify the purchaser’s representations. To determine whether the issuer has taken reasonable steps, the authorities will consider the particular facts and circumstances of the purchaser, the offering, and the exemption being relied on. Factors that may be considered include the following: how the issuer identified or located the potential purchaser; what category of accredited investor the purchaser claims to meet; what type of relationship the purchaser claims to have and with which director, executive officer, founder or control person of the issuer; and how much and what type of background information is known about the purchaser. The issuer should keep on file all the necessary documents showing that it properly relied on the exemption for a period of at least eight years. Amendment to the exemption for distributions to “accredited investors” TrustsThe CSA has clarified what types of trusts may henceforth qualify as accredited investors by adding a new category of accredited investor. According to the new definition of accredited investor in Regulation 45-106, trusts established by an accredited investor for the benefit of the accredited investor’s family members of which a majority of the trustees are accredited investors and all of the beneficiaries are the accredited investor’s spouse, a former spouse of the accredited investor or a parent, grandparent, brother, sister, child or grandchild of that accredited investor, of that accredited investor’s spouse or of that accredited investor’s former spouse, are accredited investors. IndividualsThe exemption for a distribution to accredited investors does not apply to the distribution of securities to certain individuals referred to in the definition of the expression “accredited investor” in Regulation 45-106 unless the person distributing the securities obtains from the individual a signed risk acknowledgement in the form prescribed by Regulation 45-106 at the same time or before that individual signs the agreement to purchase the securities. The issuer must keep this form on file for a period of eight years following the distribution. This new requirement does not apply to the distribution of the securities of a private issuer. Minimum amount investment ($150,000) Since the adoption of the amendments to Regulation 45-106, the prospectus exemption for the minimum amount investment of $150,000 is only available to investors who are not individuals. The other requirements for this prospectus exemption remain unchanged. Conclusion By way of conclusion, it is clear from the new rules that the issuer must have a thorough understanding of the regulatory requirements and know its investors well, otherwise it would certainly be better advised to retain the services of a duly registered financial intermediary, whether it be an investment dealer or a dealer in the exempt market.

    Read more
  • Proposal for new TSX listing requirements for ETFs, closed-end funds and structured products: codification of existing practices

    On January 15, the Toronto Stock Exchange (the “Exchange”) published proposed amendments to the Toronto Stock Exchange Company Manual (the “Manual”). More specifically, a completely new section will be added to the Manual (Part XI) for determining the minimum listing requirements to be met by non-corporate issuers, i.e. exchange traded products (ETPs), closed-end funds and structured products. ENTITIES COVERED BY THIS PROPOSAL In their current version, the rules proposed by the Exchange provide definitions for the non-corporate issuers covered by these rules. However, the Exchange has given itself some level of discretion to decide that issuers not covered by this definition may still be subject to the obligations of non-corporate issuers. The three groups of issuers covered by these new rules are as follows: Exchange traded products, i.e. redeemable equity securities (“Exchange Traded Funds” or “ETFs”) and redeemable debt securities (“Exchange Traded Notes” or “ETNs”) offered on a continuous basis under a prospectus which give an investor exposure to the performance of specific index, sectors, managed portfolios or commodities through a single type of securities Closed-end funds, i.e. investment funds, mutual funds, split share corporations, capital trusts or other similar entities that are managed in accordance with specific investment goals and strategies Structured products, i.e. securities generally issued by a financial institution (or similar entity) under a base shelf prospectus and pricing supplement where an investor’s return is contingent on, or highly sensitive to, changes in the value of underlying assets, index, interest rates or cash flows. Structured products include securities such as non-convertible notes, principal or capital protected notes, index or equity linked notes, tracker certificates and barrier certificates --> 1) Exchange traded products, i.e. redeemable equity securities (“Exchange Traded Funds” or “ETFs”) and redeemable debt securities (“Exchange Traded Notes” or “ETNs”) offered on a continuous basis under a prospectus which give an investor exposure to the performance of specific index, sectors, managed portfolios or commodities through a single type of securities 2) Closed-end funds, i.e. investment funds, mutual funds, split share corporations, capital trusts or other similar entities that are managed in accordance with specific investment goals and strategies 3) Structured products, i.e. securities generally issued by a financial institution (or similar entity) under a base shelf prospectus and pricing supplement where an investor’s return is contingent on, or highly sensitive to, changes in the value of underlying assets, index, interest rates or cash flows. Structured products include securities such as non-convertible notes, principal or capital protected notes, index or equity linked notes, tracker certificates and barrier certificates RATIONALE FOR THIS PROPOSAL The Manual sets out the requirements enforced by the Exchange to all issuers as part of its mission to ensure a transparent, fair and orderly market for listed securities. These requirements were designed to recognize the specific features of various classes of issuers. However, the current version of the Manual does not take into account the specific features of ETFs and closed-end funds, which have become