COMPANY
& FINANCE |
Company and Finance News:
British Columbia Securities Commission Finds Common Law
Due Diligence Defense
Available in Administrative Proceedings for Breach of
Securities Legislation
In a decision released on February 20, 2017, a panel of the
British Columbia Securities Commission (the "Commission") held
that a defence of due diligence is available in the context of
contraventions of securities legislation that proceed under an
administrative process. In Re
SunCentro, the respondent SunCentro Corporation
("SunCentro") entered into a business development agreement with
the respondents YDS Energy, Resources and Humanitarian Relief
Corporation ("YDS"), to provide marketing and financing services
to SunCentro. SunCentro also entered into an agreement with
Donald Weiss ("Weiss"), authorizing Weiss to raise money for
SunCentro. As part of these agreements, SunCentro agreed to pay
the YDS and Weiss commissions for referring investors to
SunCentro. SunCentro never filed a prospectus under the British
Columbia Securities
Act (the "Act") and instead relied on prospectus
exemptions to raise money from investors. However, none of the
investors referred to SunCentro qualified under a registration
or prospectus exemption. Accordingly, the executive director of
the Commission alleged that each of the respondents contravened
section 61 of the Act, which prohibits the distribution of
securities without a prospectus in the absence of an exemption.
The executive director also alleged that the directors and
officers of SunCentro and YDS authorized, permitted or
acquiesced to those contraventions, and were therefore liable
under section
168.2 of the Act. Read the full
article by Alannah Fotheringham of Borden Ladner Gervais
LLP.
Federal Budget 2017 Financial Services Highlights
The Government tabled Budget
2017 on March 22. The financial services proposals are
aimed at the following:
- Greater resiliency for the Canadian financial sector;
- A modernized deposit insurance framework that continues to
protect the deposits of Canadians and promote financial
stability; and
- Strengthened ability for Canada to combat money laundering
and terrorist financing.
Financial Sector Stability Measures
Bank Resolution Regime
Legislative amendments are proposed to do the
following:
- Formally designate Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation
(CDIC) as the resolution authority for its members and
require Canada's biggest banks to develop and submit
resolution plans;
- Clarify the treatment of, and protections for, eligible
financial contracts—such as derivatives—in a
bank resolution process.
- Reinforce the Superintendent of Financial Institutions'
powers to set and administer the requirement for
systemically important banks to maintain a minimum capacity
to absorb losses in a resolution.
Read the full
article by Sharissa
Ellyn of Norton Rose Fulbright.
BC Court Enforces Franchise Termination and Release
Agreement
In the recent decision Dairy
Queen Canada, Inc. v. M.Y. Sundae Inc., 2017 BCSC
358, the Supreme Court of British Columbia upheld a Mutual
Cancellation and Release agreement in the context of a
franchisor-franchisee relationship. The decision confirms that,
absent evidence of duress or unconscionability, a franchisor is
permitted to take advantage of a superior bargaining position,
and obtain an enforceable release when a franchisee is in
default. The decision only considered common law principles as
opposed to franchise legislation. The Court also awarded damages
for the tort of passing off against a franchisee who refused to
cease operations after termination.
Background
The Franchisor entered into a standard franchising agreement
with the defendant franchisees. Following several months of
unpaid franchise fees, a long history of failed cleanliness
inspections, and other breaches of the franchisor's standards
and specifications, the franchisor decided to terminate the
franchising relationship. Instead of terminating immediately,
however, the franchisor offered the franchisee the opportunity
to enter into a Mutual Cancellation and Release agreement.
Under the agreement, the franchisee was provided with several
months in which to sell its franchise to a new buyer. In
exchange the franchisee agreed to continue adhering to the
system standards, and released all claims past and future
against the franchisor.
Read the full
article by Adam
Ship, Helen
Fotinos and Fraser Dickson of McCarthy Tétrault
LLP.
FICOM News
The Financial Institutions Commission of BC published the
following recent announcements and bulletins:
Visit the FICOM website
for more information.
BC Securities – Policies & Instruments
The following policies and instruments were published on the
BCSC website in the month of March:
- 41-101
– Mandating a Summary Disclosure Document for
Exchange-Traded Mutual Funds and its Delivery - Adoption of
Amendments to National Instrument 41-101 General
Prospectus Requirements and to Companion Policy
41-101CP to National Instrument 41-101 General Prospectus
Requirements and Related Consequential Amendments
- 81-102
– Mutual Fund Risk Classification Methodology for Use in
Fund Facts and ETF Facts - Adoption of Amendments to National
Instrument 81-102 Investment Funds and Related
Consequential Amendments
- 51-348
– CSA Staff Notice 51-348 Staff's
Review of Social Media Used by Reporting Issuers
- 31-348
– CSA Staff Notice 31-348 OBSI Joint Regulators
Committee Annual Report for 2016
For more information visit the BC Securities website.
