The Immediate Effects of the Kyoto Protocol and Canada's Green Project: Through the Maze in 15 Questions and Answers

May 1, 2005

Download this publication

Back to the publications list

Publications that might interest you

July 14, 2022

Single-Use Plastics Prohibition Regulations: Impact on Businesses

On June 20, 2022, the federal government registered regulations that, as the name implies, prohibit (or restrict, in some cases) the manufacture, import and sale of certain single-use plastics that pose a threat to the environment. The Regulations will come into force on December 20, 2022, with the exception of certain provisions taking effect in the following months.1 Manufacturing, importing and selling certain single-use plastic products made entirely or partially of plastic, such as foodservice ware, checkout bags and straws, will be soon be prohibited. This regulation is expected to affect more than 250,000 Canadian businesses that sell or provide single-use plastic products, primarily in the retail, food service, hospitality and healthcare industries. The following is a comprehensive list of items that will be prohibited: Single-use plastic ring carriers designed to hold and carry beverage containers together2; Single-use plastic stir sticks designed to stir or mix beverages or to prevent liquid from spilling from the lid of its container3; Single-use plastic foodservice ware (a) designed in the form of a clamshell container, lidded container, box, cup, plate or bowl, (b) designed to serve or transport ready-to-eat food or beverages without further preparation, and (c) made from certain materials4; Single-use plastic checkout bags designed to carry purchased goods from a business and (a) whose plastic is not a fabric, or (b) whose plastic is a fabric that will break or tear, as the case may be, (i) if it is used to carry 10 kg over a distance of 53 m 100 times; (ii) if it is washed in accordance with the washing procedures specified for a single domestic wash in the International Organization for Standardization standard ISO 6330, as amended from time to time5; Single-use plastic cutlery that is formed in the shape of a fork, knife, spoon, spork or chopstick that either (a) contains polystyrene or polyethylene, or (b) changes its physical properties after being run through an electrically operated household dishwasher 100 times6; Single-use plastic straws that either (a) contain polystyrene or polyethylene, or (b) change their physical properties after being run through an electrically operated household dishwasher 100 times7. The main exceptions Single-use flexible plastic straws Single-use flexible plastic straws, i.e. those with a corrugated section that allows the straw to bend and maintain its position at various angles,8 may be manufactured and imported9. These flexible straws may also be sold in any of the following circumstances: The sale does not take place in a commercial, industrial, or institutional setting10. This exception means that individuals can sell these flexible straws. The sale is between businesses in packages of at least 20 straws.11 The sale is made by a retail store of a package of 20 or more straws to a customer who requests it without the package being displayed in a manner that permits the customer to view the package without the help of a store employee12; The sale of straws is between a retail store and a customer, if the straw is packaged together with a beverage container and the packaging was done at a location other than the retail store13; The sale is between a care facility, such as a hospital or long-term care facility, and its patients or residents14. The export of single-use plastic items - All the manufactured single-use plastic items listed above may be manufactured, imported or sold for export15. That said, any person who manufactures or imports such items for export will be required to keep a record of certain information and documents as appropriate for each type of plastic manufactured item16. Records of the information and documents will have to be kept for at least five years in Canada17. Conclusion: an opportunity to rethink common practices In the short term, businesses will need to start thinking about how they will replace the plastic manufactured items they use. To help businesses select alternatives to single-use plastic items, the federal government has released its Guidance for selecting alternatives to the single-use plastics in the proposed Single-Use Plastics Prohibition Regulations.18 According to this document, the aim should be to reduce plastics. Businesses may begin by considering whether a single-use plastic should be replaced or no longer provided. Only products that perform essential functions should be replaced with non-plastic equivalents. Stir sticks and straws can be eliminated most of the time. Another way to reduce waste is to opt for reusable products and packaging. Businesses are invited to rethink their products and services to provide reusable options. Reusable container programs (i.e. offering customers the option of using their own reusable containers) are a reuse option that businesses may want to consider, in particular to reduce the amount of plastic food containers. Only where reusable products are not feasible should businesses substitute a single-use plastic product with a recyclable single-use alternative. Businesses in this situation are encouraged to contact local recycling facilities to ensure that they can successfully recycle products at their end of life. Ultimately, charging consumers for certain single-use substitutes (e.g. single-use wooden or moulded fibre cutlery) may also discourage their use. Ibid, s. 1 Ibid, s. 3 Ibid, s. 6 Polystyrene foam, polyvinyl chloride, plastic containing black pigment produced through the partial or incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or oxo-degradable plastic; Ibid. This standard is entitled Textiles – Domestic washing and drying procedures for textile testing; Ibid. Ibid. Ibid, ss. 4 and 5. Ibid, s. 1. Ibid, s. 4. Ibid, para. 5(2). Ibid, para. 5(3). Ibid, para. 5(4); According to Guidance for selecting alternatives to the single-use plastics in the proposed Single-Use Plastics Prohibition Regulations, the goal is to ensure that people with disabilities who need flexible single-use plastic straws continue to have access to them at home and can carry them to restaurants and other premises. Ibid, para. 5(5). Ibid, para. 5(6). Ibid, para. 2(2). Ibid., s. 8 Ibid, para. 9(1). https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/managing-reducing-waste/consultations/proposed-single-use-plastics-prohibition-regulations-consultation-document.html