much more common in the Canadian market over the past 10 years. Indeed, according to the data provided by the Exchange, while there were only three ETF providers offering 84 products listed on the Exchange at the end of 2008, by October 31, 2014, there were nine providers offering 335 ETFs. In addition, every year over the past five years, an average of 35 closed-end investment funds have been listed on the Exchange, representing a market value of more than $26B. In the course of the elaboration of these proposed rules, the Exchange reviewed the listing requirements used by various recognized stock markets, including the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, London Stock Exchange and, closer to home, the brand new Aequitas NEO Exchange. According to the Exchange’s analysis, the products listed on NASDAQ and NYSE are the most comparable to those listed on the TSX. PROPOSED MINIMUM LISTING REQUIREMENTS In the proposed amendments, the Exchange intends to set the minimum market capitalization to be met by non-corporate issuers wishing to be listed on the TSX, as follows: Exchange traded products must have a minimum market capitalization of $1 million Closed-end funds must have a minimum market capitalization of $20 million Structured products must have a minimum market capitalization of $1 million --> 1) Exchange traded products must have a minimum market capitalization of $1 million 2) Closed-end funds must have a minimum market capitalization of $20 million 3) Structured products must have a minimum market capitalization of $1 million In addition to the minimum market capitalization requirement, closed-end funds must also have issued a minimum of one million (1,000,000) freely tradeable securities held by at least 300 board lot holders. The Exchange also provides for certain requirements for calculating net asset value, as well as for governance. The net asset value must be calculated daily for exchange traded products and weekly for closed-end funds and structured products. In all cases, the net asset value must be posted on the issuer’s website. With respect to governance, as the Exchange does for issuers of other classes, it will assess the integrity of the directors and officers of non-corporate issuers. Issuers or managers of exchange traded products, closed-end funds and structured products must have a CEO, CFO, secretary, as well as an independent review committee (for exchange traded products and closed-end funds) or two independent directors (for structured products). However, this obligation does not apply to exchange traded products and structured products issued by financial institutions. REQUIREMENTS FOR MAINTAINING A LISTING Securities of a closed-end fund may be suspended or delisted if the market value of the securities listed on the Exchange is less than $3 million ($3,000,000) for 30 consecutive trading days, the fund has less than 500,000 freely-tradeable securities, or the number of security holders is less than 150. As for the securities of exchange traded products and closed-end funds, they will be delisted if maintaining their listing affects market efficiency. To do so, the Exchange will, among other things, consider the degree of liquidity and market value of the securities. CONCLUSION The proposed amendments were subject to a period of comments extending from last January 15 to March 16. The coming into force of these rules also remains subject to approval by the Ontario Securities Commission. As usual, if you are considering applying for a listing of your products on the Exchange, it is always preferable to obtain a preliminary opinion on eligibility for listing by filing an application to this effect with the Exchange.

    Read more
  • Legal newsletter for business entrepreneurs and executives, Number 21

    CONTENT Overview of the Proposed Rules Respecting Equity Crowdfunding Trademarks in the English Language on Pubilc Signs and PostersOVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED RULES RESPECTING EQUITY CROWDFUNDINGJosianne BeaudryIn 2013, the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) launched a consultation on equity crowdfunding, as we already discussed it in this publication last fall. Following this consultation, the AMF and the securities regulators of Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Nova Scotia (the “Participating Jurisdictions”) published last March the Draft Regulation 45-108 respecting Crowdfunding (the “Draft Regulation”) and the Draft blanket order relating to the Start-up Crowdfunding Prospectus and Registration Exemption (the “Draft Exemption”). Some other Canadian jurisdictions published similar draft local notices.Currently, in Canada, crowdfunding respecting the issuance of securities is not allowed. The Canadian Securities Administrators are aware of the increasing development of Internet-based fundraising and the fundraising needs of start-ups and SMEs. Participant Jurisdictions define crowdfunding as a method of funding a project or venture through small amounts of money raised from a potentially large number of people over the Internet via an Internet portal.For the purpose of facilitating such fundraising, in the Draft Regulation and Draft Exemption, Participating Jurisdictions propose two offering schemes the first one, available to reporting issuers and non-reporting issuers and the second one, available to start-ups (which are necessarily non-reporting issuers). The rules governing crowdfunding by these two classes of issuers would be somewhat different. The rules applicable to start-ups will be less stringent than those applicable to reporting issuers and non-reporting issuers. The concept of start-up is not defined in the proposed rules.Furthermore, by adopting the Draft Regulation, Participating Jurisdictions wish to regulate the registration of funding portals. For instance, funding portals for offering to be conducted under the Draft Regulation would be required to register as exempt market dealers while funding portals for offering to be conducted under the Draft Exemption would not be subject to such requirements. By so distinguishing between the various types of issuers, Participating Jurisdictions are of the view that they facilitate fundraising at the various stages of the growth of enterprises.Many rules will apply to crowdfunding. The following