|
Act or
Regulation Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
British Columbia Turkey Marketing Scheme (80/2017) |
Mar. 3/17 |
by Reg
80/2017 |
Designated Accommodation Area Tax
Regulation (93/2013) |
Mar. 1/17
|
by Reg
275/2016 |
Apr. 1/17 |
by Reg
41/2017 |
Designated Institutions Regulation (158/2003) |
Mar. 9/17 |
by Reg
102/2017 |
Disclosure of the Cost of Consumer Credit Regulation (273/2004) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
54/2017 |
Fee Setting Criteria Regulation (292/2004) |
Apr. 1/17 |
by Reg
104/2017 |
Income Tax Act |
RETROACTIVE
to
Dec. 20/02 |
by 2017 Bill 9, c. 5, section 2 only (in force by Royal Assent),
Finance
Statutes Amendment Act, 2017 |
RETROACTIVE
to
Nov. 15/03 |
by 2017 Bill 9, c. 5, section 5 only (in force by Royal Assent),
Finance
Statutes Amendment Act, 2017 |
RETROACTIVE
to
Jan. 1/10 |
by 2017 Bill 9, c. 5, section 3 only (in force by Royal Assent),
Finance
Statutes Amendment Act, 2017 |
RETROACTIVE
to
Jan. 1/15
|
by 2017 Bill 9, c. 5, section 1 only (in force by Royal Assent),
Finance
Statutes Amendment Act, 2017 |
Mar. 16/17 |
by 2017 Bill 9, c. 5, section 4 only (in force by Royal Assent),
Finance
Statutes Amendment Act, 2017 |
Insurance (Captive Company) Act Regulation (99/2017) |
REVISED
Mar. 8/17 |
see Reg
99/2017 |
Insurance (Captive Company) Act Regulation (157/87) |
REPEALED
Mar. 8/17 |
by Reg
99/2017 |
Insurance Premium Tax Act |
RETROACTIVE
to
Jan. 1/09 |
by 2017 Bill 9, c. 5, sections 6 to 19 only (in force by Royal
Assent), Finance
Statutes Amendment Act, 2017 |
Interest Rate Regulation (75/2017) |
NEW
Apr. 1/17 |
see Reg
75/2017 |
Logging Tax Act |
RETROACTIVE
to
Jan. 1/09 |
by 2017 Bill 9, c. 5, sections 20 to 36 only (in force by Royal
Assent), Finance
Statutes Amendment Act, 2017 |
Long Term Disability Fund Interest Regulation (51/2017) |
NEW
Apr. 1/17 |
see Reg
51/2017 |
Motor Vehicle Returned to Manufacturer Tax Remission Regulation
(90/2017) |
NEW
Mar. 7/17
|
by Reg
90/2017 |
National Instrument 41-101 General Prospectus Requirements
(59/2008) |
Mar. 8/17 |
by Reg
85/2017 |
National Instrument 81-101 Investment Fund Continuous
Disclosure (218/2005) |
Mar. 8/17 |
by Reg
85/2017 |
National Instrument 81-101 Mutual Fund Prospectus
Disclosure (1/2000) |
Mar. 8/17 |
by Reg
85/2017 |
National Instrument 81-102 Investment Funds (2/2000) |
Mar. 8/17 |
by Reg
85/2017 |
Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act |
Mar. 30/17 |
by 2014 Bill 13, c. 5, sections 55 to 57 (in force by Reg
124/2017), Off-Road
Vehicle Act |
Tobacco Tax Act |
Mar. 16/17 |
by 2017 Bill 9, c. 5, sections 20 to 36 only (in force by Royal
Assent), Finance
Statutes Amendment Act, 2017 |
Tobacco Tax Act Regulation |
Mar. 7/17 |
by Reg
91/2017 |
ENERGY
& MINES |
Energy and Mines News:
Advocates Back in Court Pursuing Charges
Mount Polley Dam Collapse
MiningWatch Canada launched the case last fall, saying the
province and the Mount Polley Mining Corp. violated the
Fisheries Act when a tailings pond collapsed at the
copper and gold mine in August 2014. The group alleges serious
harm was done to fish and the environment when the dam's failure
sent 25 million cubic metres of wastewater gushing into streams
and waterways in BC's Interior. The allegations have not been
proven in court and in January, Crown lawyer Alexander Clarkson
argued there is no prospect of conviction in the case. Clarkson
said the private prosecution is not in the public interest
because the BC Conservation Officer Service, Environment Canada
and Fisheries and Oceans Canada are already investigating, and
their findings could be considered for the charge approval
process. Read The Province article.
Vancouver Island First Nation Gives Nod to
Proposed LNG Export Facility
Members of the small First Nation voted Saturday [March
25th] to approve development of the LNG facility at Sarita Bay,
on the west coast of Vancouver Island. "I feel it is going to be
a very inviting opportunity for international investors to come
to Canada and say, 'Hey, there is certainty there and we would
be willing to work there," Dennis said. Steelhead CEO Nigel
Kuzemko said the company has National Energy Board licences to
export 24 million tonnes of LNG through the Sarita Bay facility
every year, but he said discussions are ongoing about how
they'll get the natural gas from northeastern BC and Alberta to
Vancouver Island. Kuzemko said existing pipelines are favoured,
and Steelhead has been in talks over the possibility of bringing
gas across the Salish Sea from Washington state or piping it
across southern BC. Read The Vancouver Sun article.
