Filtered-Insights

After Sunrise: Federal approval and CER conditions on the Westcoast Energy expansion

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 Z

Background

Last week, the Canadian federal government approved the Sunrise expansion project, a roughly $4 billion expansion of the Westcoast Energy natural gas pipeline system in British Columbia (Project). The Project consists primarily of new pipeline loops, compressor station upgrades, and associated electrical facilities. The aim was to increase transportation capacity on the existing system and address anticipated capacity shortfalls in southern BC and the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Sunrise, among other things, was planned to respond to liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from the West Coast.

The Project was subject to a lengthy public hearing before the Commission of the Canada Energy Regulator (CER), which included extensive participation by Indigenous nations, landowners, governments, non-governmental organizations and industry stakeholders.

The CER decision

In January 2026, the CER issued a Commission Report recommending that a certificate be issued authorizing construction and operation of the Project under the Canadian Energy Regulator Act (CER Act). The Commission concluded that the Project is required by present and future public convenience, as well as necessity. However, approval is subject to compliance with 47 binding conditions.

Several aspects of the decision are particularly notable

The Commission found that the Crown’s duty under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 was met through the CER hearing process, supplemental Crown consultation and the conditions. The decision expressly considered the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and recent Federal Court jurisprudence. This reflects the evolving legal framework for Indigenous consultation. Many of the conditions imposed by the Commission required Indigenous participation in construction and post-construction monitoring, as well as ongoing reporting. These conditions reinforce the CER’s role as a lifecycle regulator for projects.

While the Commission granted several exemptions sought by the proponent, it denied a requested exemption from the detailed route process for one power line component citing concerns raised by Indigenous intervenors. This demonstrated that exemptions under section 214 of the CER Act are not automatic and turn on context-specific public interest considerations.

The Commission further found there was a demonstrated need for additional natural gas transportation capacity in northeast British Columbia. This was on the basis of a forecasted supply shortfall on the existing West Coast system beginning later this decade, particularly as LNG export facilities and upstream production expand. Without the Project, the Commission concluded that the system would be unable to reliably meet expected demand. This could result in constrained production and compromised reliability of the energy system.

The Commission emphasized the Project’s substantial economic benefits, including employment and GDP contribution over both the construction and operation phases. The Project is expected to create more than 18,000 jobs, generate approximately $1.7 billion in labour income and contribute over $3.3 billion to GDP nationally. These benefits were considered significant and durable, particularly in northern British Columbia and Indigenous communities.

While acknowledging that the Project would result in adverse environmental effects, the Commission determined that these effects would not be significant after mitigation and the imposition of conditions. The decision relied on a mitigation hierarchy requiring avoidance, minimization, restoration, and offsets (where necessary). Detailed conditions addressed sensitive features such as wetlands, old-growth forests, species at risk and greenhouse gas emissions.

Balancing all factors, the Commission concluded that the Sunrise expansion project was in the Canadian public interest, subject to certain conditions. These conditions were central to the recommendation and reflected the Commission’s view that approval was only justified if accompanied by strong, ongoing oversight.

The Federal Government’s approval of the project

Following receipt of the CER’s report, the Federal Government approved the Sunrise expansion project and directed the issuance of a certificate. In doing so, the government was required to consider the CER’s recommendation, the proposed conditions, and the broader public interest.

The federal approval explicitly relied on the Commission’s conclusion that the Project satisfied the statutory public-interest test under the CER Act. The government accepted the finding that the Project addressed a real and time-sensitive capacity constraint in Canada’s natural gas transportation system. It additionally recognized that the Project would support both domestic supply reliability and access to export markets.

The government also considered the Project’s role in supporting Canada’s broader energy and economic objectives, including enabling upstream production tied to LNG exports. While recognizing that natural gas is a fossil fuel, the approval reflected the Government’s position that natural gas will continue to play a transitional role in Canada’s energy mix, including displacing higher-emission fuels. The Project was therefore seen as compatible with national economic interests.

In granting approval, the government acknowledged the Project’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. However, the government also accepted the Commission’s finding that emissions were quantified, manageable and subject to mitigation and monitoring. The Project was approved on the basis that it did not undermine Canada’s climate objectives when assessed alongside federal emissions-reduction policies and the imposed conditions.

Rather than reopening the consultation process, the federal approval relied on the Commission’s conclusion that the duty to consult had been met. Outstanding concerns could be addressed through ongoing accommodation mechanisms that were embedded in the conditions. The government placed particular weight on requirements for Indigenous monitoring, capacity funding, socio-economic participation, and adaptive management. These features were viewed as essential to creating project oversight that is aligned with reconciliation.

Ultimately, the federal government concluded that the benefits of the Project outweighed its burdens and that any concerns were appropriately managed through conditions and ongoing regulatory supervision.

Considerations for future projects

The Sunrise CER report offers important guidance for proponents, Indigenous communities, and intervenors involved in future energy projects regulated at the federal level:

Early and sustained engagement with Indigenous nations and other stakeholders can meaningfully influence project design and regulatory outcomes.
Future projects will need to establish system-wide need using credible demand forecasts and evidence of capacity constraints. Applications are stronger where proponents can explain why existing infrastructure cannot meet anticipated demand.
Decision-makers continue to give weight to employment, GDP contribution, and regional economic impacts. This is especially true where benefits are quantifiable, realistic in scope and supported by enforceable commitments.
Adverse environmental effects, including greenhouse gas emissions and cumulative impacts, do not preclude approval. However, environmental effects must be transparently quantified, mitigated and managed through monitoring over the lifecycle of the project.
Enforceable conditions are increasingly the primary mechanism through which impacts are justified and managed. Proponents should expect detailed conditions governing environmental protection, Indigenous participation and socio-economic outcomes.

BLG lawyers Alan Ross, KC and Logan Hale were counsel for an intervening party on the CER proceeding. If you have any questions about this Insight or would like to discuss any other regulatory concerns, please do not hesitate to reach out to the key contacts below.

Logement social, abordable et familial : Montréal revoit les règles de son développement immobilier

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 Z

À Montréal, depuis le 1^er avril 2021, les projets résidentiels de 450 m² (environ 5 logements ou plus) constituaient des projets visés par le Règlement pour une métropole mixte (« RMM »). L’objectif du RMM était d’augmenter le nombre de logements sociaux, abordables ou familiaux, soit en incluant la construction de ce type de logements directement dans les projets, soit en versant une contribution financière.

Cinq ans plus tard, la Ville de Montréal modifie substantiellement le RMM avec l’adoption du Règlement modifiant le Règlement visant à améliorer l’offre en matière de logement social, abordable et familial (20-041-16) (le « Règlement »), entré en vigueur le 1^er avril 2026.

Cette réforme vise à mieux équilibrer les objectifs de mixité sociale avec les réalités économiques du développement immobilier, en rendant les règles significativement plus simples et plus souples. Mais concrètement, qu’est-ce que cela change pour les projets immobiliers ?

Les modifications au RMM : moins de projets assujettis, moins de contraintes financières

D’abord, le Règlement augmente considérablement le seuil d’application du RMM. Alors qu’il s’appliquait auparavant aux projets de plus de 450 m², il vise désormais seulement les projets résidentiels de plus de 18 000 m². Autrement dit, depuis le 1^er avril 2026, la majorité des projets résidentiels sont maintenant soustraits de l’application du RMM.

Le Règlement introduit un régime transitoire complexe visant à encadrer les projets résidentiels en cours selon leur état d’avancement, notamment :

Pour les ententes conclues en vertu du RMM depuis le 1^er janvier 2026, celles-ci peuvent être modifiées pour ajuster les contributions financières et les garanties, emportant le remboursement de l’excédent versé.
Les projets résidentiels de 18 000 m² ou moins pour lesquels la Ville de Montréal a délivré un permis de construction avant le 16 février 2026 demeurent régis par les ententes déjà conclues et certaines dispositions du RMM, tel qu’il se lisait avant sa réforme, continuent de s’appliquer. Toutefois, aucune exigence additionnelle ne peut être imposée si l’entente est modifiée quant à la superficie résidentielle, le nombre de logement ou l’emplacement du projet, à la condition que la superficie résidentielle demeure 18 000 m² ou moins. Par ailleurs, il n’est pas possible de retirer des engagements en matière de logement abordable, ni de libérer les garanties. Les contributions financières doivent également être versées.
Lorsque des ententes visant un projet de 18 000 m² ou moins ont été conclues mais qu’aucun permis n’a été délivré avant le 16 février 2026, le propriétaire de l’emplacement du projet résidentiel peut, jusqu’au 31 mai 2026, aviser par écrit la Ville de Montréal que l’entente demeure valide et exécutoire. À défaut d’un tel avis ou si le propriétaire souhaite mettre fin à l’entente conclue, toujours en indiquant son intention par écrit à la Ville, l’entente est résiliée de plein droit et la Ville entreprend les démarches applicables (par exemple, pour rembourser les contributions financières versées ou pour rétrocéder l’immeuble).
Pour les projets résidentiels de plus de 18 000 m² assujettis à une entente, si aucun permis de construction n’a été délivré avant le 16 février 2026, la Ville rembourse les contributions financières et, le cas échéant, rétrocède les immeubles cédés à des fins de logement abordable. En revanche, si un permis a bel et bien été délivré, non seulement aucune somme ne sera remboursée, mais il faudra également verser la contribution financière exigible pour le permis ayant été délivré.

Par la suite, une fois qu’une entente fixe les contributions financières exigées en remplacement de la construction de logements sociaux, abordables ou familiaux, ces montants ne sont plus indexés annuellement. Ainsi, il sera possible d’ajuster uniquement à la baisse le montant des contributions financières prévues à une entente conclue depuis le 1^er janvier 2025, par exemple. Si un promoteur a déjà payé un montant plus élevé, l’excédent pourra lui être remboursé.

Enfin, le Règlement élimine la catégorie distincte des logements abordables dorénavant incluse à l’exigence de logements hors marché. Les ententes conclues peuvent donc retirer ces engagements et les contributions versées à ce titre peuvent être réclamées, dans la mesure où certaines conditions sont satisfaites.

Dorénavant, les exigences liées aux logements abordables et aux logements sociaux sont regroupées en une seule obligation : pour les projets résidentiels qui demeurent assujettis au RMM, 20 % de la superficie résidentielle du volet privé devra être réservée à des logements dits hors marché. Cette nouvelle règle s’applique à partir du 1^er avril 2026, en principe sans effet sur les ententes déjà conclues, sous réserve des dispositions transitoires permettant leur modification.

Incidence sur les promoteurs du nouveau Règlement 20-041-16 de la Ville de Montréal

Dans son ensemble, le Règlement vise à favoriser le développement résidentiel et les partenariats entre les entreprises privées et les organismes à but non lucratif. Considérant que plusieurs modifications réduisent les contributions financières exigées des promoteurs, la Ville de Montréal souhaite ainsi encourager l’abordabilité des projets résidentiels en diminuant le fardeau financier imputable aux promoteurs.

Par exemple, l’abrogation de la section relative aux logements abordables octroie alors une plus grande malléabilité dans les projets immobiliers futurs, de sorte à inciter les promoteurs à respecter les exigences de cession de logements plutôt que de simplement prévoir « absorber la pénalité » de la contribution financière exigible.

Par ailleurs, pour répondre aux objectifs de mixité sociale du RMM, le Règlement simplifie les exigences pour permettre aux promoteurs de faire preuve de créativité au niveau du financement et de favoriser ainsi la conclusion d’ententes prévoyant la construction de logements hors marché.

En outre, en plafonnant et en stabilisant les contributions financières, le Règlement entend donner un nouvel élan au marché immobilier montréalais, notamment pour les projets plus modestes qui ne seront désormais plus soumis aux exigences du RMM.

BLG peut vous aider

Si ces changements réglementaires soulèvent des questions quant à leur application ou à leur incidence sur vos projets, consultez l’équipe du bureau de Montréal de notre groupe Droit municipal afin de bien en tirer avantage.

Les auteurs tiennent à remercier Blanche Proulx pour sa contribution à cet article.

Misrepresentation of academic qualifications is just cause

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 Z

The Alberta Court of King’s Bench recently released its decision in Tudor v Accurate Screen Ltd., 2026 ABKB 237 (Tudor v Accurate). In the decision, Justice Yamauchi dismissed Mr. Tudor’s claim against his former employer Accurate Screen for wrongful dismissal and held that Accurate Screen had just cause to terminate the employment relationship after it had discovered an intentional misrepresentation of academic qualifications Mr. Tudor’s resume. Justice Yamauchi held that “Embellishing one’s academic qualifications is not a mere error in judgment. It goes to the very heart of one’s moral compass and ultimately their abilities.”

The facts

In March of 2023, Accurate Screen issued a job posting for the role of Vice President of Business Development. The job posting stated that an undergraduate degree in Business Administration, or a related field, was required and ideally, an applicant would also possess an MBA. After seeing the job posting, Mr. Tudor submitted a resume. On that resume, Mr. Tudor stated that he was currently in the process of completing an MBA at the University of McGill.

At the time Mr. Tudor submitted the resume to Accurate Screen, he did not have an undergraduate degree in business administration. Further, despite representing that he would be completing an MBA program in November 2023, at the time, Mr. Tudor was not enrolled in any MBA courses, he was not in the process of completing any MBA courses, and he had not taken any MBA courses. Mr. Tudor had only made an online account with the University of McGill by registering as a customer.

During his employment Mr. Tudor was asked to work on a forecasting project, which required the use of statistical and quantitative analysis. During Mr. Tudor’s work on the forecasting project, Accurate Screen began to have concerns regarding Mr. Tudor’s abilities related to statistical and quantitative analysis.

As a result, Accurate Screen’s President began to investigate Mr. Tudor’s education. This involved several meetings, during one of which, Mr. Tudor told Accurate screen’s president Mr. Hilsenteger that he had taken “a couple of courses, a couple of years ago”. This was also untrue.

As a result, Accurate Screen terminated Mr. Tudor with cause.

The decision

In assessing the nature and extent of the misconduct, Justice Yamauchi determined Mr. Tudor knowingly falsified his employment application with the express intention of deceiving his soon to be employer, Accurate Screen. Justice Yamauchi stated that “At the time he penned the resume, Mr. Tudor was not enrolled in any MBA courses, he was not in the process of completing any MBA courses, he had not taken any MBA courses, and he had not even applied for entry into an MBA programme. The representation in the Resume was not an innocent misrepresentation.”

In considering the surrounding circumstances, Justice Yamauchi determined that an executive level employee must be patently honest with their employer. Mr. Tudor was not. As a secondary consideration, Justice Yamauchi determined that if Mr. Tudor had the educational qualifications he held himself out to have, he would have possessed the skills to complete the forecasting project that had been assigned to him.

When assessing whether termination was a proportionate response, Justice Yamauchi rejected Mr. Tudor’s argument that Accurate Screen should have conducted a deep dive into Mr. Tudor’s qualifications. He also ruled that further training would not be the answer to a lack of the educational qualifications and skills through same Mr. Tudor was supposed to have based on his resume.

Having been satisfied that termination was a proportionate response, Justice Yamauchi dismissed Mr. Tudor’s action for wrongful dismissal. Just cause is a high bar, and Justice Yamauchi’s decision to dismiss Mr. Tudor’s claim speaks to the unique circumstances of the case. The decision offers an employer peace of mind that and they would be entitled to rely upon the representations made to them by a job applicant. Justice Yamauchi’s decision is important because had Mr. Tudor been successful employers would have been left with minimal recourse after having discovered any misrepresentations to them in the hiring process.

Takeaways

Honesty is the foundation upon which every employment relationship is built. When an employee is dishonest, it erodes the trust that makes a productive employment relationship possible. That is the reason that the courts have recognized that dishonesty may justify termination for cause.

While proving just cause is difficult, this case confirms that the misrepresentation of academic qualifications may lead to a breakdown of the employment relationship. However, even in cases where academic qualifications have been misrepresented, a consideration of all of the surrounding circumstances is necessary to determine whether an employer has just cause.

BLG was counsel to Accurate Screen in its successful defence to Mr. Tudor’s claim.