table shows the most important of those:  A streamlined disclosure document must be provided that includes basic information about the offering, the issuer and the portal. This document must also contain certain financial information. In the case of a start-up, it will rather be a standardized document (a form) without any obligation to provide financial statements. It must be noted that under Quebec securities regulations, such a document must be prepared either in French or in French and English, both for a Quebec issuer and an issuer from another jurisdiction which intends to distribute its securities to Quebec subscribers.Reporting issuers who complete this type of financing will remain subject to the continuous disclosure obligations under securities legislation while non-reporting issuers will henceforth be required to provide, among other things, annual financial statements (audited or reviewed under the circumstances provided for in the Draft Regulation). Start-ups that will have distributed their securities under the Draft Exemption will have no ongoing disclosure obligation than that provided under their corporate governance statutes.Funding portals which serve as intermediaries for the crowdfunding of non-reporting issuers and reporting issuers will be required to register as exempt market dealer. The funding portals of start-ups under the Draft Exemption will have no registration obligation but will be required to send to the Participating Jurisdictions information such as personal information on each of its promoters, directors, officers and each person participating in the control of the portal. A portal cannot provide specific recommendations or advice to investors about securities being offered on its platform. Portals will be required to ensure that the maximum investment thresholds per investor are complied with.Issuers will not be allowed to pay compensation under any form whatsoever to a person other than the portal respecting the offering under the regime of this exemption. Such prohibition does not apply to the fees of lawyers and accountants who may help the issuer in drafting the offering documents.Prior to allowing an issuer to access their websites, registered portals will also be required to conduct background checks on the issuer’s, directors, officers and promoters through the requirement to file a personal information form such as that required by the Canadian Securities Administrators for prospectuses or the Canadian exchanges.This Draft Regulation will not apply to issuers of the real-estate sector who are not reporting issuers or to investment funds.In conclusion, the intention of the Participating Jurisdictions to facilitate fundraising by some start-ups and SMEs is genuine. However, public protection requires a framework for this “new” financing method. It remains to be seen whether the industry will view the proposed framework as providing an adequate balance between regulatory requirements and compliance costs. The consultation period ends on June 18, 2014.TRADEMARKS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ON PUBLIC SIGNS AND POSTERSDavid Eramianwith the collaboration of Sylvie Demers, articling studentOn April 9 last, the Superior Court of Québec issued its judgment1 on a motion for a declaratory judgment pertaining to trademarks in the English language on public signs and posters. The applicants, Magasin Best Buy Ltée2, Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd, Gap (Canada) Inc., Old Navy (Canada) Inc., Corporation Guess? Canada, la Compagnie Wal Mart du Canada, Toys “R” Us Canada Ltée and Curves International Inc. were seeking to have the Court answer the following question : [TRANSLATION] “are trademarks in the English language, without a registered French version, used on public signs and posters and in commercial advertising, required to be accompanied by a generic descriptive term in the French language to comply with the Charter of the French Language (“Charter”) and the Regulation respecting the language of commerce and business (“Regulation”)?” This motion for a declaratory judgment was made in the context of a recent change of policy of the Office de la langue française (“Office”) as to the interpretation of the Regulation, which was putting the applicants at risk of becoming the subject of penal proceedings and having their francization certificates withdrawn if they did not use their trademarks in the English language in conjunction with a generic descriptive term in the French language. The Attorney General of Québec was inviting the Court to answer the question in the affirmative.The Superior Court answered the question in the negative, ruling in favour of the applicants. Firstly, the Court noted the distinction between the legal concepts of a business name and a trademark. The Court concluded that it was with full knowledge that the government had introduced a specific exception to the French language signage requirement to allow trademarks in other languages than French on public signs and posters. The scheme of the Act could not then be invoked to run against an exception created by the legislator with full knowledge.Secondly, the Court noted that the Office had consistently applied section 25(4) of the Regulation since it came into force in 1993, allowing trademarks registered in languages other than French on public signs and posters without them being accompanied by generic terms. This interpretation was thus continuous and could be considered as an interpretative custom allowing the applicants to believe that their signage practices complied with the Charter. The interpretation proposed by the Attorney General would have resulted in depriving this derogation specifically provided for under section 25(4) of the Regulation of any practical application.The Superior Court concluded by stating that it is not for the courts to modify clear legislative and regulatory texts supported by an interpretative custom which has been consistently applied for 20 years. It is rather for the legislator, if it so wishes, to intervene and impose the solutions it deems adequate as to the language to be used by businesses on public signs and posters.________________________________1 2014 QCCS 1427, par. 9.2 This decision of the Superior Court was appealed, on May 8, 2014, by the Attorney General of Québec.