Possible New Clean Fuel Standard in Canada
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) is considering the
development of a new clean fuels regulation under the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, 1999. The purpose of
this proposed new regulation is to reduce Canada's greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions through the adoption of lower carbon fuels
and related technologies. ECCC is intending to consult with
provinces, territories, Indigenous Peoples and other
stakeholders. Written comments are due by April 25, 2017, at the
address provided below. ECCC has issued
a discussion paper which includes the following issues for
consideration:
- The regulation is intended to cover a wide range of fuels
including liquid, gaseous and solid fuels to be used in
transportation, industry, homes and buildings.
- The overall objective of the proposed regulation is to
achieve a 30 megatonne annual reduction in Canada's aggregate
GHG emissions by 2030 which, if achieved, will meaningfully
contribute to Canada's overall GHG emissions reduction goal of
30 percent below 2005 emission levels by 2030.
- The regulation is intended to be non-prescriptive and
designed to provide maximum flexibility to fuel suppliers
– including a market-based crediting and trading system.
Read the full
article by Mike Barrett, Sarah E. Gilbert, Thomas W.
McInerney and Duncan M. McPherson of Bennett Jones LLP.
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Demand-Side Measures Regulation |
Mar. 24/17 |
by Reg
117/2017 |
Direction No. 5 to the British Columbia Utilities Commission
(245/2013) |
Mar. 22/17 |
by Reg
115/2017 |
Direction to the British Columbia Utilities Commission
Respecting Undertaking Costs (77/2017) |
NEW
Mar. 2/17 |
see Reg
77/2017 |
Fee, Levy and Security Regulation (8/2014) |
Mar. 15/17 |
by Reg
106/2017 |
First Nations Clean Energy Business Fund Regulation (377/2010) |
Apr. 1/17 |
by Reg
7/2017 |
Geothermal Drilling and Production Regulation (170/83) |
REPEALED
Mar. 31/17 |
by Reg
79/2017 |
Geothermal Geophysical Exploration Regulation (358/98) |
Mar. 31/17 |
by Reg
39/2017 |
Geothermal Operations Regulation (79/2017) |
NEW
Mar. 31/17 |
see Reg
79/2017 |
Geothermal Resources Act |
Mar. 31/17 |
by 2008 Bill 20, c. 36, sections 131 (d) to (k), 132 to 141, 142
(part), 143 (a), (c) to (e) (in force by Reg
39/2017), Oil
and Gas Activities Act |
Geothermal Resources Administrative Regulation (132/83) |
REPEALED
Mar. 31/17 |
by Reg
39/2017 |
Geothermal Resources General Regulation
(39/2017) |
NEW
Mar. 31/17 |
see Reg
39/2017 |
Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Clean Energy)
Regulation (102/2012)
|
Mar. 2/17
|
by Reg
76/2017
|
Mar. 22/17 |
by Reg
114/2017 |
FAMILY & CHILDREN |
Family and Children
News:
Aboriginal Child Protection and Dual Citizenship:
Membership has its Benefits
In British Columbia, the Director representing the Ministry of
Children and Family Development must notify the Aboriginal
community (i.e. Indian Band) when there are child protection
concerns such as removal of a child from their parents. Under
the Child,
Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA), an
Aboriginal Community (i.e. "treaty first nation, an Indian band
or aboriginal community") is one that is designated by the
Minister. This seems to run contrary to the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)
under the self-determination aspects of that international
instrument where Indigenous peoples have the right to "freely
determine their political status and freely pursue their
economic, social and cultural development" (UNDRIP,
Article 3). Read the full
article by Troy
Hunter and published in Law Now.
BC Woman Loses Bid for Child Support from Ex-husband
Who Was Not Father of Her Son
A woman who concealed from her husband the fact that he was not
the father of her son has lost her bid for child support from
him. The couple had been married for three years when the son,
only identified by the initial D in a court ruling, was born in
March 2009. The husband, identified by the initials P.Z., took
it for granted that he was the child's natural father, but it
turned out that the birth was apparently the result of a
"dalliance" between his wife, identified as E.Z., and another
man. In the ruling, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Robin Baird said
that it was not clear how or when the question of the child's
true parentage came up or what led the parties to agree to
paternity testing. But the paternity issue was laid conclusively
to rest in June 2013, a year following the couple's separation,
when DNA lab results confirmed that the respondent in the case,
the husband was not the dad. "Not surprisingly, the respondent
was crestfallen and felt upset and betrayed," said the judge.