Employees on leave during an asset acquisition: What Brandt v. Morasse means for employers

Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:00:00 Z

Employees on leave can be out of sight, but shouldn't be out of mind

In Brandt Tractor Ltd. v. Morasse, 2026 ONSC 992, the Ontario Divisional Court upheld findings of discrimination where an acquiring employer systematically excluded employees on leave from its hiring process during an asset transaction. While the transaction occurred on an expedited timeline and the acquiring employer applied its approach identically to all employees on leave (regardless of the reason for leave), the Court confirmed that these factors do not insulate an employer from human rights liability.

Key takeaways

Brandt v. Morasse is a clear reminder that human rights obligations do not pause during business transitions. Employers involved in acquisitions, mergers, or restructurings must ensure that employees on protected leaves are meaningfully considered when making employment-related decisions.

A purchaser cannot outsource its human rights obligations to a predecessor, hide behind a tight timeline, or rely on a uniformly applied discriminatory policy; there will be a cost to doing so. For Brandt, it was over $50,000 in damages, mandatory training for its HR team, and ongoing litigation exposure. That expense is avoidable, but it requires employers to account for human rights considerations in transaction planning from the outset.

Background: When an acquiring employer excludes employees on leave from hiring

Ms. Morasse was an employee of Nortrax Canada Inc. for five years. She was on maternity leave when Nortrax sold substantially all of its assets to Brandt in a transaction that was completed, from beginning to end, in fewer than three months.

Brandt hired all but 30 of Nortrax’s 650 employees. Notably, neither Ms. Morasse nor any of the Nortrax employees who were on leave during the asset transfer were contacted, interviewed, or offered positions by Brandt. Instead, while at home on maternity leave, Ms. Morasse was notified that her employment with Nortrax was terminated because Brandt “[did] not have a position available” for her.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) found that Brandt discriminated against Ms. Morasse based on sex and family status. Brandt sought judicial review to set aside the Tribunal’s decision.

Ultimately, the Divisional Court upheld the findings made by the HRTO as reasonable.

The Divisional Court's reasoning: Upholding human rights obligations in an asset acquisition

Successor status does not shield employers from liability

Brandt argued that the Tribunal erred in keeping it as a named party because it was never Ms. Morasse’s employer, and therefore could not be liable. The Divisional Court rejected that argument.

The Court agreed with the Tribunal’s reasoning that, while prior cases had limited the ability to add successor employers to human rights proceedings, those decisions involved successors that entered the picture years after the alleged discrimination had occurred, and thus, had no involvement in the underlying events. This case was materially different.

The evidence showed that Brandt was directly involved in the hiring decisions that excluded Ms. Morasse. Brandt obtained Nortrax’s HR files, consulted with local managers, and participated in a “heavily cooperative process” to decide which employees would receive offers. Further, Ms. Morasse’s termination letter expressly confirmed that her employment with Nortrax was ending precisely because Brandt did not offer her a position. In the circumstances, Brandt could not credibly be characterized as a successor with “nothing to do” with the complaint.

The Court emphasized that “Brandt’s status as a successor organization played no role in the determination that it was a proper party. Rather, it was Brandt’s own allegedly discriminatory conduct in its hiring process that grounded that determination.”

Knowledge of protected status

Brandt argued that it did not know Morasse was on maternity leave, and therefore her protected status could not have influenced the hiring decision. The Court rejected this on two independent grounds:

Brandt “knew or ought to have known” that a policy excluding all employees on leave from the interview process would disproportionately affect individuals on protected leaves. Given its access to HR files and active role in selecting hires, Brandt could not avoid liability by “turning a blind eye” to the discriminatory impact of its policy; and
More significantly, Brandt admitted in oral evidence that it chose not to interview Ms. Morasse because she was on a leave of absence and was “not immediately available.” This admission contradicted Brandt's assertion that the decision was grounded solely in business reasons and established a clear sequence of events: Ms. Morasse was on maternity and parental leave, her exclusion from the interview process therefore flowed directly from her protected leave, which resulted in no offer from Brandt, and ultimately, the termination of her employment by Nortrax.

The Court held that this admission established a clear nexus between Ms. Morasse’s maternity leave and the adverse impact. In doing so, the Court reiterated that the protected ground need only be a factor, not the sole factor, in the decision that led to the adverse impact.

Identical treatment is not the same as equal treatment

Finally, Brandt argued that its policy was non‑discriminatory because it was applied uniformly to all employees on leave. The Court rejected this submission, reiterating that identical treatment can still result in inequality if it has a disparate impact on protected groups. The fact that the policy was framed in neutral terms and applied consistently did not insulate it from scrutiny.

Further, since Brandt had expressly admitted that Ms. Morasse was excluded from the interview process because she was on leave, and therefore unavailable to be interviewed, the causal link between the policy and the protected ground was direct and explicit. As a result, the uniform application of the policy did not shield Brandt from liability.

What Brandt v. Morasse means for employers

Where a successor employer is directly involved in hiring decisions or works closely with the predecessor in selecting employees, it may be held liable for discriminatory outcomes.
Employees on protected leave must be actively considered by employers in decision-making processes. Excluding them simply because they are on leave creates significant risk exposure, regardless of intent.
A uniformly applied rule will not withstand scrutiny if it disproportionately affects individuals on protected grounds. Courts will focus on impact, not just consistency.
Where information about an employee’s protected status is accessible and the employer is involved in the decision-making process, knowledge may be inferred. This is particularly the case where the information within the employer’s knowledge (in this case the knowledge that the employee is on leave) should cause the employer to question whether a protected ground is engaged.
In the context of acquisitions or restructurings, time pressure does not justify excluding or failing to consider employees on protected leave.
Discrimination does not require that a protected ground be the sole or primary reason for the decision. It is sufficient if it played any part in the adverse impact.

Canada’s AML Shift: Preparing for Universal Enrolment, Higher Penalties and FINTRAC Enforcement

Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:00:00 Z

Amendments to Canada’s Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA), summarized in our previous bulletin, Canada’s New Border Bill to Combat Money Laundering, and introduced by Bill C-12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada’s borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures (Bill C-12), received royal assent on March 26, 2026. The amendments substantially increase administrative monetary penalties (AMPs), introduce universal enrolment, requiring all reporting entities subject to the PCMLTFA to register with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), and raise overall compliance expectations, fundamentally changing how businesses must approach anti-money laundering risk and enforcement.

Universal Enrolment: All reporting entities must register with FINTRAC

While not yet in effect, Bill C-12 sets out the universal enrolment framework that will require all reporting entities subject to the PCMLTFA to apply and enrol with FINTRAC in a prescribed form for a prescribed period. Bill C-12 also provides a renewal process for such enrolment. Future regulations will provide more clarity as to the substance and manner in which the enrolment framework will be implemented.

The enrolment framework represents an expansion of the existing registration requirements which are currently only applicable to domestic and foreign money service businesses. Once in force on a date that is to be set by Order in Council, all reporting entities will be required to abide by the new requirements, which incorporate ongoing obligations such as notifying FINTRAC of any change in information within 30 days after the day on which the reporting entity becomes aware of the change or obtains the new information.

AML Compliance Programs

As summarized in our previous bulletin, reporting entities must ensure their compliance programs are “reasonably designed, risk-based and effective.” This compliance standard requires anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing policies to be tailored to the specific risk and operations of the reporting entity – simply copying and pasting FINTRAC guidance or using generic templates is not sufficient. Compliance programs must be functional and defensible, particularly considering heightened enforcement powers and compliance expectations.

Significant AMPs and FINTRAC Enforcement

Bill C-12 increases AMPs that FINTRAC may impose for contravention of the PCMLTFA by a factor of forty. Minor violations can result in penalties up to $40,000, serious violations up to $4,000,000, and very serious violations up to $20,000,000. For multiple violations, cumulative penalties are capped at the greater of $20 million or 3 per cent of a reporting entity’s gross global revenue (where revenue exceeds $20 million). For individuals, the cap is the greater of $4,000,000 or 3 per cent of their gross global income from the prior year.

Bill C‑12 also amends the criteria FINTRAC considers when determining the amount of an AMP for violations that do not have a fixed penalty amount. Additionally, FINTRAC will be required to consider the ability of the individual or entity to pay the AMP.

Bill C-12 implements transitional provisions for violations that will determine whether the pre-Bill C-12 AMP framework, or the Bill C-12 AMP framework will be applied. If the violation is committed before March 26, 2026, the pre-Bill C-12 AMP framework is to be considered. If the violation is committed after March 26, 2026, the Bill C-12 AMP framework would apply.

Bill C‑12 is accompanied by a shift in FINTRAC’s enforcement approach, reflected in both supervisory guidance and updated AMP policy. As summarized in our bulletin, Changes to FINTRAC Supervision Model and Penalty Policy, FINTRAC signalled a more assertive and outcomes‑focused approach to supervision. Taken together with the increased AMPs, these developments underscore the importance of demonstrably risk‑based and defensible compliance programs.

Further to the passing of Bill C-12, on April 13, 2026, FINTRAC published a modernization update, Modernization and upcoming changes impacting reporting entities, setting out a centralized roadmap detailing how and when the resulting legislative and regulatory changes will apply to reporting entities under the PCMLTFA. FINTRAC will be updating its AMP policy and developing accompanying guidance to assist reporting entities subject to the PCMLTFA in complying with their applicable obligations when the amendments come into force.

Next Steps

Regulations containing the substance of the legal requirements are expected to be published in spring 2026. Bill C-12 will come into force using a phased implementation approach, as detailed in the FINTRAC roadmap published in its above-referenced modernization guidance. Reporting entities must ensure readiness for each stage once the new obligations take effect.

Contact us

For more information on these updates to Canada’s anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing legislation, please reach out to the key contacts below or any lawyer from BLG’s Banking & Financial Services Group.

Dix faits saillants fiscaux de la Mise à jour économique du printemps de 2026 du Canada

Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:00:00 Z

Le 28 avril 2026, François-Philippe Champagne, le ministre des Finances et du Revenu national, a présenté la Mise à jour économique du printemps 2026 du Canada (la « Mise à jour économique »). BLG relève pour vous ses principales propositions en matière d’impôt sur le revenu.

Mesures fiscales visant les sociétés

1. Maintien permanent de l’exonération des gains en capital pour les fiducies collectives des employés

Les fiducies collectives des employés (les « FCE ») offrent une option additionnelle de planification de la relève aux propriétaires de sociétés fermées à l’aube de la retraite. Bien qu’elle ait été présentée en 2023, la loi autorisant les FCE n’a été promulguée qu’en juin 2024.

Les particuliers (sauf les fiducies) ont actuellement droit à une exonération d’impôt allant jusqu’à 10 M$ sur les gains en capital réalisés à la vente d’une entreprise à une FCE ou à une coopérative de travailleurs, sous réserve de certaines conditions. La mesure devait arriver à échéance à la fin de 2026. La Mise à jour économique rendra cette exonération permanente. Comme il faut souvent plusieurs mois, voire plusieurs années, pour préparer la cession d’une entreprise à une FCE, cette annonce est de très bon aloi. Pour en savoir plus sur les FCE, reportez-vous à notre article sur le sujet (en anglais seulement).

2. Élargissement du crédit d’impôt pour le captage, l’utilisation et le stockage du carbone pour y inclure la récupération assistée des hydrocarbures

Au cours des dernières années, le Canada a mis en place divers crédits d’impôt à l’investissement (des « CII ») dans l’économie « propre » pour soutenir la transition du pays vers une économie à zéro émission nette (voir notre publication précédente [en anglais seulement] pour en savoir plus sur ces crédits).

Le CII pour le captage, l’utilisation et le stockage du carbone (le « CUSC ») permet aux contribuables qui entreprennent un projet admissible de bénéficier d’un crédit pouvant atteindre 60 % de leurs dépenses reconnues de captage, de transport, d’emploi ou de stockage du CO₂ dont l’usage final est jugé acceptable. À l’heure actuelle, les « utilisations admissibles » du CO₂ capté se limitent au stockage géologique dédié et à la production de béton.

La Mise à jour économique propose d’y ajouter, à compter du 28 avril 2026, la récupération assistée des hydrocarbures (la « RAH »), sous réserve que le CO₂ injecté reste stocké de manière perpétuelle. Le matériel de captage et de transport d’un projet de CUSC reconnu servant à stocker du CO₂ au moyen de la RAH serait donc admissible au crédit d’impôt, tout comme l’équipement requis pour injecter et emmagasiner le CO₂ selon la même méthode (à moins que ce matériel serve uniquement ou presque à la production d’hydrocarbures).

Bien que les taux effectifs du crédit de taxe sur les intrants (le « CTI ») liés au stockage de CO₂ par RAH ne représenteront que la moitié de ceux applicables aux autres utilisations admissibles du CO₂ (soit un maximum de 30 % plutôt que de 60 %), ce soutien fiscal notable pour un secteur de premier plan de l’économie du Canada contribuera à renforcer la concurrentialité de l’industrie canadienne par rapport à son homologue américaine. Il faudra attendre des précisions supplémentaires de Ressources naturelles Canada pour connaître les paramètres exacts de cette initiative.

3. DPA accéléré pour les installations de GNL à faibles émissions de carbone

L’automne dernier, le budget de 2025 proposait de rétablir les déductions pour amortissement accéléré (les « DPA accéléré ») pour l’équipement de gaz naturel liquéfié (le « GNL ») admissible et des immeubles connexes pour les installations de GNL à faibles émissions de carbone. La Mise à jour économique présente les modalités de mise en œuvre de cette mesure.

Le taux de DPA accéléré serait de 50 % pour l’équipement de liquéfaction de la catégorie 47 et de 10 % pour les bâtiments non résidentiels de la catégorie 1 utilisés dans les installations de GNL. De plus, les installations de GNL seraient en mesure de bénéficier de la déduction bonifiée la première année au titre de l’incitatif à l’investissement accéléré pour les immobilisations admissibles.

Pour avoir droit aux taux de DPA accéléré pour les actifs admissibles d’une installation de GNL donnée, il faudrait d’abord demander la certification de ladite installation en soumettant un rapport unique au ministre de l’Énergie et des Ressources naturelles, qui l’accorderait et trancherait la question du droit d’accès à la mesure selon l’intensité prévue des émissions de carbone et l’information contenue dans le rapport.

Pour les installations de GNL certifiées, les taux de DPA accéléré seraient accordés pour les biens admissibles acquis entre le 4 novembre 2025 et la fin de 2034.

4. Réduction du taux de cotisation au RPC de base

Afin d’alléger la charge financière des employés et des employeurs, le taux de cotisation de base au Régime de pensions du Canada (le « RPC »), actuellement fixé à 9,9 % (4,95 % à la charge de l’employeur et 4,95 % à celle de l’employé), diminuerait de 0,5 % pour atteindre 9,4 % à compter du 1^er janvier 2027.

5. Priorisation des demandes de décision anticipée en matière d’impôt sur le revenu

Pour confirmer d’emblée le traitement fiscal que subirait une opération majeure envisagée, les contribuables sollicitent souvent l’Agence du revenu du Canada (l’« ARC ») pour qu’elle prenne des décisions anticipées et exécutoires en matière d’impôt. Désormais, l’ARC priorisera les demandes concernant :

les grands projets d’intérêt national;
les projets d’importance nationale;
les investissements qui accroissent la productivité et renforcent des secteurs névralgiques de l’économie canadienne.

Mesures fiscales visant les particuliers

6. Accès facilité au crédit d’impôt pour personnes handicapées (le « CIPH »)

Le CIPH procure un important allègement fiscal aux gens en situation de handicap, et l’admissibilité à ce crédit constitue l’un des principaux critères à remplir pour avoir droit à d’autres mesures de soutien, notamment la Prestation canadienne pour les personnes handicapées. À l’heure actuelle, un professionnel de la santé reconnu doit non seulement attester le handicap, mais aussi confirmer avec détails à l’appui qu’il est grave et prolongé, et qu’il a une incidence significative sur les activités quotidiennes de la personne. La tâche de remplir les formulaires requis est généralement longue et fastidieuse pour les médecins et les autres praticiens de la santé.

Afin de réduire cette charge de travail, le gouvernement mettra en place une procédure simplifiée de demande de CIPH dès 2026 pour les personnes souffrant de certains problèmes de santé répertoriés. Pour les autres problèmes médicaux, le professionnel de la santé devra continuer à certifier l’admissibilité au CIPH.