Read more
June 16, 2020

Resumption of Mergers and Acquisitions: What May Change After the Crisis

The COVID-19 crisis has significantly slowed economic activity in all respects. The area of corporate mergers and acquisitions is no exception, and the level of activity, which was high before the crisis, has dropped significantly because of it. It is difficult to predict when and at what pace such activity will resume, but we expect that, like many other sectors of the economy, this market will be different from what it was before the crisis. Among other things, we expect that the uncertainty regarding economic recovery will see vendors and purchasers increasingly rely on earnout clauses to reach agreements on the value of a business. Opportunities to obtain financing for the acquisition of a competitor or a complementary business are also likely to be limited, which will change how such transactions are financed. The new behaviours made necessary by the post-crisis economic environment will certainly have considerable fiscal impacts. The tax rules applicable to earnout clauses can be complex, and parties to such transactions should learn about them before signing a letter of intent for a potential transaction. Those wishing to sell could get an unpleasant surprise in terms of the net result of the sale of their business if they aren’t properly advised from the outset. In some cases, the sale of a business that would normally be expected to generate a capital gain with only 50% of such gain being included as taxable income could instead be 100% taxable as business income. Earnout clauses offer very interesting tax planning possibilities in some cases, such as the maximization of capital dividend accounts that corporations can use to pay tax-free dividends to their shareholders. The same care should be applied by those wishing to acquire or sell a business with regard to the different methods of financing transactions that are likely to become popular after the crisis, such as partial financing by the vendor. Poor tax planning in this regard could result in liquidity problems for vendors if payment of the balance of the sale price is spread out over too long a period. Purchasers will also want to maximize the tax benefits of this type of financing. The main way to do so involves banking on interest costs resulting from the financing of the purchase price, but to reap such benefits and others, the commercial agreements relating to the purchase must be carefully structured. Tax complexities are numerous in M&A transactions, and those mentioned above are just two examples. The tax incidence of such transactions should be analysed as soon as they are contemplated. Parties to M&A transactions often wait too long before analyzing tax aspects. They thus greatly limit their opportunities to benefit from optimal tax planning. For more information, our taxation team is available to help you.