"By this time, D was four years old." The couple were living in
Ontario prior to the divorce but after the September 2014
divorce, the wife moved to B.C., apparently to start a new life
with a local man she had met on the Internet. Read The
Vancouver Sun article.
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Adoption Act |
Mar. 16/17 |
by 2017 Bill 2, c. 4, sections 1 to 7 only (in force by Royal
Assent), Adoption
Amendment Act, 2017 |
Youth Custody
Regulation (137/2005)
|
Apr. 1/17 |
by Reg
11/2017 |
FOREST
& ENVIRONMENT |
Forest and Environment News:
Retroactive Taxpayer Liability under Logging Tax
Act
The Logging
Tax Act was amended by the Finance
Statutes Amendment Act, 2017, which received
Royal Assent on March 16. The Logging Tax Act now
provides that if an excess amount is refunded to the taxpayer,
that amount is payable on the date of the refund. Moreover,
the taxpayer is liable to pay interest on the amount beginning
on that date. Two definitions and additional clarifications
were made relating to taxes due the government. These changes
were made retroactive to January 1, 2009.
BC Envoy says Softwood Lumber Negotiations
"In the Hands of the U.S."
British Columbia's softwood trade envoy says there's a slight
opportunity to quickly negotiate a new lumber agreement
between Canada and the United States, but if a deal can't be
reached by the summer or fall it could mean a lengthy fight.
David Emerson said Wednesday [March 29th] he sensed a chance
at a deal but also saw continued turbulence in the
administration of President Donald Trump and strong
protectionist sentiments in the U.S. Congress after visiting
Washington, D.C. "My own guess is there is a window of
opportunity, late summer or early fall, and if that doesn't
initiate something meaningful in terms of negotiations then I
think we're probably into next year," he said. "We're really
now in the hands of the U.S. government to see this thing
actually get started and discussions get underway," he added.
Emerson said there has not been a formal start to talks, but
Canadian officials in Washington and Ottawa are preparing for
negotiations. He said he met with David MacNaughton, Canada's
ambassador to the U.S., last week as well as officials at
Canada's embassy and Global Affairs Canada. Read the CBC article.
BC Updates, Releases 2017-2019 Fishing Regulations
The Province has released the new, updated guide to freshwater
fishing rules and regulations, Minister of Forests, Lands and
Natural Resource Operations Steve Thomson announced today.
Government has posted the 2017-2019 Freshwater Fishing
Regulations Synopsis on its fishing regulation website (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/fish/regulations/)
and printed copies will soon be available at Front Counter
B.C., Service B.C. and stores that sell fishing licences. This
synopsis is a comprehensive guide to the regulations,
policies, and practices that guide freshwater fishing in B.C.
The Province updates the synopsis every two years, and
regularly posts updates online. The synopsis also includes
important angling-related articles including information on
stopping the spread of invasive aquatic species,
catch-and-release best practices, and tips on how to help keep
aquatic ecosystems natural, intact and healthy. Read the
Government news
release.
Environmental Appeal Board Decisions
The following Environmental Appeal Board decisions were
released in the month of March:
Environmental
Management Act
Water
Act
Wildlife
Act
Visit the Environmental Appeal Board website
for more information.
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Angling and Scientific Collection Regulation (125/90) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
74/2017 |
Base Mapping and Geomatic Services Product
and Services Price List Regulation (373/2005) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
48/2017 |
Cattle Industry Development Council Regulation (240/94) |
Apr. 1/17 |
by Reg
112/2017 |
Coastal Forest Industry Dispute Settlement Act |
REPEALED
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
55/2017 |
Controlled Alien Species Regulation (94/2009) |
Mar. 2/17 |
by Reg
78/2017 |
Designation and Exemption Regulation (168/90) |
Mar. 31/17 |
by Reg
127/2017 |
Hunting Licensing Regulation (8/99) |
Mar. 31/17 |
by Reg
127/2017 |
Limited Entry Hunting Regulation
(134/93) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
49/2017 |
Mar. 31/17 |
by Reg
127/2017 |
Forest Act |
Mar. 7/17 |
by 2016 Bill 12, c. 11, sections 1 to 7, 9 to 12, 14 to 16, 18,
21 to 23 and 24 (part) only (in force by Reg
92/2017), Forests,
Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act,
2016 |
Freshwater Fish Regulation (261/83) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
74/2017 |
Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act |
Mar. 7/17 |
by 2016 Bill 12, c. 11, sections 25 and 26 only (in force by Reg
92/2017), Forests,
Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act,
2016 |
Hunting Regulation (190/84) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
74/2017 |
Hunting Licensing Regulation (8/99) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
74/2017 |
Limited Entry Hunting Regulation (134/93) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
49/2017 |
North American Gypsy Moth Eradication Regulation, 2010 (34/2010) |
REPEALED
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
67/2017 |
North American Gypsy Moth Eradication Regulation, 2015 (55/2015) |
REPEALED