La liste des professionnels habilités à le faire a également été élargie pour inclure les podiatres. De plus, les tuteurs, fiduciaires et curateurs publics provinciaux ou territoriaux pourront attester, sur le formulaire de demande du CIPH, qu’un particulier adulte sous leur tutelle aux biens possède un certificat d’incapacité valide (ou un document équivalent) émis par un professionnel de la santé conformément aux lois provinciales ou territoriales applicables encadrant la détermination de la capacité d’une personne à prendre des décisions. Pour les dossiers assujettis à la Loi sur les Indiens, Services aux Autochtones Canada et Relations Couronne-Autochtones et Affaires du Nord Canada auront cette même possibilité.

Avec une telle confirmation, il ne serait plus nécessaire pour un professionnel de la santé reconnu d’attester la déficience du particulier qui présente une demande de CIPH. Dans tous les cas, l’ARC pourra continuer à exiger des renseignements supplémentaires afin de vérifier l’admissibilité de la personne.

7. Bonification de la déduction pour la mobilité de la main-d’œuvre pour les gens de métier

Actuellement, un ouvrier du bâtiment remplissant les conditions requises peut déduire jusqu’à 4 000 $ par an en frais de déménagement (déplacements, repas et hébergement). Pour pouvoir bénéficier d’un tel avantage, la personne doit, entre autres, déménager pour une durée limitée dans un logement situé au moins 150 km plus près de son lieu de travail temporaire que ne l’est son domicile officiel.

La Mise à jour économique propose de faire passer à 10 000 $ par année la limite de déduction (avec indexation annuelle par la suite) et de réduire la distance minimale requise à 120 km. Cette mesure s’appliquera à compter de l’année d’imposition 2026.

8. Prolongation du délai de grâce du Régime d’accession à la propriété

Les fonds retirés d’un régime enregistré d’épargne-retraite (un « REER ») sont généralement imposables, sauf lorsqu’il s’agit d’une somme maximale de 60 000 $ prélevée dans le cadre du Régime d’accession à la propriété (le « RAP ») pour l’achat d’une maison. Les montants retirés au titre du RAP doivent être remboursés à un REER dans un délai maximal de 15 ans, à compter de la deuxième année suivant celle du premier retrait.

Le budget de 2024 a augmenté temporairement de deux à cinq ans la période où les participants qui ont fait un premier retrait entre le 1^er janvier 2022 et le 31 décembre 2025 n’avaient pas à effectuer de remboursement. Pour répondre aux préoccupations persistantes entourant l’abordabilité, la Mise à jour économique suggère d’étendre ce délai de grâce de cinq ans aux personnes qui retireront une première somme jusqu’à la fin de 2028.

Autres annonces

9. Consultation dans le secteur de la bienfaisance

La Mise à jour économique reconnaît que le secteur caritatif et les organismes non gouvernementaux constituent un moteur important de l’économie canadienne, créent des emplois bien rémunérés et renforcent le filet de sécurité sociale.

Misant sur les progrès réalisés en matière de technologie et de numérisation, le gouvernement cherchera à moderniser le cadre régissant les organisations de bienfaisance en 2026-2027. Il mènera d’abord des consultations auprès d’intervenants clés et d’entités concernées afin de recueillir leur rétroaction et de s’inspirer des pratiques exemplaires adoptées par les autres pays du G7.

10. Intention confirmée de mettre en œuvre des mesures précédemment annoncées

Le gouvernement a réitéré son intention d’aller de l’avant avec bon nombre de mesures fiscales déjà communiquées. Vous trouverez la liste complète sur le site Web du gouvernement du Canada.

BLG peut vous aider

Si vous avez des questions concernant les répercussions des modifications proposées dans la Mise à jour économique du printemps de 2026, n’hésitez pas à contacter le groupe Droit fiscal de BLG ou l’une des personnes-ressources mentionnées ci-dessous.

Anti-SLAPP and malicious prosecution: Section 137.1 in the context of an alleged sexual assault

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:00:00 Z

In Emma Joyce Jansen et al v. J.T et al, 2026 ONSC 1304, the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario considered the test under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (CJA) in the context of an action for malicious prosecution involving a complaint of sexual assault by a minor.

Key takeaways

In motions under section 137.1 of the CJA, the motion judge does not conduct a deep dive into the record; instead, they conduct a limited weighing of the evidence.
In determining whether the expression relates to a matter of public interest, there is no qualitative assessment of the expression; it does not matter whether it is valuable or vexatious.
An allegation of sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust relates to an issue of public interest, and is plainly worthy of protection.
Generally, the complainant who reports a sexual assault will not be considered the entity who initiates the prosecution for the purposes of an allegation in malicious prosecution.

The case: Sexual assault complaint and acquittal lead to malicious prosecution claim

In 2022, the defendant, J.T., made a complaint to the Durham Regional Police Service alleging that the plaintiff, who was a teacher’s aide at the time, sexually assaulted them. Following these allegations an investigation ensued, and the plaintiff was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference.

At her criminal trial, the plaintiff was acquitted, with the trial judge finding J.T.’s evidence to be “fabricated or contrived,” while the plaintiff’s evidence was found to be “reliable and credible.” Following her acquittal, the plaintiff commenced an action against multiple defendants, including allegations for malicious prosecution against J.T.

In response to the plaintiff’s claim, J.T. brought an anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Court ruling: Anti-SLAPP motion granted under section 137.1

J.T.’s motion was granted, with the plaintiff’s claim and associated crossclaims being dismissed against them.

The function of section 137.1 of the CJAis to screen out lawsuits that unduly limit expression on matters of public interest through the identification and pre-trial dismissal of such actions.

The framework for a motion to dismiss under section 137.1 was established by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association, 2020 SCC 22:

There is a burden on the moving party (the defendant in the action) to satisfy the judge that:
1. the proceeding at issue arises from an expression made by the moving party; and
2. the expression relates to a matter of public interest.
Once that is established, the burden shifts to the responding party (the plaintiff in the action) to satisfy the judge that:
1. there are grounds to believe that the proceeding has substantial merit;
2. the moving party has no valid defence; and
3. the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting the expression.

The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that J.T.’s statements were not in the public interest because they were false and misleading. The Court noted that there has been considerable jurisprudence confirming that reports about alleged sexual abuse to the police and regulatory bodies are expressions on a matter of public interest.

The section 137.1 framework: Burden shifting and public interest

The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to provide grounds to believe the proceeding against J.T. for malicious prosecution had substantial merit. The tort of malicious prosecution requires that the proceedings were initiated by the defendant. The Court highlighted that the general rule is that the police officer who laid the charge is considered to have initiated the prosecution. There are exceptions to that rule, and a complainant who reported an event to the police can be found to have initiated a prosecution.

Citing the Court of Appeal’s decision in Konstan v. Berkovits, 2024 ONCA 510, “the question is whether, through knowingly supplying misinformation or withholding evidence, or through other wrongful conduct, the complainant compromised the police investigation and/or the independence of the decision by police to lay charges.”

The Court noted that while J.T. did make a report of sexual abuse to the police, “the police did more than merely accept J.T.’s allegation at face value.” The police conducted an investigation and told J.T. that whether charges would be laid would be the decision of the police, and not J.T.’s decision. Because J.T. did not initiate the prosecution, the plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim lacked substantial merit. This finding alone was sufficient to grant the section 137.1 motion and dismiss the plaintiff’s claim against J.T.

Nevertheless, the Court went on to consider the final step on a motion under section 137.1: whether the public interest in allowing the action to continue due to the harm suffered by the plaintiff outweighs its deleterious effects on expression and public participation.

With respect to the harm suffered by the plaintiff, the Court described the causal link between J.T.’s complaint and the harm to the plaintiff as “tenuous,” since J.T did not initiate the prosecution. Furthermore, unlike other cases where “vindictive adults” made a complaint to police, J.T. was a child when the complaint was made.

The Court found no evidence that J.T. had motive to make a false complaint, nor did they publicize this complaint. The Court also found that permitting the plaintiffs’ action to continue against J.T. would have a chilling effect on victims of sexual assault, and would fly in the face of changes in the law relating to the investigation and prosecution of sexually based offences.

The Court was also critical of the plaintiffs’ strategic decision to commence the claim shortly after J.T.’s eighteenth birthday, which required them to undertake their own defence, rather than be provided with a court-appointed litigation guardian.

Alberta's proposed Expedited 120-Day Approvals Act (Bill 30)

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 00:00:00 Z

Background

In March 2026, Alberta’s Premier and Minister of Energy and Minerals attended CERAWeek, one of the world’s leading energy conferences, where they signaled the Government of Alberta’s intention to accelerate the regulatory approval process and position the province as a reliable alternative to unstable global energy sources. Shortly thereafter, on April 14, 2026, the Government of Alberta tabled Bill 30, the Expedited 120-Day Approvals Act (Bill 30).

Regulatory approvals have long been identified as a source of uncertainty and delay for major projects in Alberta. If passed, Bill 30 will give the provincial cabinet the ability to fast-track regulatory approvals for certain major projects, with the primary goal of accelerating major project development in the energy, mining, and industrial sectors.

Key features of the Expedited 120-Day Approvals Act

At the heart of Bill 30 is the concept of a qualified project. Qualified project designation unlocks the Act's core benefit: a mandatory maximum timeline of 120 business days for decisions to be made on all required project approvals.

To apply for qualified project designation, a proponent must provide certain information to the Minister, including the following:

a description of the project and its anticipated timeline;
the minimum capital spending threshold;
a list of required approvals;
the status of any required environmental impact assessment reports under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act; and
the status of any planned, ongoing, or completed consultations with Indigenous communities.

Notably, Bill 30 does not alter or circumvent any Indigenous consultation or environmental impact assessment required for a project. Instead, the status of these activities will be explicitly considered as part of the application process. Applicants will have to demonstrate that environmental impact assessment and Indigenous consultation processes have reached an appropriately advanced stage before a project can be expedited under the proposed legislation.

Factors considered for designation

When deciding whether to approve or deny an application for qualified project designation, the Minister may consider a broad range of factors, including:

whether the project strategically aligns with the Government's priorities, goals and outcomes;
whether the project is of strategic importance to Alberta's economy through increased economic activity, investment, jobs, and Government revenue;
whether the project benefits outweigh any residual impacts;
whether the project’s minimum capital spending threshold exceeds $250 million; and
whether the project advances national and provincial security by recognizing provincial autonomy.

Approval, continuance or rescission of designation

If a proponent’s application is approved, an order will be issued designating the project as a qualified project and identifying all required approvals. These orders will trigger the mandatory 120-business day timeline within which all listed approval decisions must be made.

While Bill 30 mandates that approval decisions be made within 120 business days, it does not mandate all approvals be granted. Proponents should not treat designation as a shortcut past substantive regulatory requirements, but rather as a mechanism to impose decisional discipline on regulators.

Notably, the proposed legislation does not currently contemplate any enforcement mechanisms applicable to regulators that fail to make approval decisions within the mandated timeline. If enacted, future regulations made under the legislation may introduce accountability measures or procedural consequences to backstop the timeline requirements, but such regulations are not guaranteed.

Bill 30 also contemplates the possibility that additional approval requirements may arise following the initial qualified project designation and allows for a continuation of the designation where necessary.

However, proponents should be aware that designation is not irrevocable. If the project is materially affected by extraordinary circumstances, the qualified project designation can be rescinded. Bill 30 does not define "extraordinary circumstances," leaving this up to ministerial discretion.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Government of Alberta expects the acceleration of project approvals to lead to increased investments, bolstered production, and greater access to international markets.

While introducing Bill 30 in the Alberta Legislature, Minister Brian Jean indicated that in the past year approximately $12 billion in capital investments from Canadian-based energy companies has been lost to the United States as a result of uncertain and inefficient approval processes. This piece of legislation is intended to signal the province’s commitment to getting important major projects built in Alberta.

BLG will continue to monitor the progress of Bill 30 as it receives further consideration by the Alberta legislature and will provide further updates as they become available. Our infrastructure, construction, and major projects lawyers are available to answer questions about how Alberta’s Bill 30 may affect those in the industry.

Reach out to any of the key contacts below for assistance.

Lease remedies clauses can limit prospective rent claims after termination

Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 Z

More than 50 years after Highway Properties Ltd. v. Kelly, Douglas and Co. Ltd. established the modern framework for commercial landlord remedies, Canadian courts are revisiting how far those remedies extend in current leasing disputes.

This past March the Ontario Court of Appeal in Highbury Narrows Ltd. v. LAF Canada Company considered whether specific provisions of a lease limit a landlord’s ability to recover prospective rent after termination. In Highbury, the Ontario Court of Appeal determined that this commercial landlord’s right to claim future rent after terminating a lease was limited due to the specific provisions in its lease. The lease gave the landlord two distinct options following tenant default: terminate the lease or keep it in force and recover rent as it became due. The Court held that, on the specific wording, the claim for future rent ceased to be available once the landlord terminated.

What you need to know

This is a remedies case first and foremost. The decision does not suggest that claims for future rent are no longer possible. Rather, it confirms that remedy determination begins with analysis of the actual lease provisions agreed upon by the parties.
Election is determinative. The lease gave the landlord two paths following tenant default: terminate the lease, or keep the lease alive and recover rent as it came due. As a result of the landlord proceeding with termination, the Court held the second path, pursuit of future rent, was no longer available.
General “law and equity” language may not be enough. The Court rejected the argument that a general reservation of “other remedies available at law or in equity” preserved a claim for future rent where the more specific lease wording pointed the other way.
Landlords should consider their business strategies when acting on a default. Is the landlord’s primary goal to obtain vacant possession of the premises, or to receive the future rent for the balance of the term.

Background

Highbury Narrows Ltd., the landlord, sued LAF Canada Company, the tenant, and LA Fitness International, LLC, as indemnitor, for default to pay rent under its lease. After terminating the lease, the landlord sought further remedies, including the arrears, future rent for the balance of the term, pool-removal costs and post-termination maintenance-related amounts.

Key facts

The Tenant defaulted in rent payments under a commercial lease. After default, the Landlord terminated the lease and sought arrears, prospective rent for the remainder of the term, pool-removal costs, maintenance-related expenses, signage-related expenses and costs.
Section 19.2 of the lease provided that, upon default, the Landlord had the option either to: (A) terminate the lease and the Tenant’s rights, or (B) keep the lease in effect and recover rent and other charges “as they become due”. Section 19.3 reinforced that if the Landlord did not elect termination, it could recover rental as it became due or relet the premises without terminating the lease.

The motion judge interpreted these provisions as limiting the Landlord, on termination, to rent and expenses due at the date of termination plus a fixed penalty amount, and not prospective rent. The Court of Appeal upheld that interpretation.

The decision in brief

The Court read the lease as creating a deliberate distinction between termination remedies and continuation remedies. If the landlord terminated, it was limited to the amounts the lease specifically made available on termination. If the landlord kept the lease in force, it could continue to recover rent as it became due. On that reading, the lease did not preserve a claim for prospective rent after termination, despite its general reference to other remedies available at law or in equity. The Court stated this general language was not without meaning: it could still capture other remedies, such as injunctive relief or distress, even though it did not preserve a future-rent claim here.

The Court also confirmed that Highway Properties did not create an automatic right to future rent in every commercial lease dispute. It established that such a claim may be available, depending on the specific working of the lease.

Why this matters now

Commercial landlords, tenants and their advisors should keep Highbury in mind when assessing post-default remedy options. The decision reinforces that the Courts will closely examine the remedial structure set out in the lease and will hold parties to what was negotiated and agreed upon by the parties.

This update also comes at a time when the commercial lease remedies are under active judicial consideration. On February 18, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada heard Aphria Inc. v. Canada Life Assurance Company, et al. and reserved judgment on whether a commercial landlord that refuses to accept a tenant’s repudiation and keeps the lease alive must mitigate its losses. We previously wrote on the Court of Appeal decision in July 2025. The Supreme Court’s decision in Aphria is expected in fall 2026. Together, Highbury and Aphria underscore that remedy selection, lease drafting and post-default strategy remain central issues in commercial leasing disputes.

Practical takeaway

Highbury is a reminder to carefully review the lease as part of your business strategies when considering your remedies after a tenant defaults.