Read more
June 13, 2019

The government wants to know the shareholders’ true identity

Following the adoption of Bill C-86, which amends certain provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act ("CBCA"), corporations will now need to compile a list of "individuals with significant control" in the corporation in a new register, to be maintained by the corporation. The purpose of these amendments is to create greater transparency in the ownership and control of business corporations, in order to contribute to the fight against money laundering and tax evasion. The new CBCA provisions, which will come into force on June 13, 2019, will apply to all corporations governed by this law and that are private issuers. Who is an "individual with significant control"? An "individual with significant control of a corporation" is defined as: An individual who is the registered holder of a "significant number of shares"; An individual who is the beneficial owner of a significant number of shares; An individual who has direct or indirect control or direction over a significant number of shares; An individual who has any direct or indirect influence that, if exercised, would result in control in fact of the corporation; and/or An individual to whom prescribed circumstances apply.1. What is a “significant number of shares”? A significant number of shares is defined as: Any number of shares that carry 25% or more of the voting rights attached to all of the corporation’s outstanding voting shares; or Any number of shares that is equal to 25% or more of all of the corporation’s outstanding shares measured by fair market value. If a “significant number of shares” is held jointly by many individuals, or if one of the above-mentioned rights is subject to any agreement or arrangement under which the right or rights are to be exercised jointly or in concert by those individuals (such as a unanimous shareholder agreement, for example), each of those individuals will be considered to be an “individual with significant control”. The name of the individual(s) and the other information mentioned below must then be recorded in the register. What Information Must the Register Contain? Bill C-86 provides that, in addition to the other registers currently maintained by corporations with respect to directors, shareholders and securities, corporations must now also maintain a register of "individuals with significant control". This register must include the following information with respect to each of the "individuals with significant control" : Name, date of birth and last known address; The jurisdiction of residence, for tax purposes; The date on which the individual became an “individual with significant control” of the corporation and, if applicable, the date on which the individual ceased to have significant control; A description of how the individual is an “individual with significant control” and, as applicable, a description of his or her rights and interests with respect to the shares of the corporation; Any other prescribed information; 2; Another section of the register must provide a description of each step taken by the corporation to update the information. Corporations must ensure that the information recorded in the register is accurate, complete and up-to-date at least once during each financial year. However, it should be noted that the corporation must also update the register within 15 days after becoming aware of any changes to the information mentioned above. Who Can Access the Register? The information contained in this new register will not be accessible to the public. Only the Director of Corporations Canada, the shareholders, or the creditors of the corporation (as well as their representatives) can, upon request, consult the register. However, the information obtained by the corporation’s shareholders or creditors may only be used in connection with: an effort to influence the voting of shareholders of the corporation; an offer to acquire securities of the corporation; any other matter relating to the affairs of the corporation; The shareholder or the creditor must provide an affidavit to the corporation to this effect. Federal Bill C-97, which also amends the CBCA, will require a corporation, at the request of an investigative body (such as police forces and the Canada Revenue Agency or its provincial counterparts) that has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed, to provide the investigative body with a copy of its register of individuals with significant control, or any information specified by that investigative body that appears in the register3. What are the Consequences of a Failure to Comply? The legislative provisions provide for several penal sanctions which can be severe: A corporation that, without reasonable cause, contravenes these new provisions is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000; A person that, without reasonable cause, uses the information recorded in the register for purposes other than those described above is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to both; 3) Directors or officers of a corporation who, knowingly, (i) authorize, permit or acquiesce in the contravention by the corporation of these new provisions relating to the maintenance of a register, (ii) record, or authorize, permit or acquiesce in the recording of false or misleading information in the register, (iii) provide, or authorize, permit or acquiesce in the provision of false or misleading information in relation to the register to any person or entity, are liable to a fine not exceeding $200,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to both; 4) Shareholders of a corporation who provide or authorize the provision of false or misleading information to any person or entity, or refuse to disclose the requested information, are liable to a fine not exceeding $200,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to both. And in the Canadian Provinces? Most Canadian provinces, including Quebec, have already announced that they will follow Parliament’s lead. British Columbia is the first province to propose an amendment to the Business Corporations Act (BC). The Business Corporations Amendment Act of 2019 introduced the “Transparency Register”, which is the equivalent of the federal register of individuals with significant control and its application criteria. This bill also contains a provision enabling police forces to access the register in specific situations. And in Other Countries? The requirement to maintain a register of individuals with significant control was introduced, in particular, in the United Kingdom, in April 2016, with the ultimate objective of deterring money laundering and tax evasion by promoting corporate transparency. Moreover, the register implemented in the United Kingdom is accessible to the public. The legislation in the United Kingdom also includes penal sanctions for non-compliance with its provisions. To date, there have been no references in the media of the United Kingdom to penal charges against corporations that failed to complete the People with Significant Control (PSC) register, or recorded false information in the register. Instead, the Companies House agency seems to be focused on intervening in minor deficiencies of the register in order to reduce the number of incorrect statements about individuals with significant control over a corporation. Companies House also states that the compliance rate of corporations — ranging from 97% to 99% — is excellent. Conclusion The intentions behind these new provisions are laudable, but several questions remain unanswered on reading the legislative provisions that will soon come into force. Difficulties in interpretation and application will inevitably arise, at least until regulations are enacted or the courts can provide some guidance. For example, in cases where corporate structures involve several corporations and/or trusts, the calculation of voting rights or fair market value may be complex. Similarly, when a corporation has issued both preferred and common shares, how will the fair market value of those shares be determined? And what about the concept of “direction” over a significant number of shares, which is not defined in the new legislation? How should this concept be interpreted? Finally, with respect to the “control in fact” of the corporation, will it be necessary to refer to the tax legislation and to the courts’ interpretation of this concept? All these questions will have to be assessed in the coming months. We invite you to communicate with our team in order to implement the measures required by this new legislation. Note that no regulation has been adopted and no draft regulations have been published as of the date hereof. Note that no regulation has been adopted and no draft regulations have been published as of the date hereof. Bill C-97 was adopted by the House of Commons in 3rd reading on June 6, 2019 and is in first reading before the Senate as of the date hereof.