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
67/2017 |
Park, Conservancy and Recreation Area Regulation (180/90) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
66/2017 |
Permit Regulation (253/2000) |
Mar. 31/17 |
by Reg
127/2017 |
Protected Areas of British Columbia Act |
Mar. 7/17 |
by 2016 Bill 25, c. 21, section 10 only (in force by Reg
88/2017), Miscellaneous
Statutes (General) Amendment Act, 2016 |
Water Sustainability Regulation (36/2016) |
Mar. 31/17 |
by Reg
130/2017 |
Wildfire Act |
Mar. 16/17 |
by 2017 Bill 5, c. 2, section 1 only (in force by Royal Assent),
Forests,
Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act,
2017 |
Wildlife Act |
Mar. 31/17 |
by 2016 Bill 12, c. 11, sections 32 to 34, 36 to 38, 42, 45 and
49 (part) (in force by Reg
127/2017), Forests,
Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act,
2016, and 2017 Bill 5, c. 2, sections 2 to 8 (in force by Reg
127/2017), Forests,
Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act,
2017 |
Wildlife Act Commercial Activities
Regulation (338/82) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
74/2017 |
Mar. 15/17 |
by Reg
107/2017 |
Mar. 31/17 |
by Reg
127/2017 |
Wildlife Act General Regulation (340/82) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
74/2017 |
Mar. 31/17 |
by Reg
127/2017 |
Wood Residue Burner and Incinerator Regulation |
Mar. 21/17 |
by Reg
109/2017 |
HEALTH |
Ian Mulgrew: Medicare Trial Turns
BC Courtroom into a Playing Field
The long-running BC constitutional trial over the provincial
provision of Medicare has focused a klieg light on the worst of
the legal profession's foibles — its love of sport.
Lawyers are competitive by nature, and their sporting theory of
justice is never more on display than when they enter a
courtroom. The spring in their step, the glint in their eye
— ah, the very joy they feel preparing for the courtroom
is bonded to the prospect of playing a game with a set of
complicated rules and procedures that frustrate the average
person. They relish the procedural guidelines and the arcane
language of legal protocol with the baseball fan's smug
satisfaction of understanding what's going on even when the
players are just standing around. The rules are always in
foreground — available to be invoked and manipulated, to
delay and to score points, to earn more money and to win. After
a leisurely spring break, the Medicare trial will resume with
Victoria seeking another adjournment so the plaintiffs can
"organize their case appropriately over the next 60 days to
allow for a more efficient court process." That would forestall
witnesses such as retiring Health Minister Terry Lake from
taking the stand or experts providing embarrassing testimony
during an election. Read The Vancouver Sun article.
Fentanyl Traffickers Should Face Stiffer Penalties in
BC, Court Rules
The province's highest court has ruled that the
sentencing range
should be closer to between 18 and 36 months
The BC Court of Appeal has ruled that given the devastating
impact of the fentanyl crisis, those convicted of trafficking
the drug should face tougher sentences. The current sentencing
range is between six and 12 months in prison. A panel of BC
Court of Appeal judges said a sentence of between 18 and 36
months is more suitable. In
a written decision issued earlier this week, the justices
highlighted the enormity of the crisis. "Fentanyl is a scourge.
It poses intolerable risks of accidental overdosing because it
is so much more powerful than morphine," said Justice David
Harris. Read the CBC article.
|
Act or
Regulation Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Drug Price Regulation (344/2012) |
Apr. 1/17 |
by Reg
266/2016 |
E-Health
Regulation (129/2011)
|
Mar. 7/17 |
by Reg
94/2017 |
Emergency Medical Assistants Regulation (210/2010) |
Mar. 29/17 |
by Reg
123/2017 |
Medical and Health Care Services Regulation (426/97) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
60/2017 |
LABOUR
& EMPLOYMENT |
Labour and Employment News:
BC Supreme Court Clarifies Law Regarding
Employment Probation
The British Columbia Supreme Court recently addressed key
issues regarding probationary periods in employment contracts.
Background
In Ly
v. British Columbia (Interior Health Authority),
2017 BCSC 42, the contract of employment executed by the
plaintiff, Mr. Ly, contained the following probation clause:
"Employees are required to serve an initial probationary
period of six (6) months for new positions" (the "Probation
Clause"). Mr. Ly was dismissed from his position after two
months and challenged the enforceability of the Probation
Clause. He argued that such a brief reference to probation
was not sufficient to rebut the common law presumption of
reasonable notice owed to dismissed employees. The Court
rejected this argument, concluding that the meaning of the
term "probation" is well understood and noting that Mr. Ly
had not questioned or attempted to negotiate the Probation
Clause (as he had done, for example, with respect to a
different clause in the agreement). Mr. Ly further argued
that the six-month Probation Clause was unenforceable
because its six-month duration fell afoul of section
63(1) of the Employment
Standards Act (the "ESA"), which requires
employers to provide employees who have served at least
three months of employment with a minimum of one week's
notice or pay in lieu.
Decision
The Court acknowledged that the law regarding whether
employers can require probationary periods longer than three
months was somewhat unclear.