Riddle v. Ivari: SCC rules on the annulment of a declaration of death in life insurance claims

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 00:00:00 Z

On April 10, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) clarified procedural rules and provided guidance on the evidentiary burden for seeking the annulment of a declaratory judgment of death. The Court confirmed that the declaratory judgment of death, also called a declaration of death, is a fiction that has to yield to evidence of the return of a person, and explained what this return meant within the meaning of the Civil Code of Québec (CCQ). The Court also confirmed the rules pertaining to service to declared deceased individuals of proceedings for annulment of their own declaratory judgement of death.

Context

One day, Ms. Riddle’s husband told her that he was leaving on a business trip to Toronto – and he never returned. Evidence later revealed that Ms. Riddle’s husband had left the country to ultimately flee to Iran. Eight years after this date, as provided by the CCQ, Ms. Riddle requested a declaratory judgment of death to the Superior Court, and although Ivari opposed in its capacity of life insurer of Ms. Riddle’s husband, the Court issued such declaratory judgment of death.

Ivari therefore filed its own originating application in annulment of the declaratory judgment of death. Ivari did not serve its proceedings to Ms. Riddle’s husband, presumably deceased.

The trial judge and the Court of Appeal both concluded that Ivari had met the burden of proof of establishing the return of Ms. Riddle’s husband.

Ruling

While considering that the failure to serve the proceedings upon Ms. Riddle’s husband constitutes a breach of the guiding principles of Canadian law, which should not be trivialized, the Court unanimously found that the failure to serve in this case did not compromise the integrity of the judicial process, nor create prejudice that would warrant for the nullity of the decisions.

The Court confirmed that the underlying principles to the notion of service are associated with universal fairness and the rights of being heard, both of which cannot be disregarded by applying the principle of proportionality (Article 18 C.C.P.). Ultimately, the Court explained that the breach of the obligation to serve will be sanctioned in relation to the context of the breach, and of the consequence of the failure for the parties as well as the judicial process itself. In most cases, the breach of service will undermine the integrity of the judicial system, but not in this case, given the absence of prejudice of the presumably deceased.

Invited by Ms. Riddle to pronounce that the person seeking the annulment of the declaratory judgment of death needs to provide certain and unquestionable proof that the person presumed death is currently alive, the Court rather confirmed that unless another burden of proof is indicated by the Québec legislator (in the Code or Statutes), the applicable burden of proof to civil proceedings remains the balance of probabilities. Qualifying the return as “a person’s active and physical reappearance in a particular place,” the Court found that the trial judge had correctly considered the evidence that Ms. Riddle’s husband was alive after the pronouncing of the declaratory judgment of death.

Takeaway

Riddle v. Ivari serves as a good reminder to Québec practitioners regarding the rules of service of proceedings. The ruling also clarifies the concept of return under the CCQ, and the evidentiary burden to establish this return in the context of proceedings in annulment of a declaratory judgment of death.

DIY with OEO: But first, read the updated CIRO Guidance

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 00:00:00 Z

After an extensive, two-stage consultation by the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO), on March 12, 2026 the self-regulatory agency published the updated Guidance on Order Execution Only (OEO) account services and activities (the Updated OEO Guidance). The Updated OEO Guidance replaces the previously published 2021 Guidance Note 3400 21 003 and addresses the evolving needs of the growing do-it-yourself (DIY) investor population.

For context, BLG’s Sept. 3, 2025 bulletin summarized CIRO’s proposed overhaul of the OEO model, which sought to refine the overly broad recommendation prohibition, expand the permissible scope of decision‑making supports, and introduce principles‑based safeguards to protect investors. The Updated OEO Guidance aligns closely with those proposals, now formally adopting a principles‑based framework and confirming that OEO dealers may offer a broader suite of factual, educational, and tool‑based supports – so long as they avoid endorsing specific investment actions.

La souveraineté des données et le CLOUD Act : ce que les organisations canadiennes doivent savoir

Mon, 13 Apr 2026 00:00:00 Z

La souveraineté des données est redevenue une préoccupation majeure pour les organisations canadiennes, qui doivent composer avec un contexte géopolitique et réglementaire de plus en plus complexe. À l’heure actuelle, on s’inquiète surtout du pouvoir qu’a le gouvernement américain d’accéder aux renseignements personnels des Canadiens et Canadiennes en vertu de son CLOUD Act (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act) de 2018. Fondamentalement, les enjeux entourant la souveraineté des données soulèvent une interrogation pertinente et pressante : dans quelle mesure les États étrangers peuvent-ils avoir accès aux renseignements personnels de la population canadienne qui sont traités par des infrastructures mondiales?

Bien qu’elle soit souvent présentée comme une affaire de lieu de stockage, la souveraineté des données est avant tout une question de contrôle, lequel dépend de l’autorité juridique compétente, de la structure organisationnelle concernée et des relations entretenues avec les prestataires de services. À mesure que le recours à l’infonuagique et aux services d’IA s’intensifie, et que les tensions entre le Canada et son voisin du Sud alimentent le débat entourant les flux transfrontaliers de données, les organisations sont contraintes de revoir leurs croyances de longue date sur la résidence des données, le risque et la conformité.

Le présent article examine les aspects juridiques et pratiques de la souveraineté des données, y compris l’incidence des lois américaines sur l’accès légal aux renseignements, et vise à guider les entreprises canadiennes dans leur évaluation et leur gestion des risques.

Points à retenir

Au Canada, les décisionnaires doivent garder à l’esprit les éléments ci-dessous lorsqu’ils et elles abordent la souveraineté des données dans une conjoncture juridique et géopolitique en pleine évolution.

La souveraineté des données est davantage une question de contrôle que de lieu. Le simple fait de stocker des données au Canada n’empêche pas qu’on puisse y accéder sur la base de lois étrangères; ce qui importe, ce n’est pas l’endroit où se trouve l’information, mais bien qui la contrôle.
La législation américaine demeure un facteur de risque névralgique. En vertu du CLOUD Act, les autorités américaines peuvent contraindre les entreprises basées aux États-Unis et les filiales étrangères sous contrôle américain à leur fournir des données, même si celles-ci sont stockées au Canada et ne concernent pas des personnes américaines.
La structure organisationnelle et le contrôle opérationnel sont déterminants. Les entités canadiennes entièrement détenues et gérées au Canada ne sont généralement pas assujetties au CLOUD Act. Par contre, les filiales canadiennes contrôlées de façon notable par une société mère américaine peuvent être soumises aux obligations d’accès légal imposées par les États-Unis.
Il faut adopter une approche axée sur les risques, la responsabilité juridique, la sensibilité des données et la réalité du terrain. Les organisations devraient évaluer conjointement leur exposition aux législations étrangères, plutôt que d’appliquer des règles de localisation universelles.
Les EFVP sont de plus en plus courantes. Au Québec en particulier, le transfert de renseignements personnels hors de la province entraîne l’obligation légale de réaliser une évaluation des facteurs relatifs à la vie privée (EFVP) pour analyser, entre autres, le cadre juridique étranger applicable.
La transparence est de rigueur. Les organisations doivent clairement informer les entités concernées lorsque des données à caractère personnel sont susceptibles d’être traitées à l’extérieur du Canada ou d’être consultées par des tribunaux ou des pouvoirs étrangers.
La minimisation et la conservation restreinte des données réduisent l’exposition au risque. Le fait de ne collecter que l’information indispensable, de privilégier les ensembles de données cryptées, dépersonnalisées ou anonymisées, et de détruire de manière sécurisée tout renseignement désuet limite considérablement le risque d’accès par des tiers.

Considérations juridiques relatives à la souveraineté des données

La « souveraineté des données » est le principe selon lequel les données collectées, stockées ou autrement traitées au Canada restent principalement soumises à la législation canadienne. Pour les organisations que cette notion touche de près, l’enjeu dépasse le lieu de stockage des données (souvent appelé la « résidence ») et englobe la manière dont le territoire, la structure organisationnelle et le contrôle opérationnel influencent collectivement le risque d’accès légal que représentent les gouvernements étrangers.

L’applicabilité du CLOUD Act se retrouve au cœur de l’analyse de ces questions, car cette loi autorise les autorités américaines à exiger qu’on leur communique des données en la possession, sous la garde ou sous le contrôle de sociétés basées aux États-Unis et d’entreprises étrangères qui relèvent de la compétence du pays. Les filiales étrangères d’une société mère américaine peuvent être similairement assujetties si cette dernière exerce une mainmise substantielle sur leurs activités et qu’elle possède, garde ou contrôle les données visées en proportion suffisante. En résumé, les entreprises américaines et les filiales sous contrôle américain peuvent être contraintes de transmettre des données stockées au Canada,
ce qui veut dire que le territoire de constitution d’une société aura, selon les circonstances, une incidence sur la souveraineté des données. Par exemple, une entité créée et entièrement détenue et gérée au Canada ne sera d’ordinaire pas tributaire du CLOUD Act. En revanche, si une filiale canadienne est directement contrôlée par une société mère américaine, notamment par le biais de systèmes intégrés ou d’une équipe de direction commune, les exigences américaines d’accès légal peuvent s’appliquer, peu importe l’emplacement physique des données.

Les organismes de réglementation de la protection de la vie privée canadiens déconseillent depuis toujours de se fier uniquement au lieu de résidence des données pour contrer les atteintes à la souveraineté de celles-ci. Au contraire, ils insistent sur la nécessité de mettre en place des mesures de sécurité adaptées au contexte et d’adopter une approche fondée sur les risques, en fonction des menaces à la cybersécurité, de la sensibilité des données et de l’exposition à la législation étrangère, comme les lois américaines de surveillance.

Comment gérer les risques pour la souveraineté de ses données

Compte tenu de ce qui précède, les organisations canadiennes devraient élaborer une stratégie proactive et axée sur le risque pour gérer la souveraineté de leurs données, et penser à y inclure certaines des mesures ci-dessous.

Évaluation des risques

Les organismes de réglementation de la protection de la vie privée recommandent également d’évaluer les menaces susceptibles de compromettre l’intégrité, la sécurité et la confidentialité des données à caractère personnel traitées par des prestataires de services établis à l’extérieur du pays, afin d’empêcher que des gouvernements étrangers puissent accéder à cette information. Une EFVP est essentielle pour déterminer où les données sont traitées et stockées, et qui y a accès. Dans le cadre de cet exercice, les organisations doivent mapper leurs flux de données et recenser les prestataires de services susceptibles d’être soumis à des régimes juridiques étrangers.

Le Québec agit en précurseur au Canada en obligeant les organisations qui confient à une entité hors province la tâche de recueillir, d’utiliser, de communiquer ou de conserver des renseignements personnels en leur nom à réaliser une EFVP. Celle-ci doit notamment tenir compte du cadre juridique applicable dans le territoire où les données seraient transférées, y compris des principes de protection des renseignements personnels qui prévalent, à la lumière des fondements généralement reconnus en la matière, lesquels sont inspirés des lignes directrices de l’OCDE, des pratiques équitables en matière d’information de la Commission fédérale du commerce des États-Unis, de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels et les documents électroniques du Canada et du Règlement général sur la protection des données de l’Union européenne (voir notre article intitulé Transferts de renseignements personnels hors du Québec : exigences pour les entreprises).

Transparence

Il est essentiel de divulguer en toute transparence aux utilisateurs et utilisatrices les risques associés au traitement des données à caractère personnel, particulièrement si elles sont susceptibles d’être transférées dans d’autres territoires et que les tribunaux, les forces de l’ordre et les organismes de sécurité nationale d’autres pays pourraient y avoir accès. Notons qu’il s’agit d’une obligation prévue par la législation canadienne sur laquelle les organismes de réglementation de la protection de la vie privée ont toujours insisté. En pratique, une mise à jour des politiques de confidentialité et des déclarations des fournisseurs pourrait s’avérer nécessaire pour aborder clairement les risques de traitement transfrontalier des données et d’accès légal à celles-ci.

Minimisation et conservation des données

Restreindre la collecte et la conservation des renseignements peut réduire l’exposition aux risques et renforcer la souveraineté des données. La minimisation est un principe fondamental de la législation canadienne sur la protection des renseignements personnels qui peut atténuer considérablement les atteintes à la vie privée et à la cybersécurité (voir notre article sur le sujet).

En collectant et en conservant uniquement les données à caractère personnel strictement nécessaires, les organisations limitent l’accès à l’information que des gouvernements étrangers pourraient avoir. La minimisation est non seulement une question de volume, mais aussi de nature des données. Par conséquent, les organisations devraient privilégier, dans la mesure du possible, les ensembles de données cryptées, agrégées, dépersonnalisées ou anonymisées afin de réduire les risques d’identification. De plus, elles ne doivent conserver l’information que pour une période concrètement et légalement requise, puis les détruire promptement et en toute sécurité pour limiter la durée d’accessibilité.

Conclusion

À l’ère des infrastructures infonuagiques transfrontalières et dans un contexte géopolitique incertain, la souveraineté des données est avant tout une question de contrôle, et non de lieu de stockage, pour les organisations canadiennes. Pour parer au risque, il faut comprendre et documenter les flux de données, mesurer son exposition au moyen d’EFVP, exiger une pleine transparence envers les personnes concernées et réduire le volume et l’identifiabilité des renseignements recueillis par la minimisation, la conservation restreinte et la protection rigoureuse des données. Prises ensemble, ces mesures peuvent aider les organisations à gérer les risques tout en continuant à tirer parti des services technologiques internationaux.

Tirer parti du marché canadien des fusions et acquisitions malgré les incertitudes liées à la politique commerciale transfrontalière

Fri, 10 Apr 2026 00:00:00 Z

Malgré un optimisme initial, l’année 2025 a été mitigée pour le marché canadien des fusions et acquisitions (F&A). La valeur totale des transactions a augmenté de plus de 70 % pour atteindre environ 530 G$ CA entre 2024 et 2025. Toutefois, le nombre total d’opérations a reculé d’environ 8 %, passant de 2 673 en 2024 à 2 454 en 2025¹. L’une des principales contraintes pesant sur le marché, qui persiste jusqu’à maintenant en 2026, réside dans les perspectives incertaines des relations commerciales entre le Canada et les États-Unis. La position du gouvernement américain sur l’avenir de l’Accord Canada-États-Unis-Mexique (ACEUM) reste floue. Les États-Unis appliquent actuellement toutes sortes de droits de douane sectoriels, notamment de 10 % sur la plupart des produits non couverts par l’ACEUM, de 50 % sur l’acier, l’aluminium et le cuivre, de 25 % sur les automobiles, de 10 % sur la potasse et les produits énergétiques non conformes à l’ACEUM, et de 35 % sur le bois d’œuvre. Il existe un risque réel que ces droits de douane augmentent ou que de nouveaux changements dans la politique commerciale influent négativement sur d’autres secteurs. Pour réussir dans ce contexte, les entreprises canadiennes et leurs conseillers juridiques doivent accorder une importance accrue aux aspects commerciaux dans la conclusion d’accords.
Cet article présente les processus et les modalités contractuelles à garder à l’esprit lors de la négociation d’opérations de fusion et acquisition.

Points à retenir

La valeur des F&A au Canada a bondi de 70 % pour atteindre 530 G$ CA en 2025, tandis que le nombre d’opérations a reculé de 8 % pour s’établir à 2 454.
Les multiples droits de douane sectoriels américains, qui varient de 10 à 50 %, ainsi que les incertitudes persistantes liées à l’ACEUM exigent désormais que l’on porte une attention accrue à l’exposition transfrontalière tout au long du cycle de vie des transactions.
Les acheteurs ont besoin d’une analyse judiciaire approfondie des réseaux de fournisseurs, de la dépendance envers certains clients et de la conformité aux règles d’origine de la société cible, ainsi que des mécanismes contractuels permettant d’amortir les chocs liés aux coûts commerciaux.
Les parties doivent déterminer si la modification de la politique commerciale constitue un changement défavorable important; elles doivent préciser les critères objectifs qui permettent d’évaluer la question, de même que les exigences à respecter en matière de durée et d’engagements provisoires pour éviter toute violation involontaire de l’entente.
Trois mécanismes émergents permettent de préserver la valeur d’une transaction au-delà de la clôture de celle-ci : les indemnités pour les répercussions commerciales découlant de risques non quantifiables, les clauses d’indexation sur les bénéfices futurs qui reportent le paiement jusqu’à ce que les incertitudes commerciales soient levées, et la conservation d’une participation minoritaire qui aligne les intérêts du vendeur sur le rendement postérieur à la conclusion de l’accord.
La réussite dépend de la capacité des parties à négocier avec soin la répartition des risques liés à la politique commerciale à chaque étape de la transaction, de la signature jusqu’à l’intégration post-clôture, plutôt que de se contenter d’accepter des clauses types.