    Read more
  • Legal newsletter for business entrepreneurs and executives, Number 18

    CONTENTS Easing the financing rules while waiting for crowdfunding Avoiding disputes by entering into a shareholders’ agreement Tenth anniversary of Bill 72 : Land protecton and rehabilitationEASING THE FINANCING RULES WHILE WAITING FOR CROWDFUNDINGJosianne BeaudryThere is no doubt that small and mediumsized enterprises (“SMEs”) and businesses in the startup phase (also known as early- stage businesses) face multiple challenges when seeking financing. Not only must they identify investors who are prepared to take the risk of investing in their projects, they must also ensure that they comply with the rules on raising capital imposed by the securities regulators.Under the rules in force in Quebec and the rest of Canada, for a corporation to raise capital, unless it has an exemption, it must retain the services of a firm registered in an appropriate category with the Canadian Securities Administrators, and must also prepare and provide the purchasers with a disclosure document known as a “ prospectus”.This procedure is generally too onerous and demanding for SMEs and startups, not to mention the obligations these companies would have after the financing to prepare and distribute continuous disclosure documents, such as financial statements, management’s discussion and analysis and press releases.Thus, SMEs and startups are often limited to raising funds from business associates, family (“love money”) and accredited investors — which are generally persons with a net income before taxes exceeding $200,000 or net assets of at least $5,000,000.SMEs and startups also have the option of soliciting funds from a broader range of investors without having to prepare a prospectus through the use of an offering memorandum. The offering memorandum is a disclosure document similar to a prospectus but which is more simple to prepare and less costly. This financing alternative seems generally to be overlooked and underused by SMEs and startups. The lack of use of the offering memorandum is likely due to the accompanying regulatory requirement of preparing audited financial statements drawn up in accordance with the IFRS. This type of financing appears to be much more popular in the Canadian West.However, in this regard, on December 20, 2012, the Autorité des marchés financiers (“AMF”) issued an interim local order allowing SMEs and startups that are not otherwise reporting issuers, as defined in the securities legislation, to distribute their securities by means of an offering memorandum without having to include audited financial statements drawn up in accordance with the IFRS.Thus, it is henceforth possible for these corporations to issue an offering memorandum without having to prepare audited financial statements. Moreover, the unaudited financial statements accompanying the offering memorandum may even be drawn up in accordance with the Canadian GAAP applying to private issuers.However, to take advantage of this easing of the regulatory requirements, the issuer must limit the total amount of all of its offerings made under this rule to $500,000 and limit the aggregate acquisition cost per purchaser to $2,000 per 12-month period preceding the offering (and not $2,000 per issuer). A warning must also be added to the offering memorandum clearly informing any purchaser of the fact that the financial statements are not audited and are not drawn up in accordance with the IFRS, and of the limits on the investment threshold.It should also be noted that, under the Quebec legislation, the use of an offering memorandum by a corporation to raise funds is subject to translation requirements. Thus, for purposes of soliciting financing in the province of Quebec, the offering memorandum must either be written in French or in both French and English.Conscious of the financing needs of SMEs and startups, at the same time as the AMF was announcing the easing of the rules on the contents of the offering memorandum (which is slated to apply for a maximum period of two years), the AMF also launched a consultation on equity crowdfunding.Equity crowdfunding consists of raising capital from a large number of investors, who are not necessarily accredited investors, by means of an electronic platform in return for the issuance of securities. Some jurisdictions such as the United States (under development since April 5, 2012), England and Australia have adopted rules authorizing equity crowdfunding.These rules generally provide that corporations may only raise a modest amount through this type of financing. Similarly, the amount investors may invest is also small. At present, this type of financing is prohibited in Canada unless one has an exemption or issues a prospectus.The main objective of equity crowdfunding is to facilitate access to capital at a reduced cost. However, this objective is difficult to reconcile with recent developments in the regulation of Canadian securities markets aimed at protecting investors.Indeed, in carrying out their mission to protect investors, Canadian authorities have continued to increase the regulatory requirements (disclosure, compliance, proficiency, etc.), which also has the effect of increasing the operating costs of the various participants in the financial markets.Some financial market stakeholders are concerned about the risks of an exodus of innovative Quebec corporations and talent which could be tempted to move south to the U.S. to finance their projects, where they would benefit from a more streamlined and less costly financing environment. The Canadian Securities Administrators will have to meet the challenge of finding the difficult balance between the financing needs of SMEs and startups and the protection of investors.AVOIDING DISPUTES BY ENTERING INTO A SHAREHOLDERS’ AGREEMENTJean-Sébastien DesrochesDisputes between shareholders sometimes have serious consequences for a business corporation and can be an impediment to the carrying on of the operations in the ordinary course of business. Such disputes are usually complex and costly while also being protracted in nature. In this context, a well-written shareholders’ agreement that is tailored to the business can help to avoid disputes or, at least, limit their scope and provide a framework