Read the full
article by Laura
DeVries of McCarthy Tétrault.
New WorkSafeBC Regulations for Joint Occupational
Health and
Safety Committees Effective April 3, 2017
In British Columbia, a workplace with 20 or more workers must
have a joint occupational health and safety committee
("Committee"), and a workplace with 10-19 workers must have a
worker health and safety representative. Effective April 3,
2017, amendments to the Occupational
Health and Safety Regulation will require the following:
- Employers must ensure that a written evaluation is
conducted annually to measure the effectiveness of the
Committee. Section 3.26(b) of the Regulation sets out who
can conduct the evaluation, and section
3.26(3) of the Regulation sets out what information
must be covered by the evaluation. WorkSafeBC reports that
it will launch an online evaluation tool that employers and
Committees may use to comply with this requirement.
Read the full
article by Monique
Ronning of Mccarthy Tetrault.
BC Supreme Court Finds Human Rights Tribunal's
Decision that
Failed to Establish Nexus between Employee's Termination and
Alleged Sexual Discrimination was not Patently Unreasonable
Sones
v. Squamish (District)
BC Supreme Court dismissed petition for judicial review in
respect of Human Rights Tribunal's decision to summarily
dismiss a complaint of sexual discrimination on the basis that
the alleged contraventions occurred more than six months
before the complaint was filed.
[2017] B.C.J. No. 191
2017 BCSC 169 British Columbia Supreme Court
February 2, 2017
J.C. Grauer J. In January 2014, Sones, a fire department
clerk, reported allegations of sexual discrimination and
harassment to her employer, the District of Squamish. To
ensure a comfortable and impartial investigation, the
District placed her on a paid leave of absence pending the
investigation. The investigator's report was completed in
June 2014, concluding there was no evidence of any
intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment, and
that most of Sones' complaints were unsubstantiated, with
the exception of some complaints of inappropriate
behavioural incidents. The District discussed those
incidents with the employees involved, then asked Sones to
return to work. Sones refused, saying it would be impossible
for her to safely return to work until it was clear she
could return to a harassment-free workplace.
Read the full
article by Kara
Hill of Harper Grey LLP.
Government to Direct the Creation of a
Policy for Return of WorkSafeBC Funds
The government intends to amend the Workers
Compensation Act to establish a new policy
requiring WorkSafeBC to return funds to employers when it has
a surplus of contributions from employers in the Accident
Fund. The Workers Compensation Act gives WorkSafeBC
exclusive authority to establish and manage an Accident Fund
to pay for past, current and future claims for workers injured
or killed at work. This includes the authority to collect
premiums from employers based on their payroll and establish a
reserve to fund future liabilities. WorkSafeBC also generates
additional income from the investment of the funds it collects
from employers. Government does not provide WorkSafeBC any
funding. WorkSafeBC currently has more assets than liabilities
in the Accident Fund as a result of the accumulation of funds.
The legislation does not provide explicit direction on how to
manage this surplus. By amending the act, the Province will
address this gap in legislation to ensure that there is a
process to manage the surplus funds collected from employers.
Read the government news
release.
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Designated Institutions Regulation (158/2003) |
Mar. 9/17 |
by Reg
102/2017 |
Employment and Assistance Regulation (263/2002) |
Apr. 1/17 |
by Regs
96/2017 and 118/2017 |
Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities
Regulation (265/2002) |
Apr. 1/17 |
by Regs
95/2017, 96/2017
and 118/2017 |
Employment Standards Regulation (396/95)
|
Mar. 1/17
|
by Reg
56/2017
|
Firefighters' Occupational Disease Regulation (131/2017) |
Mar. 31/17 |
by Reg
127/2017 |
Long Term Disability Fund Interest Regulation (51/2017) |
NEW
Apr. 1/17 |
see Reg
51/2017 |
Public Service Benefit Plan Act |
Apr. 1/17 |
by 2016 Bill 10, c. 3, sections 13 and 14 only (in force by
Royal Assent), Budget
Measures Implementation Act, 2016 |
Social Services Employers Regulation (84/2003) |
Mar. 9/17 |
by Reg
101/2017 |
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT |
Local Government News:
Unrestricted Matters in the Building Act:
The Plot Thickens
The Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible
for Housing and Deputy Premier, whose portfolio includes the Building
Act, has amended the Building
Act General Regulation. Among other things, the Minister
has specified examination and continuing education requirements
for different classes of qualified building officials, and added
to the list of "unrestricted matters". Unrestricted matters are
matters in relation to which local building requirements, which
might otherwise be rendered ineffective by s.
5 of the Building Act, will still apply. The
list of unrestricted matters, set out in s.
