What's the Use? (Espace Montréal)

June 1, 2005

Download this publication

Back to the publications list

Stay tuned for the latest legal news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Subscribe to publications

Publications that might interest you

November 21, 2023

Clarifications regarding the application of mandatory disclosure rules to severance agreements

On November 2, 2023, in response to certain controversy, the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) sought to clarify the application of the new disclosure rules, in force since June 22, 2023. The CRA’s comments relate, in particular, to the impact of reporting obligations on severance agreements, a topic we initially covered a few weeks ago1. We believe it is appropriate to go over these clarifications. As a reminder, the disclosure rules generally apply to so-called avoidance transactions carried out to obtain a tax benefit and presenting one of the following three generic hallmarks: contingent fee arrangements, confidential protection or contractual protection. At first glance, the interpretation of these hallmarks suggests that severance agreements involving an employee’s undertaking to indemnify their employer are subject to reporting obligations. However, in response to questions from a number of legal experts, the CRA commented on the disclosure rules, specifying, in particular, that a tax indemnity granted under a severance agreement is not subject to the reporting obligation where it occurs in a business or financial context between persons dealing at arm’s length, and acting freely and prudently. In this regard, the CRA pointed out that the contractual protection included in such an agreement would not be considered a generic hallmark insofar as it does not cover a tax treatment giving rise to an unwarranted benefit. The CRA gave as an example a settlement reached between an employer and employee further to dismissal, harassment complaints or other employment-related recourses, providing for severance pay or warranted damages. Even if the employee were to undertake to reimburse the employer in the event of unexpected tax treatment, this type of agreement would not give rise to reporting obligations. Although the CRA’s clarifications were meant to clear things up, they did not definitively establish how the mandatory disclosure rules apply to severance agreements. A certain level of uncertainty remains with regard to severance agreements with no real legal basis awarding tax-free damages to an employee. In such a case, it would be difficult to argue that the business context warranted a favourable tax treatment for the employee. In the case of an agreement providing for the payment of unwarranted damages, and where contractual protection extends to the tax treatment of the amount paid, the avoidance transaction may, despite the CRA’s comments, require disclosure to the tax authorities. One thing is certain: tax indemnity clauses may well disappear from severance agreements. Ultimately, the new rules reinforce the principle that the granting of tax-free damages should be limited to circumstances that warrant it. Quebec case law has long established that the mere fact of losing one’s job does not give rise to damages, barring exceptional circumstances. In short, the CRA’s guidelines do not have the force of law, and may be amended or revoked at any time. Consequently, maintaining a cautious and conservative approach will be crucial when determining whether the new mandatory disclosure rules apply to severance agreements. Our team of employment law and tax professionals is available to answer your questions about these major changes and help you make informed decisions when negotiating severance agreements. Termination agreements: New reporting requirements apply!

Read more
November 1, 2023

Mining industry: reduction of red tape aimed at facilitating lithium exploration in Quebec

Canada’s finance minister unveiled a series of legislative proposals on August 4, 2023 aimed at making significant changes to the flow-through share regime, particularly as regards lithium exploration. Although a number of these changes had already been announced in the 2023 federal budget, e.g. the inclusion of lithium brine in the “mineral resources” definition, they had not really affected junior exploration companies in Quebec since this type of lithium is virtually non-existent in the province. More targeted change However, the recent proposals include a more targeted change for mining companies exploring for traditional “hard rock” lithium, which is much more common in Quebec. These proposals include amending the definition of “mineral resources” to systematically includetraditional hard-rock lithium in the list set out in section 248 of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”). The consequences As a consequence of this change, the requirement for mining companies to obtain a certificate issued by Natural Resources Canada will be eliminated. The application process for this certificate represented a heavy administrative burden for exploration companies. Moreover, lengthy processing times often delayed the conclusion of flow-through share subscription agreements. This change is a timely one: growing numbers of companies are refocusing on exploring for lithium rather than for more traditional metals such as gold. This reflects not only the market’s infatuation with lithium, but also the recent 30% tax credit potentially available to investors incurring mining exploration expenses involving critical metals. Proceed with caution For the time being, however, these legislative proposals only apply to lithium; they do not cover all critical minerals. Mining exploration companies should proceed with caution if they plan to explore for other types of critical minerals such as graphite and rare earth elements, for example. This is because a mineral resources certificate issued by Natural Resources Canada may still required in those cases. Our team of professionals specializing in securities, mining law and taxation is available to answer any questions you may have concerning this new measure and to guide you in arranging a successful flow-through financing.