Contrôle diligent

Dans le contexte actuel, les acquéreurs et leurs conseillers juridiques chargés du contrôle diligent doivent accorder une attention particulière à l’exposition de la société cible aux risques liés à la politique commerciale, notamment en procédant à une évaluation approfondie de ses fournisseurs, clients et partenaires commerciaux, ainsi qu’à une analyse de conformité à la législation entourant le pays d’origine. Il convient de veiller tout particulièrement à ce que ces parties ne soient pas implantées, ou n’exercent pas d’activités pertinentes, dans des territoires susceptibles d’être défavorablement touchés par des changements de politique commerciale. Qu’il s’agisse de nouveaux droits de douane, de barrières non tarifaires ou de la résiliation d’un accord de libre-échange, toute modification peut avoir une incidence significative sur les résultats financiers de la société cible et sur la valeur globale de l’opération.

Les acquéreurs et leurs conseillers juridiques devraient également examiner les principaux contrats de la société cible pour en faire ressortir les dispositions régissant toute modification aux droits et obligations des parties en cas de répercussions dues à des changements de politique commerciale, notamment dans le but de déterminer si elles prévoient des droits de renégociation et/ou de résiliation et, le cas échéant, le seuil à partir duquel ceux-ci s’appliquent. Ils devraient aussi confirmer si les contrats prévoient des mécanismes de répartition des surcoûts résultant de changements de politique, déterminer qui prend ces dépenses supplémentaires en charge, et vérifier s’il existe une limite à l’étendue de la responsabilité des parties ou si les modalités peuvent être renégociées.

Mesures de protection des transactions

Déclarations et garanties

Les acheteurs doivent exiger des vendeurs qu’ils intègrent dans la convention d’achat des déclarations et garanties concernant les contrats clés de la société cible, et ainsi s’assurer d’être indemnisés en cas d’inexactitudes. Leurs conseillers juridiques, eux, doivent vérifier si les déclarations sont conditionnelles et, le cas échéant, déterminer sur quoi portent les réserves (par exemple, les connaissances, l’importance relative et la portée). Dans un contrat de vente prévoyant un délai entre la signature et la clôture, il est courant d’inclure comme condition une confirmation des déclarations et garanties, qui oblige les vendeurs à certifier que celles-ci sont toujours exactes au moment de la clôture. De même, l’avocat ou l’avocate de l’acheteur doit s’assurer de relever les autres réserves, en particulier lorsqu’elles s’ajoutent à des déclarations et garanties conditionnelles. Dans la mesure où des changements intervenus dans la politique commerciale au cours de la période intermédiaire rendraient inexacte une déclaration ou une garantie, les vendeurs pourraient se trouver dans l’impossibilité de remplir leur obligation de confirmation, et les acheteurs pourraient être en droit de se retirer de la transaction.

Engagements provisoires

Les parties contractent un engagement provisoire pour régir les modalités d’exploitation de la société cible entre la signature et la clôture de la transaction². Habituellement, on impose à la société cible une obligation générale de poursuivre ses activités dans leur cours normal, ainsi que des devoirs spécifiques (tels que le maintien des relations commerciales) et des interdictions (par exemple, la vente ou le transfert d’actifs dépassant un certain seuil). Les engagements provisoires ont un double objectif : d’une part, garantir que l’entreprise est, pour l’essentiel, la même à la signature qu’à la clôture; d’autre part, réduire au minimum le risque moral que le vendeur agisse dans son propre intérêt au détriment de l’acheteur pendant la période intermédiaire. Ces engagements revêtent une importance particulière si des modifications imprévues à la politique commerciale surviennent, car celles-ci peuvent amener la société cible à prendre des mesures d’atténuation (réduction de la production, licenciement de personnel, changement de fournisseurs, résiliation de contrats avec des clients, etc.) susceptibles de constituer une violation.

Il a été jugé par plusieurs tribunaux canadiens que des mesures raisonnables et temporaires prises en réponse à des chocs externes ne constituaient pas un manquement³. Toutefois, ces décisions ont été fortement influencées par les circonstances particulières de chaque cas. Il est donc important de reconnaître la tension inhérente entre les acquéreurs (qui souhaitent généralement restreindre les actions autorisées) et les vendeurs (qui ont tendance à rechercher une plus grande souplesse opérationnelle), et de négocier le champ d’application de l’engagement en conséquence. On peut en outre exiger du vendeur qu’il obtienne le consentement de l’acheteur avant de prendre des mesures qui ne relèvent pas du champ d’application négocié de l’engagement, advenant des changements de politique commerciale. Il est essentiel de gérer avec discernement les tensions engendrées par les priorités divergentes des acheteurs et des vendeurs afin de parvenir à une répartition éclairée et équilibrée des risques liés aux changements de politique commerciale pendant la période intermédiaire.

Clauses relatives aux changements défavorables importants

Il est courant d’ajouter une clause relative aux changements défavorables importants (« MAC » en anglais) aux ententes de F&A. Elle permet à l’acheteur de se retirer de la transaction si un événement majeur survient entre la signature et la clôture. Dans l’affaire Fairstone, la Cour a défini un changement défavorable important comme un événement imprévisible qui compromet de manière significative et durable le potentiel de rentabilité global de la société cible⁴. Les clauses de changement défavorable important comportent souvent une exclusion qui écartent certains événements de la définition. Normalement, le vendeur accepte les risques spécifiques à l’entreprise, tandis que l’acheteur assume les risques systémiques⁵.

Lorsqu’elles négocient une clause de changement défavorable important dans le contexte actuel, les parties doivent déterminer si les conséquences de modifications à la politique commerciale survenues pendant la période intermédiaire seront assumées par le vendeur (en les incluant dans la définition générale de la clause), par l’acheteur (en les excluant), ou si les risques commerciaux seront partagés de manière convenue. Les parties doivent également définir des critères objectifs permettant de déterminer si un changement est « défavorable » et « important », tels que des indicateurs financiers ou opérationnels mesurables, et préciser combien de temps une répercussion liée au commerce doit persister pour constituer un changement défavorable important. Enfin, il est impératif d’harmoniser la répartition des risques entre la clause de changement défavorable important et l’engagement provisoire, en veillant à ce que les risques systémiques exclus de la clause (comme les changements de politique commerciale) ne réapparaissent pas par inadvertance sous forme de violations de l’engagement provisoire.

Indemnités de rupture inversée

Une indemnité de rupture inversée est une somme négociée que l’acheteur verse au vendeur s’il est à l’origine de l’échec de la transaction. Ces frais ne sont généralement dus que lorsque la raison de la non-clôture est indépendante de la volonté du vendeur (par exemple, si l’acheteur ne parvient pas à obtenir le financement nécessaire ou les autorisations requises du conseil d’administration ou des actionnaires, ou si un événement défavorable important survient). Lorsque l’acheteur n’est pas en mesure de clore la transaction, l’indemnité de rupture inversée dédommage le vendeur pour le temps perdu, les frais engagés et les coûts de renonciation liés à l’échec de la transaction. Les vendeurs et leurs conseillers juridiques devraient examiner attentivement la possibilité d’inclure une indemnité de rupture inversée (assortie de modalités et d’un montant précis) afin de gérer les risques associés à des changements de politique commerciale qui empêchent la clôture d’une opération.

Partage du risque post-clôture

Étant donné que les incertitudes liées au commerce transfrontalier devraient persister à moyen terme, les parties et leurs conseillers juridiques devraient également faire preuve de vigilance face au risque que des changements de politique commerciale ultérieurs à la clôture d’une opération aient une incidence sur la société cible.

Indemnité pour répercussions commerciales

Une indemnité pour les répercussions commerciales est un dédommagement que le vendeur s’engage à verser à l’acheteur pour les pertes, les coûts ou les responsabilités encourus par la société cible à la suite de changements de politique commerciale après la clôture de la transaction. Elle offre une solution pratique lorsque le risque lié au commerce est difficile à quantifier au moment de la signature de la convention d’achat, de sorte qu’un rajustement du prix d’achat serait inadéquat. Elle permet également aux parties de conserver le prix d’achat négocié, tout en garantissant que le vendeur obtienne la pleine valeur de la société cible, sauf en cas de changement de politique commerciale qui déclencherait l’indemnisation. Les principaux éléments à prendre en compte lors de la rédaction d’une clause d’indemnisation comprennent la définition des événements déclencheurs (par exemple, l’ajout de droits de douane ou de sanctions), la détermination de la portée et de la durée du dédommagement (y compris les éventuelles exclusions), ainsi que la mise en place de franchises (qu’il s’agisse du seuil à partir duquel l’acheteur est entièrement remboursé pour ses pertes ou peut commencer à recevoir des sommes) ou d’autres limites quant au montant de la compensation.

Clauses d’indexation sur les bénéfices futurs

Une clause d’indexation sur les bénéfices futurs prévoit le report d’une partie du prix d’achat jusqu’à une période postérieure à la clôture de la transaction, ce paiement étant subordonné à la satisfaction de conditions spécifiques post-clôture. Une telle clause d’indexation est souvent calculée sur la base d’indicateurs financiers de la société cible pour la période suivant la clôture de la transaction, notamment le chiffre d’affaires, le bénéfice net ou les flux de trésorerie d’exploitation, qui peuvent tous être affectés par des changements de politique commerciale ayant une incidence significative sur les activités. Les clauses d’indexation sur les bénéfices futurs peuvent donc constituer un mécanisme supplémentaire de répartition du risque post-clôture en obligeant l’acquéreur à payer la valeur totale de la société cible uniquement si le succès de celle-ci après la clôture n’est pas compromis par des changements de politique commerciale. Lors de la rédaction d’une clause d’indexation sur les bénéfices futurs, il convient de définir des indicateurs clairs, de fournir au vendeur des renseignements précis sur les résultats pertinents de la société cible et les droits d’audit, et d’adapter la durée de la clause à la période pendant laquelle le risque commercial devrait vraisemblablement persister.

Conservation de participations minoritaires

Une clause de maintien d’une participation minoritaire prévoit que le vendeur et/ou certains membres clés du personnel de la société cible conservent une participation dans cette dernière après la clôture de la transaction. L’acquéreur peut ainsi réduire son exposition à d’éventuels changements de politique commerciale en partageant les risques de perte (ainsi que les gains) avec le vendeur et du personnel clé. Lorsque les vendeurs ou certains membres clés du personnel conservent des postes de direction et détiennent une participation dans la société cible post-clôture, ils ont davantage tendance à gérer les changements de politique commerciale en tant qu’actionnaires, donc conformément aux intérêts de l’acquéreur. Une participation minoritaire peut prendre la forme d’un roulement, dans le cadre duquel le vendeur réinvestit une partie du produit de la vente dans l’entreprise acquéreuse ou dans une nouvelle entité qui détiendra la société cible. L’opération peut également être structurée pour que le vendeur conserve simplement une participation minoritaire dans la société cible. Dans le cas où le vendeur ou des membres clés du personnel conservent une participation minoritaire, les parties et leurs conseillers juridiques doivent s’attarder aux droits et obligations des actionnaires de la société cible après la clôture de l’opération, notamment en concluant des conventions d’actionnaires prévoyant des droits d’achat et de vente négociés que l’acquéreur pourra exercer à l’issue d’une période convenue durant laquelle aucun changement défavorable de la politique commerciale ne sera apporté.

Conclusion

Il est essentiel de prendre en compte les risques liés à la politique commerciale dans les opérations de fusion et acquisition au Canada afin de réduire au minimum l’incertitude et de préserver la valeur de la transaction. Un contrôle diligent rigoureux, des clauses sur mesure dans le contrat d’achat et des mécanismes post-clôture adaptés permettent aux parties d’atténuer efficacement ces risques et de maintenir leurs objectifs stratégiques.

Pour en savoir plus sur la politique commerciale transfrontalière, la réalisation de F&A dans le contexte actuel ou tout autre sujet abordé dans cet article, n’hésitez pas à contacter l’un des auteurs ou votre contact chez BLG.

Rapport de consultation de l’ARC sur la dispense de l’application de l’article 105 du Règlement de l’impôt sur le revenu

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 00:00:00 Z

Le 7 avril 2026, l’Agence du revenu du Canada (l’ARC ou l’Agence) a annoncé la publication de son rapport « Consultation sur le processus de dispense de l’application de l’article 105 du Règlement de l’impôt sur le revenu » daté du 31 mars 2026 (le rapport).

Du 30 juin au 29 août 2025, l’ARC a mené une consultation externe, sous la forme d’un questionnaire en ligne, concernant le processus de dispense de l’application de l’article 105 du Règlement de l’impôt sur le revenu (le Règlement), qui exige généralement une déduction de 15 % sur les paiements effectués à des non-résidents pour des services rendus au Canada. L’Agence a invité des non-résidents assujettis à l’article 105, des conseillers et conseillères en fiscalité et des entreprises canadiennes à lui faire part de leurs commentaires sur le processus de dispense de l’application de l’article 105 du Règlement.

En constatant l’insatisfaction générale des participants et participantes, l’ARC reconnaît que des changements s’imposent.

Les longs délais d’attente sont l’irritant prédominant.
L’effort nécessaire pour soumettre une demande n’est pas proportionnel au risque de non-conformité.
Les retards de paiement aux fournisseurs que forcent les demandes de réduction ou de dispense peuvent créer des difficultés sur le plan du flux de trésorerie et de la paie.
Les exigences de retenue lorsqu’aucun impôt canadien n’est dû (p. ex. en raison d’une convention fiscale) et le besoin de majorer les paiements dans de telles circonstances suscitent le mécontentement.

Voici les principales suggestions d’amélioration :

Soumission et suivi en ligne des demandes (la plus courante)
Soutien accru et instructions plus claires
Exemptions en fonction du secteur
Adoption de processus fondés sur l’attestation
Élargissement de l’admissibilité au processus de demande de dispense simplifiée

Pour le moment, l’ARC examine les commentaires recueillis et l’optimisation potentielle du processus de dispense de l’application de l’article 105 du Règlement. À noter que l’Agence a indiqué vouloir introduire les changements graduellement, en commençant par des mesures administratives à court terme (à la fin du printemps 2026), suivies d’améliorations de l’expérience numérique à moyen et long terme.

D’autres détails sur la mise en œuvre des améliorations et les possibilités de collaboration seront communiqués par l’ARC au fur et à mesure qu’avancent les plans.

Le projet de loi C-15 reçoit la sanction royale : incidence sur les règles canadiennes en matière de prix de transfert

Wed, 08 Apr 2026 00:00:00 Z

Le 26 mars 2026, le projet de loi C-15 (Loi n^o 1 d’exécution du budget de 2025) a reçu la sanction royale, faisant entrer en vigueur une réforme importante des règles canadiennes en matière de prix de transfert en vertu de l’article 247 de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu. Ces changements étaient attendus depuis la publication du budget 2025 en novembre. Comme ils viennent tout juste d’acquérir force de loi, nous avons maintenant une vision claire sur la façon dont les vérifications et les litiges entourant le prix de transfert seront traités à l’avenir.

Si ces modifications sont souvent présentées comme une transformation majeure, leur importance réside moins dans l’introduction de nouveaux concepts que dans la manière dont le Parlement a redéfini le cadre juridique régissant leur application.

Ce qu’il faut savoir au sujet du projet de loi C-15

Les principes de l’OCDE sont désormais inscrits dans la loi

De nombreuses organisations structurent et documentent depuis longtemps leurs ententes intersociétés en s’appuyant sur les principes de l’OCDE en matière de prix de transfert. L’Agence du revenu du Canada (ARC) s’y reporte également dans ses pratiques administratives. Les tribunaux canadiens, cependant, ont toujours jugé qu’ils ne pouvaient prévaloir sur le libellé de l’article 247.
Le projet de loi C-15 change tout. Ses dispositions intègrent explicitement dans la législation des concepts inspirés des principes de l’OCDE, notamment la réalité économique, le « comportement réel » et les « caractéristiques économiquement pertinentes » des transactions. De ce fait, les tribunaux sont désormais tenus d’appliquer le principe de pleine concurrence conformément aux principes de l’OCDE, plutôt que de les considérer comme purement indicatifs.