2 of the Regulation, now includes the following new items:
- Water supply for firefighting
- Flood construction levels and setbacks
- Heritage buildings
- Fire sprinklers and fire sprinkler systems
- Accessibility of a building to persons with disabilities
- Adaptability of dwelling units
Items d. to f. in the above list are referred to as
"time-limited unrestricted matters", because a local building
requirement relating to these matters is only unrestricted if it
is enacted on or before December 15, 2017, and is not amended
after that date. Read the full
article by Guy
Patterson of Young Anderson Barristers & Solicitors.
Richmond Expands Regulation
of Short-term Rentals
Richmond City Council has approved recommendations to amend its
bylaws and licensing requirements for short-term rentals to
address concerns related to illegal, hotel-like operations and
other negative impacts on neighbourhoods. With the proposed
changes, existing regulations will be enhanced and enforcement
will be intensified along with increased fines and penalties.
"The new amendments to address short-term rentals will enable us
to respond to neighbourhood concerns from our residents and
encourage longer term rentals," says Richmond Mayor Malcolm
Brodie. "With these amendments, we have a measured approach to
protect our neighbourhoods with clear, enforceable
requirements." Read the press
release.
New Sprinkler Requirements for Four-storey
Wood-frame Buildings
An update to the BC Building Code will require fire sprinklers
to be installed on the balconies of all new four-storey
wood-frame residential buildings. Under the current BC Building
Code, sprinklers generally are not required on balconies or in
attics in residential buildings four storeys and under, but are
generally required in residential buildings greater than four
storeys. The updated 2015 National Building Code, on which BC
Building Code updates are based, requires sprinklers on
balconies of four-storey residential buildings. Although the
next edition of the BC Building Code is not scheduled to be
adopted until late 2017, the Province is taking steps to adopt
the new sprinkler standards sooner. The new sprinkler
requirements will take effect on July 20, 2017. Read the
government news
release.
A Legal Duty to Document?
On March 8, 2017, the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Mr.
Michael de Jong, tabled Bill 6, the Information
Management (Documenting Government Decisions) Amendment Act,
2017. The intent of the Bill is to enact the
recommendation of the former Information and Privacy
Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, to legislate a duty to document
key governmental decisions. If enacted, the Bill will amend the
Information
Management Act to provide the Chief Records Officer
with the ability to issue directives and guidelines to
government bodies subject to the Act to:
- create records that adequately record decisions connected to
the government body's business; and
- determine what constitutes an adequate record of those
decisions.
The Bill will also make the designated heads of government
bodies responsible to ensure their government body has an
adequate system in place to create and maintain adequate records
of its decisions and to make sure "reasonable steps" are taken
to ensure the government body is complying with any directives
or guidelines issued by the Chief Records Officer. Bill 6 will
only affect government bodies that are subject to the Information
Management Act. Local government bodies such as regional
districts and municipalities are not expected to be affected by
this new legislation. Nevertheless, any directives or guidelines
made by the Chief Records Officer may be informative to local
governments in terms of record retention policies. Read the full
article by Rosie Jacobs of Young Anderson Barristers &
Solicitors.
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
British Columbia Transit Regulation (30/91) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
53/2017 |
Building Act General Regulation (131/2016) |
Apr. 1/17 |
by Reg
52/2017 |
Bylaw Notice Enforcement Regulation (175/2004) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
37/2017 |
Class Size and Compensation Regulation (52/2012) |
Mar. 28/17 |
by Reg
121/2017 |
Commuter Rail Operating Agreement Regulation (439/95) |
REPEALED
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
53/2017 |
Designated Property Regulation (423/81) |
REPEALED
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
53/2017 |
Elevating Devices Safety Regulation (101/2004) |
Mar. 8/17 |
by Reg
45/2017 |
Gaming Control Regulation (208/2002) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
57/2017 |
Gas Safety Regulation (103/2004) |
Mar. 8/17 |
by Reg
45/2017 |
Greater Vancouver Transit Conduct and Safety Regulation (87/99) |
Mar. 27/17 |
by Reg
110/2017 |
Home Owner Grant Regulation (100/2002) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
59/2017 |
Interest Rate Under Various Statutes Regulation (386/92) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
73/2017 |
Learning Improvement Fund Regulation (53/2012) |
Mar. 28/17 |
by Reg
121/2017 |
Power Engineers, Boiler, Pressure Vessel and Refrigeration
Safety Regulation (104/2004) |
Mar. 8/17 |
by Reg
45/2017 |
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act |
Mar. 16/17 |
by 2017 Bill 17, c. 3, section 12 only (in force by Royal
Assent), Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017 |
Safety Standards General Regulation (105/2004) |
Mar. 8/17 |
by Reg
45/2017 |
School Tax Administration Fee Regulation (138/91) |
REPEALED
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
70/2017 |
School Tax Administration Fee Regulation (70/2017)
(replaces Reg 138/91) |
NEW
Mar. 1/17 |
see Reg
70/2017 |
School Tax Exemptions and Refunds (Approved and Eligible
Hydroelectric Power Projects) Regulation (144/2005) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
69/2017 |
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act |
Mar. 1/17 |
by 2015 Bill 15, c. 13, section 59 only (in force by Reg
61/2017), Motor
Vehicle Amendment Act, 2015 |
Taxation (Rural Area) Act Regulation (71/2017) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
71/2017 |
Victoria Regional Transit Commission Regulation No. 38-2017 |
NEW
Mar. 9/17 |
see Reg
100/2017 |
MISCELLANEOUS
|
Miscellaneous News:
Upcoming Changes to Small Claims
Court and Civil Resolution Tribunal
On March 20, 2017, the BC Government announced changes affecting
the BC Provincial (Small Claims) Court, which will come into
effect on June 1, 2017. These changes introduce new, simplified
procedures for dispute resolution of smaller monetary claims and
increase the limit on claims within Small Claims Court
jurisdiction. BC's Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) is an online
dispute resolution tribunal. Currently, the CRT resolves strata
disputes. Beginning June 1, the CRT will also handle monetary
claims up to $5,000. These claims may be for disputes concerning
contracts, debts, personal injury, personal property and
consumer issues. Also beginning June 1, the monetary limit for
civil claims heard in Small Claims Court will increase from
$25,000 to $35,000. If you currently have a claim in Small
Claims Court for $25,000, you will be able to increase the
amount of your claim or counterclaim up to $35,000. Similarly,
if you currently have a claim in BC Supreme Court for $25,001 to
$35,000, you can apply to have your case transferred to Small
Claims Court.