Read more
October 19, 2023

Smart product liability: issues and challenges

Introduction In 2023, where do we stand in terms of liability where smart products are concerned? The rules governing product liability set out in the Civil Code of Québec were introduced early in the 20th century in response to the industrial revolution and the growing number of workplace accidents attributable to tool failures.1 Needless to say, the legislator at the time could not have anticipated that, a century later, the tools to which this legislation applied would be equipped with self-learning capabilities enabling them to perform specific tasks autonomously. These “smart products,” whether they are intangible or integrated into tangible products, are subject to the requirements of general law, at least for the time being. For the purposes of our analysis, the term “smart products” refers to products that have: Self-learning capabilities, meaning that they can perform specific tasks without being under a human being’s immediate control. Interconnectivity capabilities, meaning that they can collect and analyze data from their surroundings. Autonomy capabilities, meaning that they can adapt their behaviour to perform an assigned task more efficiently (optional criterion).2 These capabilities are specific to what is commonly referred to as artificial intelligence (hereinafter referred to as “AI”). Applying general law rules of liability to smart products Although Canada prides itself on being a “world leader in the field of artificial intelligence,”3 it has yet to enact its first AI law. The regulation of smart products in Quebec is still in its infancy. To this day, apart from the regulatory framework that applies to autonomous vehicles, there is no legislation in force that provides for distinct civil liability rules governing disputes relating to the marketing and use of smart products. There are two factors that have a major impact on the liability that applies to smart products, namely transparency and apportionment of liability, and both should be considered in developing a regulatory framework for AI.4 But where does human accountability come in? Lack of transparency in AI and product liability When an autonomous product performs a task, it is not always possible for either the consumer or the manufacturer to know how the algorithm processed the information behind that task. This is what researchers refer to as “lack of transparency” or the “black box” problem associated with AI.5 The legislative framework governing product liability is set out in the Civil Code of Québec6 and the Consumer Protection Act.7 The provisions therein require distributors, professional sellers and manufacturers to guarantee that the products sold are free from latent defects. Under the rules governing product liability, the burden of proof is reversed, as manufacturers are presumed to have knowledge of any defects.8 Manufacturers have two means to absolve themselves from liability:9 A manufacturer may claim that a given defect is the result of superior force or a fault on the part of the consumer or a third party; or A manufacturer may argue that, at the time that the product was brought to market, the existence of the defect could not have been known given the state of scientific knowledge. This last means is specifically aimed at the risks inherent to technological innovation.10 That being said, although certain risks only become apparent after a product is brought to market, manufacturers have an ongoing duty to inform, and how this is applied depends on the evolution of knowledge about the risks associated with the product.11 As such, the lack of transparency in AI can make it difficult to assign liability. Challenges in apportioning liability and human accountability There are cases where the “smart” component is integrated into a product by one of the manufacturer’s subcontractors.In Venmar Ventilation,12 the Court of Appeal ruled that the manufacturer of an air exchanger could not be exempted from liability even though the defect in its product was directly related to a defect in the motor manufactured by a subcontractor. In this context, it would be reasonable to expect that products’ smart component would be likely to result many similar calls in warranty, resulting in highly complex litigation cases, which could further complicate the apportionment of liability. Moreover, while determining the identity of the person who has physical custody of a smart product seems obvious, determining the identity of the person who exercises actual control over it can be much more difficult, as custody and control do not necessarily belong to the same “person.” There are two types of custodians of smart products: The person who has the power of control, direction and supervision over a product at the time of its use (frontend custody); The person who holds these powers over the algorithm that gives the product its autonomy (backend custody)13. Either one of these custodians could be held liable should it contribute to the harm through its own fault. As such, apportioning liability between the human user and the custodians of the AI algorithm could be difficult. In the case of a chatbot, for example, determining whether the human user or the AI algorithm is responsible for defamatory or discriminatory comments may prove complex. C-27: canadian bill on artificial intelligence Canada’s first AI bill (“Bill C-27”) was introduced in the House of Commons on June 16, 2022.14 At the time of publication, the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology was still reviewing Bill C-27. Part 3 of Bill C-27 enacts the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act. If adopted in its current form, the Act would apply to “high-impact AI systems” (“Systems”) used in the course of international and interprovincial trade.15 Although the government has not yet clearly defined the characteristics that distinguish high-impact AI from other forms of AI, for now, the Canadian government refers in particular to “Systems that can influence human behaviour at scale” and “Systems critical to health and safety.”16 We have reason to believe that this type of AI is what poses a high risk to users’ fundamental rights. In particular, Bill C-27 would make it possible to prohibit the conduct of a person who “makes available” a System that is likely to cause “serious harm” or “substantial damage.”17 Although the Bill does not specifically address civil liability, the broad principles it sets out reflect the best practices that apply to such technology. These best practices can provide manufacturers of AI technology with insight into how a prudent and diligent manufacturer would behave in similar circumstances. The Bill’s six main principles are set out in the list below.18 Transparency: Providing the public with information about mitigation measures, the intended use of the Systems and the “content that it is intended to generate”. Oversight: Providing Systems over which human oversight can be exercised. Fairness and equity: Bringing to market Systems that can limit the potential for discriminatory outcomes. Safety: Proactively assessing Systems to prevent “reasonably foreseeable” harm. Accountability: Putting governance measures in place to ensure compliance with legal obligations applicable to Systems. Robustness: Ensuring that Systems operate as intended. To this, we add the principle of risk mitigation, considering the legal obligation to “mitigate” the risks associated with the use of Systems.19 Conclusion Each year, the Tortoise Global AI Index ranks countries according to their breakthroughs in AI.20 This year, Canada ranked fifth, ahead of many European Union countries. That being said, current legislation clearly does not yet reflect the increasing prominence of this sector in our country. Although Bill C-27 does provide guidelines for best practices in developing smart products, it will be interesting to see how they will be applied when civil liability issues arise. Jean-Louis Baudouin, Patrice Deslauriers and Benoît Moore, La responsabilité civile, Volume 1: Principes généraux, 9th edition, 2020, 1-931. Tara Qian Sun, Rony Medaglia, “Mapping the challenges of Artificial Intelligence in the public sector: Evidence from public healthcare”, Government Information Quarterly, 2019, 36(2), pp. 368–383, online EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, Civil Law Rules on Robotics, European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)), available online at TA (europa.eu). GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, The Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) – Companion document, online. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, White Paper on Artificial Intelligence: a European approach to excellence and trust, COM. (2020), p. 3. Madalina Busuioc, “Accountable Artificial Intelligence: Holding Algorithms to Account”, Public Administration Review2020, online. Civil Code of Québec (CQLR, c. C-1991, art. 1726 et seq. Consumer Protection Act, CQLR c. P-40.1, s. 38. General Motors Products of Canada v. Kravitz, 1979 CanLII 22 (SCC), p. 801. See also: Brousseau c. Laboratoires Abbott limitée, 2019 QCCA 801, para. 89. Civil Code of Québec (CQLR, c. CCQ-1991, art. 1473; ABB Inc. v. Domtar Inc., 2007 SCC 50, para. 72. Brousseau, para. 100. Brousseau, para. 102. Desjardins Assurances générales inc. c. Venmar Ventilation inc., 2016 QCCA 1911, para. 19 et seq. Céline Mangematin, Droit de la responsabilité civile et l’intelligence artificielle, https://books.openedition.org/putc/15487?lang=fr#ftn24; See also Hélène Christodoulou, La responsabilité civile extracontractuelle à l’épreuve de l’intelligence artificielle, p. 4. Bill C-27, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. Bill C-27, summary and s. 5(1). The Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) – Companion document, Government of Canada, online. The Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) – Companion document canada.ca. Bill C-27, s. 39(a). AIDA, Companion document Bill C-27, s. 8. TORTOISE MEDIA, The Global AI Index 2023, available at tortoisemedia.com.