Abrogation de la règle de requalification

L’un des changements structurels les plus notables est la révocation de la règle de requalification. Sous le régime précédent, l’ARC ne pouvait ignorer ou remplacer une opération que dans des cas très limités; cette restriction a d’ailleurs joué un rôle central dans le litige Cameco¹.

Cette modification remplace l’ancienne structure par une règle de redressement unique qui s’applique lorsque les conditions d’une transaction diffèrent de celles de pleine concurrence. Dans ces circonstances, l’ARC peut conclure que l’opération n’aurait pas eu lieu, ou qu’une autre opération aurait eu lieu, si les parties n’avaient pas eu de lien de dépendance.

Élargissement des pouvoirs de redressement de l’ARC

Bien que les nouvelles règles ne confèrent pas à l’ARC un pouvoir discrétionnaire illimité, elles élargissent considérablement l’éventail des situations dans lesquelles les prix de transfert peuvent être redressés. Le nouveau cadre juridique accorde davantage d’importance à la substance et au comportement, et moins à la forme juridique en soi, ce qui réduit les possibilités de défense reposant principalement sur la structure contractuelle.

Délais plus courts pour la production de documents et sanctions plus sévères

Les modifications de fond s’accompagnent de mesures de conformité plus strictes. Le projet de loi C-15 élargit les exigences relatives à la documentation ponctuelle, raccourcit le délai de production des documents à la suite d’une demande de l’ARC (généralement à 30 jours) et relève les seuils applicables aux pénalités liées aux prix de transfert. Ces mesures devraient donc permettre d’accélérer les vérifications et la production de documents.

Points à retenir : ce que tout cela signifie concrètement

Il est important de noter que les dispositions relatives aux prix de transfert adoptées dans le projet de loi C-15 sont essentiellement conformes à ce qui avait été annoncé dans le budget 2025. L’orientation stratégique est restée la même depuis novembre. Ce qui a changé, c’est la certitude. Les règles s’appliquent désormais aux vérifications, aux nouvelles cotisations et aux litiges visant les années d’imposition commençant après le 4 novembre 2025.

Pour de nombreux groupes multinationaux, les pratiques quotidiennes en matière de prix de transfert ne changeront sans doute pas du jour au lendemain, surtout lorsque des analyses fondées sur les principes de l’OCDE étaient déjà en place. C’est en ce qui concerne les stratégies de vérification et le risque de litige que les répercussions seront les plus importantes. Les situations qui testaient les limites de l’ancien cadre réglementaire – notamment dans l’affaire Cameco – sont beaucoup moins susceptibles de se produire en vertu des nouvelles règles.

La sanction royale accordée au projet de loi C-15 marque donc un tournant important pour le cadre juridique régissant les prix de transfert au Canada, même si les principes économiques sous-jacents sont bien connus.

BLG peut vous aider

Le groupe Droit fiscal de BLG conseille régulièrement des entreprises canadiennes et multinationales dans le cadre de l’élaboration de politiques de prix de transfert, de production de documents, de vérification et de litiges. Nous collaborons avec nos clients afin d’évaluer l’incidence du projet de loi C-15 sur les accords transfrontaliers, les processus de conformité et les risques de litige, et de définir des mesures à prendre à la lumière du nouveau cadre législatif.

ONCA weakens entire agreement clauses in contract interpretation

Wed, 08 Apr 2026 00:00:00 Z

Entire agreement clauses are often treated as a contractual safety net: once the definitive agreement is signed, prior drafts, negotiations, and understandings are meant to fall away. Courts have long recognized limited exceptions to that rule, most notably the use of surrounding circumstances as part of the factual matrix to resolve genuine ambiguity in the contract’s language.

In Project Freeway Inc. v ABC Technologies Inc., 2025 ONCA 855, the Ontario Court of Appeal acknowledged the rule and the exceptions, but it endorsed reliance on a letter of intent as an interpretive aid even though the letter of intent was non‑binding and specifically excluded by the entire agreement clause. The court treated the letter of intent as part of the factual matrix of the agreement.

The decision raises a pointed question: when a document is clearly identified as not forming part of the parties’ agreement, how far can it be used to inform what that agreement means?

What you need to know

Entire agreement clauses are strong evidence that the agreement is the final expression of the parties’ agreement. They generally prevent the admission into evidence of other agreements, understandings or negotiations that may vary or contradict the express terms in a written agreement.¹
Entire agreement clauses are particularly important where there is extensive back and forth negotiations between parties. They help to ensure that terms that were previously considered and rejected do not override the final agreement.
Historically, the factual matrix was broad, but “not unlimited”. The factual matrix did not include evidence of negotiations “except perhaps in the most general of terms”, because only the final document records the actual agreement between the parties.²
Even when considering the factual matrix, negotiations have generally been inadmissible.

Facts of Project Freeway

The case centred on a dispute between a vendor, Project Freeway Inc., and purchaser, ABC Technologies Inc., over the amount of additional earn out payments following the close of a share purchase agreement.

In October 2022, the parties entered into a non-binding letter of intent to describe the terms of the eventual share deal (Letter of Intent). The Letter of Intent contained covenants, but not final terms, relating to an eventual Earn Out payment (as defined below), including:

The purchaser would not take any action to intentionally impair the vendor’s ability to earn Earn Out payments, including agreeing not to divert resources, contracts with customers, or direct business opportunities away from the business in a manner that materially impairs the ability to achieve the Contribution Margin Targets;
The purchaser would not act in bad faith to intentionally impair the vendor’s ability to earn Earn Out payments, provided that the purchaser not be prohibited in any way from closing, merging or consolidating any of the acquired facilities of the business with any of the purchaser or its affiliate facilities;
The purchaser will maintain an adequate amount of working capital for the business consistent with the purchaser’s other business units; and
A sale of the business, or failure to follow the operating covenants in the eventual purchase agreement in a manner which materially impairs ability of seller to earn Earn Out payments, will result in the acceleration of the Earn Out payments.

On December 21, 2022, the purchaser and vendor entered into the final share purchase agreement (SPA). The purchaser paid a base purchase price of US$165,000,000, with an additional US$26,461,000 to be paid out in three tranches over two years based on financial performance (Earn Out). The SPA further provided for an acceleration of the Earn Out payment in specific circumstances, including if prior to the end of the Earn Out period:

The Purchaser […] (B) directly or indirectly, sells, transfers or licenses a material portion of the assets of the Business of the Target Companies in one or a series of transactions to any Person other than an Affiliate of the Purchaser. For greater certainty, the Parties agree that the foregoing clause shall not limit the Purchaser’s right to complete mergers, amalgamations or other internal reorganizations with or among the WM Group and Affiliates of the Purchaser, and shall specifically exclude a change of control of the Purchaser Guarantor; [Emphasis added.]³

The SPA also included an Entire Agreement clause which specifically excluded the Letter of Intent:

This Agreement […] constitute[s] the entire agreement among the Parties with respect to the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings, negotiations and discussions, whether oral or written, of the Parties with respect to such transaction, including the Letter of Intent […]. [Emphasis added]⁴

Following the SPA’s close on March 1, 2023, the purchaser entered into two transactions:

The Sale Lease Back Transaction: the purchaser sold lands and buildings to a third party, then entered into long-term leases for the properties.
The Factoring Transaction: the purchaser sold customer accounts to HSBC. The purchaser had other existing factoring agreements with HSBC and joined this transaction to the existing agreements.

The vendor did not provide written consent for either transaction. However, two of the vendor’s executives facilitated site visits for the Sale Lease Back transaction prior to the SPA’s close.

In November 2023, the purchaser provided the vendor with the first Earn Out statement, indicating the requirements for the accelerated Earn Out had not been met. The vendor subsequently objected on the basis that the Sale Lease Back was material and triggered the accelerated Earn Out.

The decision of the trial court

The core issue on the application was whether the Sale Lease Back and Factoring transaction were “material” such that they triggered the accelerated Earn Out payment.⁵ The SPA left a gap by failing to define “material.” As a result, the Entire Agreement Clause, and the extent to which it restrained the use of the Letter of Intent as an interpretative tool, was considered by the Court.

The vendor argued that the Sale Lease Back transaction fell under a plain reading of “material” and triggered payment; the value or the transaction represented approximately 59 per cent of the SPA purchase price. The purchaser argued that “material” could not just mean “expensive”, its meaning had to be tied to the Earn Out itself. They argued these were non-substantive, ordinary financing transactions which had no impact on the business beyond to generate on-hand cash. The purchaser further argued that the application judge should look to the Letter of Intent as “objective evidence of the parties at the time of the definitive agreement”. The vendor argued that the entire agreement clause precluded consideration of the Letter of Intent.

The judge at first instance held that the Letter of Intent could be considered as “objective evidence” of the parties understanding at the time of the definitive agreement and that the entire agreement clause did not preclude her from considering “admissible evidence of the surrounding circumstances at the time of the contract formation”.⁶ This conclusion was reached even though the Letter of Intent was explicitly non-binding, the parties had only agreed on certain covenants related to the Earn Out, had not fully negotiated the terms, and the SPA was signed two month later. The application judge held that the covenants in the Letter of Intent supported the purchaser’s interpretation of “material”. The application judge found that the Sale Lease Back and Factoring transactions were ordinary course financing transactions with no impact on the operation of the business. Accordingly, the accelerated Earn-Out Payment was not triggered.

The decision of the Court of Appeal

In short reasons, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the vendor’s appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that reliance on the Letter of Intent did not offend the Entire Agreement Clause because it was part of the factual matrix and, thus, a permissible consideration. The application judge was entitled to use the Letter of Intent as an “interpretative aid to identify what the agreement between in the SPA was, so that she could apply the entire agreement in resolving the issue before her”.⁷

Analysis

While courts are permitted to consider the factual matrix, or the surrounding circumstances, of a contract, evidence of negotiations has still been held by several Courts to be inadmissible. The most recent Supreme Court of Canada case on this issue, Corner Brook (City) v Bailey, did not decide the matter. Rather, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that the inadmissibility of negotiations “sits uneasily” in the factual matrix analysis, but left that issue “for another day”, noting that there should be “a case where it has been fully argued.”⁸

Project Freeway is one of the first appellate level decisions to endorse reliance on a document that was otherwise excluded by an Entire Agreement clause. While previous appellate decisions have bypassed limits on the use of broadly defined “negotiations” or “surrounding circumstances”⁹, the Court’s specific reliance on the Letter of Intent here goes further. This may have been driven by necessity due to the fact the term “material” was not defined. Had the court not used the Letter of Intent, it is not clear how the term “material” would have been interpreted.

In Project Freeway, it seems that the court has made a very fine distinction, suggesting that it is permissible to use a Letter of Intent to interpret the SPA without offending the Entire Agreement Clause, but it would be impermissible to incorporate or add a term. Even when considered through this lens, this distinction is interesting since the Entire Agreement clause superseded prior understandings, negotiations and discussions, including the Letter of Intent.

Key takeaways

Pre-contract drafts that include draft provisions or terms that are, at the time, not intended to form part of the final agreement, may require exclusionary clauses indicating the point-in-time nature of the terms, and explicitly precluding the terms as drafted from intervening on the final agreement.
When drafting final agreements, commonly used terms, such as “material”, should be defined, even if their meaning seems obvious, to avoid subsequent disputes. Final agreements should also be evaluated within the context of any pre-contractual agreements, and where there are differences, the supremacy of the final agreement terms may require specific identification.
Entire agreement clauses must be drafted with precision and specificity, and parties should consider explicit exclusions of all previous negotiations, pre-contract drafts, and agreements-in-principle.
Parties may consider very clear exclusionary language to ensure prior negotiations or drafts are not subsequently used as interpretative aids for the final agreement. Whether that will withstand scrutiny, remains to be seen.

Major access to information and privacy reform comes to Ontario

Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 Z

Bill 97 (the Plan to Protect Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2026) will introduce significant amendments to Ontario’s freedom of information and privacy framework by updating both the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA). For municipal institutions, school boards, colleges and universities, hospitals, and Crown agencies, these reforms are best understood as a legislative response to sustained operational pressure under the existing access and privacy regime.

Institutions across these sectors are managing increasing request volumes; broader and more complex electronic records; repeat, overlapping and AI-driven requests; and heightened expectations around speed and completeness – often without additional resources or structural support. Bill 97 reflects an acknowledgment that the previous framework, while well‑intentioned, was increasingly difficult to administer consistently and defensibly. Similar reforms in other provinces suggest a broader policy trend toward access regimes that remain principled but are better aligned with modern institutional realities.

We have summarized the Bill 97 reforms in this Insight. Bill 97 has been released in tandem with two important new regulations under the Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2004. For our commentary on these bills, please see Ontario introduces cyber and educational technology regulations.

Timelines that better reflect institutional realities

Bill 97 will recalibrate statutory timelines by shifting most deadlines under FIPPA and MFIPPA to business days rather than calendar days. The basic period for answering a request will increase from 30 days to 45 business days. For institutions operating with limited freedom of information (FOI) staffing, shared privacy roles, or decentralized records management, this change alone significantly reduces artificial deadline pressure.

The legislation will also expand institutions’ ability to extend timelines, including the option for a second extension in defined circumstances, such as unexpectedly large record volumes or unforeseen consultation or staffing challenges. These changes are particularly important for school boards, municipalities, and health organizations that routinely receive broad, multi‑year, requests for large volumes of electronic records.

Staged access plans: A practical tool for large requests

The introduction of staged access plans will be one of the most operationally significant reforms in Bill 97. Institutions will be able to respond to large or complex requests by proposing a structured, phased approach to search, review, and disclosure.

An institution will be permitted to propose a staged access plan where:

Searching for records would unreasonably interfere with employees’ regular duties;
The request is “overly broad” due to the period covered;
The volume of records and preparation effort would unreasonably interfere with operations; or
The requester has made multiple requests that, taken together, unreasonably interfere with operations.

The plan must be set out in writing and must:

Divide the request into distinct categories of records, identifying the areas of the institution to be searched; and
Establish a schedule indicating whether and when access decisions will be made for each category, and when records (or portions) will be disclosed or produced.

Requesters will have 30 business days to respond by either accepting the plan, proposing amendments, or narrowing the scope of the request, otherwise the requester may appeal.

A requester may appeal the initial decision to propose a plan, and the first amendment to a plan, to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The requester’s duty to respond is mandatory. If the requester does not respond appropriately within the statutory timeframe (and does not appeal where permitted), the request will be deemed abandoned.

Once a plan is proposed, the statutory response clock pauses while the requester responds. A response will restart the clock, and the institution can propose another plan so long as the response clock has not been exhausted.

Institutions may amend a staged access plan as needed. While the initial proposal — and the first amendment only — is subject to appeal, subsequent amendments are not appealable, giving institutions significant flexibility to adjust plans in response to operational realities.

Fee estimates as scope and timing controls

Bill 97 tightens, standardizes, and aligns fee estimate rules with staged access response-clock processes. Specifically:

Institutions will be expressly required to inform requesters of their right to request a fee waiver;
Institutions will be expressly required to issue fee estimates before the response clock expires;
Fee estimates will pause the response clock.

In short, fee estimates will operate as a more formal, procedural control point, aligned with staged access and response-clock mechanisms.

Politically sensitive records (FIPPA)

The amendments will add a new provision to FIPPA, such that FIPPA will no longer apply to records in the custody or under the control of a minister, a minister’s office, or a parliamentary assistant acting in that capacity. Once in force, the amendments will generally exclude ministerial and parliamentary assistant records from FIPPA, except for records under ministerial control that are also in the custody or control of an institution, which will continue to be subject to FIPPA.