Read more
March 1, 2019

Once Upon a Time in the West: Redwater, its Trustee, and the Environmental Arm of the Law

In a decision handed down on January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court ordered that a bankrupt oil and gas company fulfil its obligation to reclaim abandoned oil wells before paying any creditors. This decision has since sparked conflicting reactions across the country: first, because it gives clear precedence to environmental protection in the event of bankruptcy, and second, because of the influence it will likely have over business decisions in industries where environmental risks are involved. Moreover, the concrete impact this decision will have in Quebec, where environmental laws have recently undergone major reforms, remains to be seen. Background Redwater Energy Corp. is a publicly traded Alberta oil and gas company that obtained financing for part of its operations from Alberta Treasury Branches (“ATB”) in 2013. The latter held a security interest over Redwater’s assets. In 2014, Redwater experienced financial difficulties which resulted in its inability to fulfil its obligations to ATB, its primary secured creditor. In 2015, Redwater was placed under receivership. At that time, Redwater’s assets consisted of 127 oil and gas properties—wells, pipelines and facilities—and their corresponding licences obtained in 2009. Said licences were granted by the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”), subject to an obligation to reclaim wells and facilities as prescribed to make them environmentally safe. However, at the time Grant Thornton was appointed as its receiver, 72 of Redwater’s licensed wells and facilities were depleted and burdened with environmental liabilities in terms of abandonment and land reclamation, such that Redwater’s liabilities exceeded the value of the wells and facilities that were still producing. Upon being advised that Redwater was placed under receivership, the AER notified Grant Thornton that despite the receivership, it was under the legal obligation to fulfil abandonment and reclamation obligations for all licensed assets prior to distributing funds or finalizing any proposal to creditors. Grant Thornton replied that it was not taking possession and control of Redwater’s valueless facilities and that it therefore had no obligation to fulfil the environmental obligations associated with these renounced assets (the “Environmental Obligations”). In the summer of 2015, in response to Grant Thornton's reply, the AER issued abandonment orders under two Alberta laws directing Redwater to suspend the operation of the renounced assets, abandon them in accordance with the AER's rules and regulations, and obtain the reclamation certificates required by law. In the fall of 2015, a bankruptcy order was issued for Redwater and Grant Thornton was appointed as trustee. The AER filed an application to order Grant Thornton to comply with its Environmental Obligations before making any distribution to Redwater’s creditors, but the application judge and the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal agreed with Grant Thornton and refused to issue the orders sought. In their view, agreeing with the AER would be tantamount to ignoring the orderly and equitable distribution scheme set out in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”). The AER appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court. On January 31, 2019, in a 5-2 majority decision, the Supreme Court allowed the AER’s appeal. 1- The trustee’s personal liability The first question the Court reviewed was whether section 14.06(4) of the BIA allows a trustee to escape the obligations imposed by Alberta law with respect to the reclamation of oil and gas facilities. Essentially, this question raises the fundamental issue of whether the BIA is in operational conflict with provincial laws. Section 14.06(4) of the BIA provides that the trustee is not personally liable for any failure to comply with any order to remedy any environmental condition or damage affecting a bankrupt property if the trustee abandons or renounces any right to the property in question. The majority of the Court interpreted this provision in a restrictive manner and concluded that, even if the trustee is not held personally liable, the bankrupt estate's assets remain subject to the order to remedy any environmental damage. Thus, the value of the bankrupt's assets must be used to fulfil its Environmental Obligations. 2- The notion of “provable claim” Grant Thornton further argued that, even if the bankrupt’s assets were to be used to fulfil Environmental Obligations, these should be paid as “provable claims” of an ordinary creditor, in other words, neither a secured nor a preferred creditor. Thus, the question of whether the AER could demand that Redwater’s Environmental Obligations be fulfilled before the value of the assets could be distributed to its creditors involves the concept of “claims provable in the bankruptcy” as defined by the BIA. One of the objectives of the BIA is to ensure the equitable distribution of the bankrupt’s property among creditors who have a “provable claim.” Said distribution is done according to a very precise order, established by law. However, if a claim is not “provable” within the meaning of the BIA, it nonetheless continues to be binding on the bankrupt and must be paid regardless of the distribution scheme provided for under the BIA. According to the Supreme Court in the 2012 AbitibiBowater1decision, a “provable claim” exists if three requirements are met: There must be a debt, liability or an obligation to a “creditor”; The debt, liability or obligation must be incurred before the debtor becomes bankrupt; and It must be possible to attach a monetary value to the debt, liability or obligation. If any one of these requirements is not met, there is no “provable claim.” Applying this analytical framework to the situation at hand, the majority of the Court determined that the AER is not a “creditor” within the meaning of the first requirement. According to the Court, the people of Alberta would ultimately benefit if Redwater and other companies like it met their