for managing them.Shareholders’ agreements may not age well over time. They may not evolve in sync with the business and its shareholders, particularly in a context of expansion and growth. Furthermore, it is generally difficult to change a shareholders’ agreement once it has been signed, and an attempt to change the ground rules in midstream could be a source of additional conflicts between the shareholders. It is therefore imperative for the shareholders to establish their rights and obligations, as well as those of the corporation, in a shareholders’ agreement as early as possible in the life of the corporation.No one will be surprised to learn that money is the main cause of disputes between shareholders, whether it is the money invested (or to be invested) in the corporation or money that the corporation pays (or will pay) to its shareholders in the form of dividends or otherwise. At the same time, the shareholders’ contributions in property, services, time and money often create friction within the corporation, particularly since the shareholders’ business, financial and other expectations may evolve differently - even in opposite directions - over time.Apart from financial issues, personal conflicts can also inflame the relationship between the shareholders, especially when family members are involved with the business. The same is true when decisions are to be made on the global objectives of the corporation and strategic issues.In addition, if the corporation has shareholders from different jurisdictions, cultural differences can also give rise to tension between the shareholders. In such cases, the text of the shareholders’ agreement must be very explicit and should, if possible, be supported by concrete examples of the application of the more complex clauses, such as valuation of the shares and the procedure for exercising a right of first refusal. In all cases, it is essential to provide for the order of priority for the exercise of the various rights, remedies and mechanisms contained in the agreement to avoid adding issues of interpretation of the agreement to the existing business issues.It is often at times when the business of the corporation is not faring so well that the common disagreements between shareholders tend to flare up and lead to litigation. The shareholders’ agreement should therefore anticipate the future situations which the corporation may face, whether positive or negative, such as refinancing, the arrival of new shareholders, family succession, the acquisition or sale of a business, international expansion, the development of new markets, and retirement from the business.The ability to anticipate future developments takes on its full importance when one considers the context in which the shareholders’ agreement is being entered into. Thus, the shareholders’ and drafter’s objectives may be different in the case of an agreement concluded for tax and estate planning purposes versus an agreement dealing, for instance, with the arrival of a new investor, a transaction for the acquisition of the business (e.g., business transfer or succession) or a start-up situation. Even in a very particular context such as this, the shareholders’ agreement should still give the corporation and its shareholders the means to achieve their ambitions and the requisite flexibility to carry out all their business projects.In addition to their status as shareholders, the shareholders may also hold several other titles or functions in the corporation, since they often also act as directors, officers and employees. Disputes may therefore arise as a result of these different roles and the associated rights and obligations, and degenerate very quickly into personal disputes.The drafting and negotiation of a shareholders’ agreement is a complex and exacting exercise requiring both legal and practical experience. Thus, a review of the cases in the courts shows that disputes pertaining to the most complex terms and conditions of the agreement, such as the mechanisms for the arrival and departure of shareholders and transfers of securities (right of first refusal, purchase and sale (shotgun) clause, etc.) as well as interpretation of non-competition, non-solicitation and intellectual property provisions, are among the subjects most frequently debated in the courts.Valuation mechanisms for assessing the price of the shares in different situations should also be clearly established in the shareholders’ agreement. Such mechanisms should oversee and govern any discussions on the value to be attributed to the shares of the corporation in the context of a sale or transfer, including in complicated situations where there are ongoing disputes among the parties.Lastly, it is fundamental to provide for effective conflict resolution mechanisms tailored to the needs of the parties ( confidentiality of the process, cultural and linguistic factors, obligation to pursue the operations of the business as a going concern in spite of the dispute, etc.) that allow for action to be taken quickly to preserve the value of the business. This will enable the parties to avoid the forced liquidation of the business, with its disastrous consequences for the employees, suppliers and clients.TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF BILL 72: LAND PROTECTION AND REHABILITATIONSophie PrégentThe planning of a construction project or start-up of an industrial activity requires prior verification of a number of matters. Despite the introduction, ten years ago this year, of rules in the Environment Quality Act (EQA) governing the protection and rehabilitation of contaminated lands, the physical condition of the project site is often still a neglected issue.While the question of soil contamination can raise issues of civil relations, such as, for example, civil liability or the warranty of quality (against latent defects), in this article, we will focus exclusively on the obligations that can arise from the EQA.The purpose of the EQA is environmental protection. This protection is embodied in measures for prior protection, emergency responses and rehabilitation in the EQA. The EQA also imposes certain duties to act on the users of immovables.POWER TO ISSUE ORDERSThe Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment, Wildlife and Parks ( MSDEWP) has