Exclusion for cybersecurity‑sensitive records

Both FIPPA and MFIPPA will exclude, and therefore not apply to, records “prepared or collected under” the Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024 (EDSTA). This exclusion will apply to the following such records:

Records containing the names of employees designated as primary points of contact for ensuring cybersecurity within each public sector entity and their alternates.
Assessments or evaluations of a public sector entity’s status or progress with respect to cybersecurity or summaries of such assessments or evaluations.
Records containing the names of software applications that have been purchased or otherwise acquired by school boards, that are owned or operated by third parties, and that are authorized to access a student’s personal information.
Any other records the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to compromise cybersecurity for a public sector entity.

For institutions increasingly targeted by ransomware and other cyber threats – particularly school boards and hospitals –, this change will provide powerful statutory backing by removing specified security sensitive records from the public right of access. The protection is implemented by way of a jurisdictional-limiting exclusion, which invites a more institution-favourable analysis should exclusion claims be challenged.

The exclusion hinges on a statutory linkage to EDSTA. Questions may arise as to whether a record must be explicitly required or generated under EDSTA authority, or, alternatively, merely related to cybersecurity work undertaken in response to EDSTA obligations.

Aligning MFIPPA privacy governance with FIPPA

When FIPPA was amended in 2025 to require mandatory breach reporting and notification, mandatory privacy impact assessments, and to otherwise modernize the FIPPA privacy compliance regime, MFIPPA was not likewise amended. Bill 97 rectifies this imbalance by amending MFIPPA to:

Introduce mandatory privacy breach reporting to the IPC, and notification to affected individuals where there is a real risk of significant harm;
Require municipal institutions to prepare privacy impact assessments (PIAs) before collecting personal information, and to update PIAs where there are significant changes to use or disclosure;
Impose an express statutory duty to implement reasonable administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect personal information;
Require municipal institutions to maintain records of privacy breaches and to report breach statistics annually to the IPC;
Expand the IPC’s oversight role, including authority to review institutional information practices where there are reasonable grounds to believe MFIPPA has been contravened, and to make compliance orders; and
Introduce whistleblowing protections, permitting individuals to confidentially notify the IPC of suspected contraventions of MFIPPA.

These changes will significantly expand MFIPPA institutions’ operational privacy obligations, increase the IPC’s supervisory role, and require a more structured, proactive approach to privacy governance, breach response, and risk management across the municipal public sector.

Conclusion and practical next steps

Bill 97 will bring both blessings and burdens for Ontario institutions.

On the access to information side, the reforms acknowledge the operational strain institutions have been under for years, and provide meaningful relief through longer timelines, staged access plans, clearer fee estimate mechanics, and targeted exclusions. Properly used, these tools should help institutions manage volume, complexity, and expectations in a more sustainable way.

At the same time, the bill does not simply reduce obligations. For municipal institutions, the new MFIPPA privacy governance provisions introduce a more formal, proactive compliance framework: mandatory breach reporting and notification, documented privacy impact assessments, explicit safeguard obligations, breach record keeping, and enhanced IPC oversight. These requirements will require focused work to implement, at a moment when many institutions are facing tight budgets, staffing constraints, and competing operational priorities.

Practical steps institutions should be considering now include:

Reviewing and updating FOI procedures to reflect business day timelines, staged access plans, extensions, and fee estimate pauses;
Training FOI and program staff on when and how to use staged access plans and extensions defensibly;
For municipal institutions, assessing current privacy practices against the new MFIPPA requirements, including PIAs, breach response, safeguards, and record keeping;
Identifying pragmatic, proportionate ways to meet new obligations without over engineering processes or duplicating effort.

Bill 97 creates an opportunity for institutions to reset both access and privacy practices in a more sustainable way. With thoughtful planning and proportionate implementation, the reforms can reduce pressure where relief was clearly intended, while strengthening privacy governance in a way that is manageable rather than overwhelming.

Ontario introduces cyber and educational technology regulations

Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 Z

On March 23, 2026, the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery and Procurement published two regulations under the Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024 (EDSTA). O. Reg. 51/26 (Cyber Security) and O. Reg. 52/26 (Digital Technology Affecting Individuals Under Age 18) will both come into force on July 1, 2026. These regulations impose new governance, reporting, and transparency obligations on a broad range of Ontario public sector institutions, including universities, colleges, school boards, hospitals, and children’s aid societies.

O. Reg. 51/26 – Cyber security

O. Reg. 51/26 applies to “prescribed public sector entities,” which include colleges, universities, most public hospitals, school boards, children’s aid societies, and other specifically named public sector entities.

Key updates

1. Cyber security maturity assessments: Prescribed public sector institutions must conduct cyber security maturity assessments at regular intervals, which track the institution’s status or progress regarding cyber security. The regulation does not prescribe how the assessment must be performed, but states that it must be “carried out in accordance with industry standards or best practices endorsed by the Chief Information Security Officer of the Ministry”.

First assessments must occur by July 1, 2027, and every two years thereafter. If an institution completes a cyber security maturity assessment between July 1, 2025, and July 1, 2026, the institution is deemed to have completed it on July 1, 2026, and must complete its second assessment by July 1, 2028.

A summary of each assessment must be provided to the Ministry within 30 days of completion, which must include (1) the name and a description of the model or framework used in the assessment, (2) any overall or component cyber security maturity score, and (3) a summary of areas for future improvement.

2. Point of contact: The regulation requires each prescribed public sector entity to designate a senior management employee as the primary cyber security point of contact. This individual must have decision making authority over cyber security and will be responsible for liaising with the Ministry and approving summaries of cyber security maturity assessments. For many institutions, this will require a governance conversation: the role may be assigned to a CIO, CISO, or another executive.

3. Incident reporting: Prescribed public sector institutions must also report “critical cyber security incidents” to the Ministry within 72 hours of “confirming” the incident occurred. “Critical cyber security incident” is defined broadly and includes incidents that impact “digital information” collected, used, retained, or disclosed by an institution or the infrastructure housing or transmitting such data. It also includes a materiality threshold. To meet the reporting threshold, one of the following criteria must be satisfied:

The incident results in a significant adverse impact to the delivery of public services by the entity;
The incident poses a risk to public safety;
The incident requires or results in significant efforts to recover digital information or related infrastructure or activation of cyber security incident response plans by the entity; or
The incident poses a significant risk of harm to the reputation of and public confidence in the entity.

The “confirmation” requirement and materiality threshold ought to rule out cyber events and low severity incidents, though compliance with the reporting requirement is an important consideration that institutions should build into their incident response plans. Bearing mind that “activation of a cyber security incident response plans” triggers a reporting duty, institutions should also ensure their plans clearly define an activation point.

What does O. Reg. 51/26 mean for public sector institutions?

O. Reg. 51/26 encourages enhanced cyber security by requiring institutions to perform maturity assessments and report such assessments to the province. Cyber incident reporting already occurs informally today, but formal reporting will come with important confidentiality protections that the province has proposed in bills amending the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (MFIPPA). See our companion article: Major access and privacy reform comes to Ontario.

The province will receive reports not as an enforcement body, but as a provider of security funding and as a potential agent for cross-institutional, province wide collaboration. There is therefore reason for institutions to view these new obligations positively, though cyber incident reporting must not invite heavy post-reporting obligations that draw critical resources away from the response. Institutions must be prepared to manage this potential for disruption.

O. Reg. 52/26 – Digital technology affecting individuals under age 18

O. Reg. 52/26 applies to all school boards in Ontario and applies to all personal information in digital form of students under the age of 18.

Key requirements

The regulation prescribes certain notice requirements relating to disclosures of student personal information to a board’s software providers. Notices must be in writing and can be delivered electronically. For students under the age of 16, notices must be sent to parents. For students between the ages of 16 and 18, notices must be sent to the students. The notice must include:

The specific personal information being disclosed;
The legal authority for the disclosure;
The purpose of the disclosure;
The name of the application and vendor;
Contact information for a Board representative who can answer questions about the disclosure; and
An explanation of complaint and oversight rights.

Boards will be required to provide the notice as early as feasible in the school year. If new software is implemented during the school year, notice of disclosure must be provided as soon as feasible.

What does O. Reg. 52/26 mean for public sector institutions?

The regulation reflects growing concern about educational technology platforms and their data practices, particularly where third party vendors are involved. Boards should anticipate and be prepared for parental scrutiny. Conducting privacy impact assessments that comply with the requirements that will soon be set out in MFIPPA will help.

In addition to developing a plan to formally implement an MIFPPA-compliant privacy impact assessment program, boards will need to ensure that they have a complete inventory of all software used by a board and the personal information disclosed to each software provider by September 2026. This mapping task is a priority.

Conclusion

These regulations are an incremental update to Ontario privacy and data security law. They meaningfully change how public institutions are expected to manage cyber security and, particularly in the education sector, how they deploy and oversee digital tools affecting children.

Taken together, O. Reg. 51/26 and O. Reg. 52/26 is another indication that Government and regulators expect demonstrable accountability for public sector digital governance, privacy, and cybersecurity.

For additional questions, please reach out to one of the key contacts listed below.

Mise à jour 2026 sur la nouvelle interprétation de la Loi canadienne sur la santé

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:00:00 Z

Introduction

En janvier 2025, Mark Holland, ancien ministre fédéral de la Santé, a publié une lettre aux provinces et aux territoires sur l’importance de respecter la Loi canadienne sur la santé (la « LCS »). Nous avons exploré le sujet ici. En résumé, selon l’interprétation de M. Holland, le fait de facturer à la patientèle des services fournis par un praticien ou une praticienne de la santé qui sont habituellement couverts par la province lorsqu’ils sont administrés par un ou une médecin constitue une violation des interdictions de la LCS entourant la surfacturation et les frais d’utilisation. Les provinces et les territoires qui n’empêchent pas les fournisseurs de soins de santé non médecins, y compris les infirmières et infirmiers praticiens, de facturer à la patientèle des services médicalement nécessaires s’exposent à une réduction future des paiements au titre du Transfert canadien en matière de santé.

Le 13 mars 2026, Santé Canada a publié son Plan ministériel 2026-2027 exprimant son ambition de concrétiser la vision énoncée dans la nouvelle Politique sur les services de la Loi canadienne sur la santé (la « politique sur les services de la LCS »), conformément à la lettre du ministre Holland de 2025. Dans le cadre de ce plan, Santé Canada a indiqué son intention d’« [a]ider les [provinces et les territoires] à mettre en œuvre la politique sur les services de la [LCS], à compter du 1er avril 2026, qui confirme que les services médicalement nécessaires fournis par des fournisseurs de soins de santé réglementés (par exemple, des infirmières praticiennes) sont couverts par la Loi canadienne sur la santé. »

Bien que nous n’ayons actuellement pas beaucoup de détails sur les modalités d’exécution dudit plan, nous savons qu’il aura une incidence significative sur les secteurs public et privé. Les conséquences concrètes à long terme dépendront de la manière dont les provinces et les territoires appliqueront la nouvelle politique. À court terme, tant les hôpitaux que le secteur privé devraient se préparer à d’éventuelles répercussions.

Que cela signifie-t-il pour le privé?

La LCS trace les grandes lignes d’un cadre obligeant les provinces et les territoires à mettre en place des régimes d’assurance couvrant ce qui est « médicalement nécessaire » afin de pouvoir bénéficier des transferts fédéraux. Bien que l’expression « médicalement nécessaire » ne soit pas définie dans la législation et que chaque province dispose d’un pouvoir discrétionnaire pour établir la portée de ses régimes, ceux-ci couvrent traditionnellement les services hospitaliers et de médecins. Dans ce contexte, le personnel médical et les établissements de santé sont autorisés à facturer à leur patientèle les services qui ne sont pas couverts par les régimes d’assurance provinciaux.

Comme les prestataires non médecins ont vu leur rôle s’élargir, le privé a de plus en plus souvent recours à leurs services, qui sont facturés directement aux patients et patientes, puisqu’on estime que les soins non couverts par l’assurance ne sont pas visés par les interdictions de la LCS concernant la surfacturation et les frais d’utilisation. Les provinces imposent et font respecter ces interdictions au moyen de leur propre législation, notamment la Loi de 2004 sur l’engagement d’assurer l’avenir de l’assurance-santé de l’Ontario.

Toutefois, les entreprises qui se basent sur l’ancienne interprétation de ce qui est considéré comme couvert là où elles exercent leurs activités devront, à l’avenir, suivre de près les signaux et les actions des autorités provinciales. Le gouvernement fédéral a clairement fait connaître sa position sur cette question : facturer à la patientèle des services fournis par des praticiens et praticiennes de la santé non médecins constitue une violation des interdictions de la LCS relatives à la surfacturation et aux frais d’utilisation, dans la mesure où les soins seraient couverts s’ils étaient prodigués par des médecins. Le gouvernement fédéral s’attend à ce que les provinces et les territoires commencent à rendre compte de ces frais prohibés à partir de décembre 2028.

En supposant que les provinces adoptent cette directive et couvrent essentiellement le même panier de services, peu importe le ou la prestataire, les entreprises risqueraient d’enfreindre les interdictions provinciales en matière de surfacturation et de frais d’utilisation si elles devaient facturer ces services à leurs patientes et patients.

Qu’en est-il de l’exclusion liée aux soins virtuels?

La télémédecine évolue constamment sur les plans technologique, entrepreneurial et stratégique. Dans sa lettre, le ministre Holland a indiqué que le gouvernement fédéral avait décidé de prôner le recours aux services virtuels, et il a encouragé chaque province et territoire à poursuivre ses efforts pour les couvrir.

Les provinces continuent d’adopter des positions divergentes à ce sujet, ce qui ouvre la porte au secteur privé pour facturer ces services directement à la patientèle. Bon nombre de grands fournisseurs de soins virtuels au Canada facturent aux patientes et patients – ou à leurs employeurs – des soins médicalement nécessaires prodigués par des infirmières et infirmiers praticiens. Cette pratique pourrait poser problème au regard de la nouvelle interprétation de la politique sur les services de la LCS, à moins qu’une exclusion ne soit prévue pour les soins virtuels. Au Québec, la législation autorise le paiement de ce type de soins par les employeurs. Reste à voir si d’autres provinces emboîteront le pas.

Quelle sera l’incidence sur les hôpitaux et autres organismes publics?

À l’heure actuelle, les hôpitaux et autres établissements de santé qui offrent des soins primaires ont surtout intégré les infirmières et infirmiers praticiens à leur personnel par le biais d’un lien d’emploi et d’une rémunération salariale.

Dans la mesure où l’exécution de la vision du ministre Holland permettrait aux infirmières et infirmiers praticiens de facturer directement un régime d’assurance provincial, les hôpitaux et organismes publics du même genre pourraient conclure d’autres types d’ententes avec ces fournisseurs de soins de santé à l’avenir. D’un point de vue financier, le passage d’un modèle reposant principalement sur les salaires à un modèle de paiement à l’acte ou de rémunération mixte pourrait s’imposer.

Un tel changement entraînerait une réévaluation du lien entre les infirmières et infirmiers praticiens et les hôpitaux. On pourrait, entre autres, envisager de transitionner d’un cadre fondé sur l’emploi à une structure reposant sur les primes ou à un modèle mixte. Cette transformation dépendra d’un certain nombre de facteurs propres à chaque organisation, notamment la syndicalisation des soignantes et soignants concernés.

Le 1^er avril 2026, la ministre de la Santé de l’Ontario, Sylvia Jones, a annoncé qu’il n’était pas prévu pour l’instant de modifier les codes de facturation du régime d’assurance-maladie de la province pour permettre aux infirmières et infirmiers praticiens de facturer des honoraires à l’acte.

Conclusion

Dans sa lettre de 2025, le ministre Holland a clairement exprimé que le gouvernement fédéral considérait comme une violation de la LCS la facturation à la patientèle de services qui seraient couverts par les régimes d’assurance provinciaux s’ils avaient été fournis par des médecins. Cette position vient d’être entérinée dans le Plan ministériel 2026-2027 de Santé Canada. Les conséquences précises pour les secteurs privé et public, ainsi que leur chronologie, dépendront de la réaction des provinces.

BLG est en mesure d’accompagner les acteurs de ces deux sphères dans ce contexte en pleine évolution et de leur fournir des conseils stratégiques sur les options qui s’offrent à eux.

Merci au Dr Rami Shoucri, stagiaire chez BLG, pour son aide à la rédaction de cet article.