Environmental Obligations: the province itself would not be gaining a financial advantage. Thus, the AER, when seeking to enforce Redwater’s public duties, is not a creditor within the meaning of the law. This was sufficient to conclude that its claim was not a “provable claim” subject to the distribution scheme provided for under the BIA2. The result, according to the Supreme Court, is that compliance with Environmental Obligations prevails over the payment of any provable claims of secured, preferred and unsecured creditors in the form of a first charge3. This conclusion does not conflict with the priority scheme under the BIA, nor does it contradict the goal of maximizing the realizable value of the assets, because all of Redwater’s valuable assets were subject to Environmental Obligations in any case. Such a decision raises several questions. First, as Justice Côté points out in her dissenting reasons, it may sometimes be difficult to know when the regulator is not acting in the public interest, suggesting that such a regulator can never be a creditor within the meaning of the law. Second, the adopted interpretation is likely to have consequences, in particular on the financing industry for companies exploiting natural resources. Faced with the existence of first charges that could remain unknown for a long time, lenders that finance the activities of such companies may have to reconsider the conditions under which they agree to finance them because of the increased risk of having the value of their investment or guarantees reduced. 3- What about the effects of this judgment in Quebec? It is particularly difficult to say with certainty what the effects of this decision will be in Quebec given the current legislative context in the areas of activity in question. Quebec legislation has undergone major reforms recently (in mid-2017 for the environment and at the end of 2018 for petroleum ressources) both in terms of environmental protection and the management of natural resources. The structure of the law, the conditions for obtaining operating licences and drilling authorizations and the powers of public authorities (in particular those of the ministers) have been changed to such an extent that we believe caution should be exercised before drawing hasty conclusions. In the case analyzed by the Supreme Court, the legislation in question, which made site remediation an obligation under the licenses issued, defined remediation to include decontamination. While this conclusion can apparently be drawn from the legislative structure applicable to mining operations, it is less obvious to do so with respect to petroleum resources development in Quebec. Moreover, although Quebec has legislative provisions to ensure that soil decontamination work is carried out in certain situations under division IV of the Environment Quality Act, the obligations to produce a characterization study, prepare a rehabilitation plan and carry out decontamination work do not apply in all cases. Although solely the production of a characterization study and a rehabilitation plan are required in some cases (cessation of activities), decontamination is only mandatory for the resumption of other activities, unless ordered by the Minister. Therefore, in cases where land decontamination is not a mandatory condition under the law, we must consider whether or not decontamination work otherwise performed may or may not qualify as “provable claims” within the meaning of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Thus, we should be careful before affirming that the Supreme Court’s decision in this case will automatically apply to Quebec in all situations. Analyzing situations on a case-by-case basis (as the Supreme Court said, incidentally) is the way forward, and understanding the Supreme Court's decision in the Redwater case properly will certainly be key. 4- Conclusion The Redwater decision raises diametrically opposed reactions depending on the audience. Some welcome the Supreme Court's effort to support provincial authorities responsible for overseeing environmental matters by adopting an interpretation of federal and provincial legislation that is broad, flexible and imbued with cooperative federalism. The Court's message that bankruptcy is not a licence to ignore environmental rules and that trustees are bound by valid provincial laws is also appreciated. Others, however, object to the business consequences that could result from this decision for companies operating in areas of activity that involve environmental risks, because access to financing may be more difficult. Where the full value of the assets is likely to be used to ensure compliance with environmental obligations, insolvency professionals who rely on the value of the assets to cover their own professional feess may be discouraged from accepting mandates when environmental issues are involved. Some are also concerned that companies in difficulty will abandon their assets to governments rather than attempting to restructure, thereby increasing the social burden of these problematic assets - a result that the majority decision seemed to want to avoid. In Quebec, as we pointed out above, the powers exercised and orders issued will require careful review to determine their immediate or potential regulatory or monetary nature. In the first case, Redwater suggests that a trustee would be forced to comply in accordance with the value of the assets, while, in the second case, the provincial authority's claim would be considered subordinate to the rights of secured and preferred creditors in the distribution scheme provided for in the BIA. Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc. [2012] 3 SCR 443, 2012 SCC 67 (CanLII) However, the Court analyzed the third requirement set out in Abitibi and concluded that it is not possible to attach a monetary value to the debt in question, as it was not sufficiently certain that the organization would perform the work or claim its reimbursement. The dissenting judges concluded the contrary on this point. Which the Court equates with the one under section 14.06(7) of the BIA that the organization could not avail itself of in this case.

Read more