broad powers, including, in particular, the power to order the filing of a rehabilitation plan if he has reason to believe, or ascertains, that contaminants are present on land in a concentration exceeding the limit values prescribed by regulation,1 or that they are likely to affect the environment in general.2Since 2003, this power has applied to all persons who have had custody of the land, in any capacity whatsoever. Such an order can therefore be imposed on tenants and is not limited only to the owner or “polluter” of the land.Thus, it is important for any purchaser to be familiar with the history of the land so that it can assess whether there is a risk that this type of situation could arise.Where such an order has been issued, some means are available for a person to exempt himself from it, in particular, where (i) he was unaware of or had no reason to suspect the condition of the land having regard to the circumstances, practices and the duty of care, or (ii) he was aware of the condition of the premises, but shows that he acted at all times with care and diligence in conformity with the law and, finally, (iii) he shows that the condition of the premises is a result of circumstances exterior to the land and attributable to a third party.CESSATION OF INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITYWhere a person permanently ceases carrying on a commercial or industrial activity referred to in schedule III of the Land Protection and Rehabilitation Regulation3 (LPRR), the operator must conduct a characterization study of the land.4 This obligation applies where the activity permanently ceases and it triggers the further obligation to carry out the rehabilitation of the land if the contaminants present in the soil exceed the regulatory concentration limit. This work must be performed in accordance with a rehabilitation plan which is submitted to the MSDEWP and approved by him.While this obligation to carry out the rehabilitation of the land only applies to the operator of the activity, it creates a restriction on the use of the land which must definitely be taken into account by the purchaser in the context of a transaction. Indeed, the failure by the operator to perform the rehabilitation will have significant consequences for the purchaser, especially if it wishes to change the use of the land.CHANGE IN USEWhere a person wishes to change the use of land which served as the site of a commercial or industrial activity listed in schedule III of the LPRR, he must conduct a characterization study, unless he already has such a study in hand, and it is still current.5Obviously, in the context of an acquisition, if this obligation exists, it is advisable for the purchaser to ensure it is satisfied by the vendor, or, at the very least, that the condition of the premises be very clearly disclosed to avoid any unpleasant consequences down the road.If the characterization study reveals that contaminants are present in amounts exceeding the regulatory limits, a rehabilitation plan will have to be submitted to the MSDEWP for approval, after which the rehabilitation will have to be done before the new use of the land can commence. This work will obviously create delays for the purchaser since the municipality will not issue the necessary permits to proceed with the subdivision or construction until the land has been decontaminated.In the event that the land has already been decontaminated in accordance with the applicable procedures, it is important for the purchaser to carefully review the rehabilitation plan submitted to the MSDEWP and the various entries made in the land register to determine whether there are any restrictions on the use of the land, or whether any excess contaminants may have been left in the ground with the consent of the MSDEWP.REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTSThe EQA contains a series of measures requiring the publication of notices in the land register with respect to contaminated lands,6 specifically, notices of contamination, notices of decontamination, and notices of use restriction. In addition, in some circumstances, certain notices must also be given to the local municipality, to the Minister of SDEWP, and even to neighbours.Clearly, the existence of such notices must be verified when any transaction is being undertaken. However, it is important to remember that the EQA does not regulate all of the situations relating to contaminated lands and, in particular, historic contamination and contamination resulting from activities not covered by the LPRR. The existence or lack of registrations against the land in the land register does not therefore guarantee that the premises are in compliance with the rules of the EQA on the rehabilitation of contaminated soils.LIMITED APPLICATIONThus, as far as contaminated soils are concerned, the application of the EQA is limited. For instance, there is no general obligation to perform the rehabilitation of land following the completion of a characterization study done on a voluntary basis. However, the presence of contaminants could trigger a restriction on the use of the land which could prevent the purchaser from being able to use it for the planned activity.7Accordingly, as a purchaser, it is very important to be well informed of the condition and history of an immovable, and even, most of the time, to obtain an environmental characterization of the subject property. It is a question of exercising the care and diligence of a responsible purchaser._________________________________________ 1 The Land Protection and Rehabilitation Regulation, CQLR, chapter Q-2, r 37.2 Section 31.43 of the Environment Quality Act, CQLR, chapter Q-2, provides more specifically that this applies to contaminants which are “likely to adversely affect the life, health, safety, welfare or comfort of human beings, other living species or the environment in general, or to be detrimental to property”.3 Supra, note 1. This is a list of most of the activities that are likely to cause soil contamination.4 See sections 31.51 and following of the EQA.5 See sections 31.51 and following of the EQA.6 See sections 31.51 and following of the EQA.7 For example, a residential development that cannot proceed on land where contaminants exceed the acceptable limits for residential usage.