Federal Financial Institutions Legislative and Regulatory Reporter - February 2026

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:00:00 Z

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

February 2026

Published	Title and Brief Summary	Status (if applicable)
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI)
February 26, 2026	Targeted Fast-Track Approvals Framework for New Entrants OSFI has published a streamlined, targeted fast-track approvals framework for new entrants. OSFI intends to modernize its approach to how specific entities enter the federally regulated financial system. The framework is expected to launch in June 2026 for eligible applicants; it would be offered to the following entities: Provincial credit unions that are seeking continuance as a federal credit union; Entities with technologically innovative or emerging banking models – for example, fintechs or crypto-asset custodians – seeking to incorporate as a bank or as a federally regulated trust and loan company. Other types of entities would continue to follow existing guides and processes; OSFI will use insights from this targeted approach to inform a broader rollout in the future.	Framework expected to launch in June 2026.
February 24, 2026	Update on Capital Requirements for Federally Regulated Property and Casualty Insurers – Letter OSFI has announced that, effective immediately, it is reducing capital requirements for domestic infrastructure debt. This applies to Canadian property and casualty insurance companies that are not mortgage insurance companies, and foreign property and casualty companies operating in Canada on a branch basis, collectively referred to as property and casualty insurers. The capital reductions are laid out in Appendix 1 to the letter.	Effective February 24, 2026.
February 19, 2026	Registered Pension Plans (RPP) and Other Types of Savings Plans – Coverage in Canada (2023) This article shows coverage in Canada by Registered Pension Plans (RPPs) and other savings vehicles that contribute to retirement wealth. Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs), Tax-Free Savings Accounts (TFSAs), and First Home Savings Accounts (FHSAs) are included. It concludes that the number of active RPP members has increased since the beginning of the century, with the number of women increasing faster than the number of men. It also shows that the number of active RPP members as a percentage of employees has decreased. The proportion of active RPP members in Defined Benefit plans has seen the steepest decrease. At the same time, tax-incentive vehicles show sustained interest from taxpayers, with TFSAs having become the preferred option over the past decade, capturing a growing share of contributions, while RRSPs have declined.	Published February 19, 2026.
February 13, 2026	Benchmarking Canadian Bank Capital Ratios to International Peers – Technical Note – February 2026 OSFI periodically conducts benchmarking exercises of Canadian Systemically Important Banks’ (SIBs) capital and profitability metrics as part of its mandate to assess both the resilience and competitiveness of the Canadian banking system. Conclusions drawn from the exercise include: Canadian SIBs are well-capitalized and have strengthened in recent years; OSFI’s capital supervisory expectations are broadly consistent with international peers, notwithstanding lower binding requirements; Canadian SIB capital ratios and risk weights are in line with international peer ranges with certain exceptions; Canadian SIBs have strong profitability compared to international peers.	Published February 13, 2025.
Bank of Canada
February 9, 2026	Retail Payments Activities Act: Annual Reporting Now Live on PSP Connect In its email bulletin to stakeholders, the Bank of Canada reminds payment service providers (PSPs) that annual reports under the Retail Payment Activities Act (RPAA) are due by March 31, 2026. It points PSPs to the following resources to assist in the preparation and submission of their annual reports: Step-by-step guide to annual reporting Pre-recorded information session on annual reporting requirements Supervisory policy on annual reporting Supervisory policy on annual reporting of retail payment activity metrics	Deadline for submitting annual reports is March 31, 2026.
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)
February 25, 2026	Beneficial ownership: Understanding your Requirements FINTRAC has issued a video presentation explaining beneficial ownership and providing insight into its role in protecting against money laundering and terrorist financing. This presentation outlines beneficial ownership requirements by defining who qualifies as a beneficial owner, clarifying what constitutes beneficial ownership information, describing how to verify the accuracy of collected information, and specifying when to file a Beneficial Owner Discrepancy Report.	Published February 25, 2025.
February 19, 2026	Government Announces New Measures to Help Protect Canadians and Businesses Against Extortion The Government of Canada has announced measures intended to increase its ability to detect, disrupt, and prevent extortion. These measures are meant to improve how financial intelligence is collected, thus providing law enforcement with better tools to trace criminal networks and support investigations. FINTRAC is at the centre of these efforts, which will include: Prioritizing financial intelligence resources to tackle extortion; Launching the Countering Extortion Partnership with financial institutions, government, and law enforcement; Assigning financial intelligence experts to support police; Providing financial institutions with clear guidance on how to detect extortion transactions; Publishing intelligence on how criminals move and hide extortion money. The announcement is accompanied by the following documents and backgrounders: Letter from the Minister of Finance and National Revenue to the Director and Chief Executive Officer of FINTRAC; FINTRAC Backgrounder: Targeted indicator profiles on laundering the proceeds of extortion; FINTRAC Backgrounder: Establishment of a new liaison function to support efforts countering extortion; FINTRAC Backgrounder: Working in partnership with the private sector to counter extortion.	Published February 19, 2026.
Payments Canada
February 12, 2026	Rule Amendments Support Expanded Membership and Access to Critical National Infrastructure Payments Canada has finalized a series of amendments to its rules for the Automated Clearing and Settlement System; these changes are effective February 9, 2026. Payments Canada has grouped these changes under the following themes: Expanded access and risk-based membership (Rule D1); Refined return procedures (Rules A4, A10, B10 and G3); Efficiency improvements and retirement of legacy components (Rules A1, B2, and K1, L1). Other rules amended effective February 9, 2026: Rule D3 (Indirect Clearer Requirements); Rule F1 (Rules applicable to Automated Funds Transfer (AFT) Transactions); Rule F4 (Rules applicable to Automated Funds Transfer (AFT) Transactions using ISO 20022 messages.	Rule changes are effective February 9, 2026.
Bank for International Settlements (BIS)
February 26, 2026	Basel Committee: Consolidated Guidelines and Sound Practices The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision has published a new section of its website containing a consolidated version of its guidelines and sound practices for banks and supervisors. This new format is not intended to introduce new expectations; the content has been reorganized in a modular format in an effort to increase the accessibility of the materials. The Basel Committee has published this initially in draft form, and it is soliciting feedback from stakeholders.	Comments are due June 26, 2026.
Financial Action Task Force (FATF)
February 24, 2026	Cyber-Enabled Fraud – Digitalisation and Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Proliferation Financing Risks FATF has published a paper, Cyber-Enabled Fraud – Digitalisation and Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Proliferation Financing Risks, which outlines the latest emerging risks related to technological innovation and fraud. The paper calls for stronger implementation of global standards to tackle fraud, including through international cooperation and asset recovery, information sharing, and continuing to adapt to the risk environment and international resolve to address the issue. In particular, the paper discusses how the FATF Standards can be used to combat fraud, through: Payment transparency; Asset recovery; Regulation of Virtual Assets; Unmasking Beneficial Ownership (BO); Domestic and international partnerships; Employing advanced technology.	Published February 24, 2026.
Financial Stability Board (FSB)
February 19, 2026	Strategic Review of FSB Crisis Preparedness Activities In response to episodes of turmoil and financial crises that have tested FSB’s resolution framework (anchored by its Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions) since it was adopted in 2011, FSB has announced that it is undertaking a strategic review of its crisis preparedness activities. The stated aims of the strategic review are: Strengthen and, where necessary, adapt the FSB’s crisis preparedness activities to respond to changes and emerging vulnerabilities in the global financial system; Enhance the FSB’s crisis preparedness activities to consider all stages of a crisis, from early intervention measures through recovery and resolution to post-stabilization restructuring; Refine internal processes and organizational structure to achieve the FSB’s strategic objectives for crisis preparedness; and Strengthen the central role of the Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions as the international standard for resolution regimes for financial institutions.	Published February 19, 2026.
February 4, 2026	Vulnerabilities in Government Bond-backed Repo Markets FSB has issued a report, Vulnerabilities in Government Bond-backed Repo Markets, that explains how repo markets function, outlines key features of repo markets around the world, assesses ways to monitor vulnerabilities and associated data gaps, and concludes with relevant policy implications. The report assesses vulnerabilities in government bond-backed repo markets and possible contagion channels to the broader financial system. It highlights how quickly repo markets were impacted in several recent episodes of market stress and warns that, given the importance of repo markets within the global financial system, it is critical to preserve their functionality, particularly during periods of stress. It identifies vulnerabilities in repo markets that could pose risks to the broader financial system, and suggests several steps for authorities to consider in response to these vulnerabilities; these include: Closing data gaps; Strengthening surveillance capabilities; and Addressing vulnerabilities related to liquidity imbalances and leverage (this can include taking into account the FSB’s recommendations on leverage in nonbank financial intermediation (NBFI) and Global Securities Financing Transactions exercise, as well as other relevant international standards).	Published February 4, 2026.
International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS)
February 12, 2026	Application Paper on Operational Resilience Objectives and Toolkit IAIS has published the final version of its Application Paper on operational resilience objectives and toolkit. The Application Paper is intended to support supervisors and insurers in understanding how to assess and address operational resilience in light of the Insurance Core Principles risk management and other relevant requirements. The Application Paper provides operational resilience objectives and provides a toolkit of supporting practices and tools. The key objectives of the Application Paper are: The relationship between operational resilience, governance and operational risk management; The key elements of a sound approach to operational resilience; Specific objectives for insurance supervisors.	Published February 12, 2026.
Legislation
February 26, 2026	Bill C-15, Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1 Among its provisions to implement the 2025 Federal Budget, the following measures of Bill C-15 affect federally regulated financial institutions. Division 9 of Part 5 repeals the Consumer-Driven Banking Act and enacts a new Consumer-Driven Banking Act to ensure that individuals and businesses can safely and securely share their data with the participating entities of their choice. That Act addresses, among other things, accreditation, national security, data sharing, security safeguards, consent, authentication, liability, complaints, administration and enforcement and screen scraping. The Division also makes related amendments to the Access to Information Act, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1. Division 10 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to extend the period during which federal financial institutions governed by those Acts may carry on business. Division 11 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things, modernize prudential limits by repealing certain provisions that impose limits on federally regulated financial institutions with respect to debt obligations and borrowing, consumer and commercial loans and investments in real property and equity. Division 12 of Part 5 amends the Bank Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act and the Insurance Companies Act to allow for the electronic delivery of certain documents to shareholders, members and policyholders without their consent, while ensuring that they receive paper copies if they request them. Division 13 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to increase the equity threshold related to the public holding requirement from $2 billion to $4 billion and to make changes to other provisions that include that threshold. Division 14 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to, among other things, (a) clarify the powers of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in respect of the adherence by federally regulated financial institutions to their policies and procedures to protect themselves against threats to their integrity or security; (b) provide the Superintendent of Financial Institutions with powers to issue directions of compliance in respect of unsafe or unsound practices in the conduct of the affairs of those financial institutions; and (c) provide that the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is not prevented from disclosing information to any federal government agency or body for purposes related to the Superintendent’s regulation or supervision of financial institutions. Division 15 of Part 5 amends the Bank Act to raise the amount of funds that can be withdrawn immediately from a retail deposit account after the deposit of a cheque or other instrument and to remove the delay for the withdrawal of funds deposited by a cheque or other instrument that is not deposited in person. Division 16 of Part 5 amends the Bank Act to, among other things, (a) prohibit the activation of certain capabilities for a personal deposit account in Canada without the express consent of the natural person in whose name the account is kept; (b) permit a natural person in whose name such an account is kept to deactivate certain account capabilities; (c) permit a natural person in whose name such an account is kept to adjust certain transaction limits on the account; (d) require institutions to establish policies and procedures for detecting and preventing consumer-targeted fraud and mitigating its impacts; and (e) require institutions and the Commissioner of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to prepare annual reports on consumer-targeted fraud. Division 17 of Part 5 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, the Bank Act and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to support the growth of federal credit unions, including by way of amalgamation or asset acquisition and by permitting them to engage in motor vehicle leasing in certain circumstances. Division 18 of Part 5 makes amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act consequential to amendments to the Special Economic Measures Act. Division 37 of Part 5 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to (a) clarify that all regulations made under that Act are to be made on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance; (b) clarify that paragraph 36(3.‍01)‍(b) of that Act applies to donations that are not charitable donations; and (c) prohibit the disclosure of reports, or the information contained in them, related to discrepancies in information discovered in the course of verifying the identity of persons having beneficial ownership or control of an entity. It also amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Regulations to (a) clarify that paragraph 138(5)‍(b) of those Regulations applies to donations that are not charitable donations; and (b) clarify the application of those Regulations to mortgage administrators, mortgage brokers and mortgage lenders. Division 45 of Part 5 enacts the Stablecoin Act, which imposes duties on persons that create stablecoins and make them available for purchase, directly or indirectly, by persons in Canada. That Act sets out the objects of the Bank of Canada in respect of stablecoin and requires the Bank to maintain a public registry of stablecoin issuers. That Act also addresses, among other things, the redemption of stablecoins by issuers, the reserve of assets that issuers must maintain to fulfill their redemption obligations and the policies that they must establish. The Division also makes consequential and related amendments to the Access to Information Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Retail Payment Activities Act.	First Reading in the Senate February 26, 2026. Part 5, Division 9 in force on Royal Assent. Part 5, Division 10 in force on Royal Assent. Part 5, Division 11 in force on proclamation. Part 5, Division 12 in force on Royal Assent. Part 5, Division 13 in force on Royal Assent. Part 5, Division 14 in force on Royal Assent. Part 5, Division 15 in force on proclamation. Part 5, Division 16 in force on proclamation. Part 5, Division 17 in force on proclamation, except ss. 337, 339(1), 340, 343, 344, 348, 349, 351 in force on Royal Assent. Part 5, Division 18 in force on Royal Assent. Part 5, Division 37 in force on Royal Assent, except s. 584 deemed to have come into force on October 1, 2025 immediately after the coming into force of section 8 of the Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Made Under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, made on December 16, 2024 and registered as SOR/2024-267. Part 5, Division 45, s. 600 (enacting the Stablecoin Act) in force on proclamation; ss. 601 to 605 in force on proclamation.
February 25, 2026	Bill C-12, Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act Bill C-12 would enact provisions put forward by Bill C-2, Strong Borders Act that are aimed at combating transnational organized crime, money laundering and the immigration system. Bill C-12 would amend several Acts and regulations impacting financial institutions. Part 9 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things, (a) Increase the maximum administrative monetary penalties that may be imposed for certain violations and the maximum punishments that may be imposed for certain criminal offences under that Act; (b) Replace the existing optional compliance agreement regime with a new mandatory compliance agreement regime that, among other things, (i) Requires every person or entity that receives an administrative monetary penalty for a prescribed violation to enter into a compliance agreement with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (the Centre), (ii) Requires the Director of the Centre to make a compliance order if the person or entity refuses to enter into a compliance agreement or fails to comply with such an agreement, and (iii) Designates the contravention of a compliance order as a new violation under that Act; (c) Require persons or entities referred to in section 5 of that Act, other than those already required to register, to enroll with the Centre; and (d) Authorize the Centre to disclose certain information to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, subject to certain conditions. Part 9 also makes consequential and related amendments to the Retail Payment Activities Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations and includes transitional provisions. Part 10 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to make the Director of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada a member of the committee established under subsection 18(1) of that Act. It also amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to enable the Director to exchange information with the other members of that committee.	Second Reading in the Senate February 5, 2026; reported without amendment by Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs February 25, 2026. Part 9 largely in force on Royal Assent, with certain sections in force on proclamation. Part 10 in force on Royal Assent.
February 26, 2026	Bill S-6, Federal Law–Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 4 Bill S-6 is the fourth in a series of enactments drafted in the course of the harmonization of federal statutes by the Department of Justice of Canada resulting from the coming into force of the Civil Code of Québec in 1994. Among the Acts amended by Bill S-6 are Acts governing financial institutions: the Bank Act, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Trust and Loan Companies Act. The amendments are made in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law.	First Reading February 26, 2026.
February 10, 2026	Bill C-13, Act to implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Bill C-13 implements the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, done July 16, 2023. It includes consequential amendments to the definition of “regulated foreign entity” in sections 2 of the Bank Act, Insurance Companies Act and Trust and Loan Companies Act respectively.	Reported with amendments by House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade February 10, 2026. Act comes into force by proclamation.

Disclaimer

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