Read more
October 11, 2023

Termination agreements: New reporting requirements apply!

On June 22, 2023, the federal government significantly expanded the reporting requirements for certain so-called avoidance transactions, in particular with respect to termination agreements.1 The new rules will make it easier for the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to detect certain avoidance schemes, conduct tax audits and issue notices of assessment and penalties more quickly when warranted. The reporting requirements now apply to reportable transactions defined as avoidance transactions, which are primarily aimed at obtaining a tax benefit. If these avoidance transactions involve one of the three markers set out by the Minister of Finance: contingent fee arrangement, confidential protection or contractual protection, they must be reported to the CRA in accordance with the rules in force. These enhanced rules cover a large number of transactions, in particular those which are part of agreements made specifically in the context of end-of-employment negotiations. In settlements between an employer and an employee following termination, harassment complaints or other employment-related disputes, damages may be awarded as part of the negotiation process. However, the award of these damages, which are normally granted in situations where the employee has suffered personal or moral harm, may not always have a strong legal foundation. In some cases, these damages may be part of a tax-driven strategy: while severance payments are taxable as employment income or as a retirement allowance, damages may be tax-exempt. This type of agreement allows the employer to pay less while maximizing the net amount for the recipient. An agreement providing for the payment of a tax-free amount for damages usually includes an undertaking by the employee to indemnify the employer when a tax audit concludes that the payment should be taxable. The new reporting requirements are likely to prevent these types of settlements in cases where it is reasonable to conclude that their main purpose is to obtain an unfair tax benefit. These avoidance transactions also exhibit the hallmark of contractual protection, which refers to a protection or guarantee against any failure of the transaction to produce a tax advantage. This is the case when the employee agrees to compensate the employer following a tax recalculation. Such contractual agreements now meet the new reporting criteria. In these transactions, the reporting obligation is incumbent on the employee (i.e., the person who obtains the tax benefit), the employer (i.e., the person who completes the transaction), and the advisor who obtains fees for setting up the transaction. They have 90 days from the time they entered into the transaction to submit Form RC312 to the CRA. Failure to do so will result in penalties and an extension of the normal reassessment period. As a result, it is inevitable that these updated rules will be taken into account when negotiating termination settlements, and it will be particularly important to review all agreements made since June 23, 2023. Our team of employment law and tax professionals is available to answer your questions about this major change and help you make informed decisions when negotiating termination agreements. Bill C-47: An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023

Read more