    Read more
  • An unprecedented decision of the Court of Appeal: a judgment authorizing a class action under the Securities Act may be appealed

    INTRODUCTIONOn July 17, 2013, the Court of Appeal issued an unprecedented judgment in Quebec in the case of Theratechnologies inc. v. 121851 Canada inc.1 Justice Clément Gascon, writing for the court, held, in a unanimous decision, that a judgment having authorized a class action for damages under section 225.4 of the Securities Act (Quebec)2 (hereinafter the “S.A.”) can be appealed despite the rule laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure (Quebec) (hereinafter the “C.C.P.”) to the effect that judgments authorizing the institution of a class action are unappealable.FACTS UNDERLYING THE DISPUTEIn this case, 121851 Canada Inc. (hereinafter “121CAN”) accused Theratechnologies, a corporation listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, and its officers (hereinafter collectively “Thera”) of failing to disclose a “material change” through the publication of a press release, which Thera was required to do on the basis of its status as a reporting issuer under the S.A. and its related continuous disclosure obligations under sections 73 S.A. and 7.1 of the Regulation 51-102 respecting continuous disclosure obligations.3 Since 121CAN had held 190,000 common shares of Theratechnologies, it applied for an authorization to institute a class action.PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTIn the Superior Court of Quebec, 121CAN filed a motion for authorization to institute a class action based only on the provisions of the C.C.P. Thera then filed an application for dismissal on the ground that the prior authorization required under subparagraph 1 of section 225.4 S.A. had not been obtained. Indeed, since Bill 194 came into force, a specific civil remedy has been available allowing secondary market investors to bring an action in damages for verbal or written misrepresentation or the failure of the issuer to comply with its disclosure obligations.At the hearing on the motion for dismissal filed by Thera, Justice Marc André Blanchard of the Superior Court authorized an amendment which allowed 121CAN to add a second motion for authorization under sections 225.4 and following of the S.A.5Both motions were heard at a joint hearing at the end of which Justice Blanchard allowed both motions and authorized a class action for damages.6THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALIn the Court of Appeal, acknowledging that the authorization under article 1003 C.C.P. could not be appealed since such an appeal is clearly prohibited by the second paragraph of article 1010 C.C.P., Thera applied for leave to appeal the authorization granted under section 225.4 S.A., arguing that such an appeal exists under the S.A.Leave for appeal is normally dealt with by a single judge, but on account of the unprecedented nature of the issue, it was referred to a full panel of the Court.7In a unanimous decision drafted by Justice Gascon, the Court of Appeal allowed the motion for leave to appeal filed by Thera, and then dismissed the appeal. In this bulletin, we will mainly consider the issue of leave to appeal an authorization judgment under section 225.4 S.A., rather than the reasons underlying the dismissal of the appeal on the merits.Leave to appeal - Decision of Justice GasconAs the basis for his analysis and decision on the issue, Justice Gascon reviewed in detail the context of the adoption of the liability regime implemented through the introduction of Bill 19 and sections 225.2 and following of the S.A. and the purpose of this new remedy.Historically, to prevail in an action in damages under the S.A., the plaintiff was required to prove a fault, a loss and causation, as in any civil liability action. However, in the specific context of the financial markets, these requirements constituted nearly insurmountable barriers for investors, who had to demonstrate that they had relied on [translation] “false information or the failure to disclose a material change for the purchase of the security and that the change in the market price of the security resulted from the false declaration or the failure to disclose”.8 These requirements also made it very difficult to institute a class action because the facts having led to each of the investments by the members of the class could be different.It was in this context that the Allen Committee of the Toronto Stock Exchange published a report in 1997 which proposed the creation of a specific liability regime for breaches of the statutory continuous disclosure requirements. The recommendations in this report formed the basis for the adoption of Bill 19.Justice Gascon assessed this new liability regime in the following terms:[Translation][62] The purpose of the remedy is to contribute to improving the quantity and quality of the information disclosed on the market; it serves first as a deterrent, then as a means of compensating victims.[63] So to balance strengths, the new remedy establishes a presumption in favour of the investor: when the security is acquired or transferred concurrently to a misrepresentation or failure to disclose a material change, the fluctuation in the value of the security is presumed to be attributable to this fault. The investor is therefore freed of a heavy burden, that is, to demonstrate that he relied on the false information or the failure to disclose a material change and that the variation of the price of the security is the result of such information or omission.[64] In return, to avoid abuse, an authorization mechanism for investors’ remedies is instituted to weed out remedies instituted in bad faith and which do not offer a reasonable possibility of success.(our emphasis)Considering that in no case the silence of the law constitutes a denial of the right to appeal and that furthermore, neither the Allen report nor the parliamentary debate preceding the adoption of Bill 19 discussed such a prohibition, he concluded that the legislator voluntarily chose not to prohibit the right to appeal in section 225.4 S.A. Considering then that the portion of the judgment having authorized the action in damages as being an interlocutory judgment, Justice Gascon, for the Court, was of the view that the general principles governing the right to appeal, as set out in articles 29 and 511 C.C.P. had to be applied in the circumstances to decide on the issue and that, accordingly, the judgment was appealable upon leave. The Court therefore agreed with Thera’s position.Reminding in passing that the remedy under section 225.4 S.A. may be exercised both as an individual remedy and a class action, the Court granted to Thera leave to appeal.Comments In this judgment, the Court of Appeal clearly establishes a distinction between the rules applicable to the regime of authorization to institute a class action under articles 999 and following C.C.P. and those applicable under the special liability regime brought about by the amendments to the S.A. made under Bill 19. In fact, despite the joint hearing of these two applications for authorization, the Court of Appeal refused the analogy suggested by 121CAN whereby the two applications had to be dealt with in the same way and, accordingly, that the Court should refuse leave to appeal the portion of judgment authorizing the exercise of an action in damages. Although the Court acknowledged that the procedural vehicle of a class action is often the most appropriate in such circumstances for the investors, it insisted on the purposes of these two mechanisms which it deems to be specific and separate:[translation][69] It follows that the purpose of the authorization mechanism under sec. 225.4 S.A. is different from that under the Code of Civil Procedure provisions dealing with class actions. While the purpose of the latter is to ensure the quality of the legal syllogism proposed trough a burden of demonstration and not evidence, the purpose of the former is to weed out opportunistic remedies where good faith is lacking and where the proof of the fault is not “reasonably established.”In the case under review, the parties found themselves in a situation where, without access to the specific regime under the S.A., they would have been deprived of the Court of Appeal clarifications on issues directly related to the authorization of the class action.This case illustrates the fact that the Court of Appeal could validly play the role of “gate keeper” which would be entrusted to it if the appeal of an authorization judgment was possible upon leave.We are also of the view that such a right to appeal would restore a balance between the forces present by putting an end to this procedural asymmetry.In this respect, it is useful to mention that the Quebec Bar issued a favourable recommendation for this avenue as part of the consultation on the reform of the Code of Civil Procedure (Bill 28) in a context where such a right to appeal would be in line with the rules governing the appeal of interlocutory judgments.Lastly, although the Theratechnologies may rightly be considered as a particular case, we also wonder about the practical consequences of such a decision in the future. For example, what about a situation where the authorization of the class action would be granted under the C.C.P. without this judgment being appealable, even where the Court of Appeal would be of the view that there is no reasonable possibility for the plaintiff to be successful under the S.A.?_________________________________________ 1 2013 QCCA 1256.2 R.S.Q., c. V-1.1.3 R.R.Q, c V-1.1, r. 24, (Securities).4 This Bill has been incorporated into the S.A. on November 9, 2007 as sections 225.2 to 236.1 S.A. under the title “Civil Actions”.5 See 121851 Canada inc. v. Theratechnologies inc., 2010 QCCS 6021.6 121851 Canada inc. v. Theratechnologies inc., 2012 QCCS 699.7 Par. [32] of the judgment.8 See 2013 QCCA 1256, supra note 1, at par. 58.

    Read more
1 2