GC Panel Slams CASL Private Right of
Action, Warns of Class Actions
In-house experts say class action lawyers are rubbing their
hands together and counting the days until phase two of Canada's
Anti-Spam Law comes into effect July 1, ushering in the much
feared private right of action. The PRA means an individual or
organization that feels they have been affected by a
contravention of the legislation can litigate to enforce the new
private rights. "I have met with a couple of the plaintiff class
action firms who are counting the number of sleeps until July
1," said Peter Clausi, executive vice president corporate
affairs and general counsel at GTA Resources and Mining Inc. "I
think they are going to wind up being the Wade Boggs of
litigation — they're going to go to the hall of fame
hitting singles." Clausi was speaking Monday [April 3rd] as part
of a panel entitled Get Smart: Conquering CASL and the New
Private Right of Action at the Canadian Corporate Counsel
Association's national conference in Toronto. He doesn't think
there will be multiple multi-million dollar settlements, but
does predict there will be "strike suits" given the standard
that the plaintiff has to meet which is "almost nothing and then
damages are assumed." "I have never seen a greater dichotomy
between the pervasiveness of the legislation and the lack of
knowledge about it than with CASL," said Clausi. "We all think
we've complied with CASL but I can pretty much guarantee you
that there's no one in the room in compliance with CASL today.
It is a horrible, pervasive, invasive piece of legislation. It
ought to keep you awake at nights." Read the full
article by Jennifer
Brown and published on Legal Feeds.
Selecting the Appropriate Expert
The recent decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court in Khudabux
v. McClary, 2016
BCSC 1886, highlights the importance of selecting
appropriate medical experts in the defence of personal injury
claims. In Khudabux, Mr. Justice A. Saunders reviews
the pitfalls of relying on expert reports from orthopaedic
surgeons to rebut allegations of soft tissue injuries. In Khudabux,
the Plaintiff sought damages for injuries suffered in two motor
vehicle accidents. At trial, both parties submitted expert
medical reports containing opinion on the extent of the
Plaintiff's injuries and her prognosis. As is common practice,
the Defendant submitted an expert report from an orthopaedic
surgeon in support of its position that the Plaintiff had
suffered only minimal injuries from one of the accidents.
Writing generally on the use of the expert reports of orthopedic
surgeons to refute soft tissue injury claims, Mr. Justice A.
Saunders stated that: Of course, there may be situations in
which such a specialist feels able to offer opinion evidence
that sheds light on the nature and scope of such complaints. But
it is also the case that a clash between experts pitting an
orthopaedic surgeon against a physiatrist, specializing in
rehabilitation medicine – or even, as in the present case,
against a family physician – can possibly leave counsel in
the position of the hoodlum in the film The Untouchables,
at the point when he realizes too late that he has brought a
knife to a gunfight. Read the full
article by David
Buxton-Forman of Clark Wilson LLP.
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Guide Dog and Service Dog Regulation (223/2015)
|
Mar. 1/17
|
by Reg
58/2017
|
Provincial Immigration Programs Regulation (20/2017) |
Mar. 31/17 |
by Reg
128/2017 |
Subdividable Property Designation (Deltaport Causeway)
Regulation (122/2017) |
NEW
Mar. 29/17 |
see Reg
122/2017 |
MOTOR
VEHICLE & TRAFFIC |
Motor Vehicle and Traffic
News:
Pub Found Partly at Fault for Crash Caused by
"Visibly Intoxicated" Patron
Reasons for judgement were released [March 9, 2017] by
the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, finding a Pub jointly
and severally liable for a collision by a patron who was served
alcohol to the point of visible intoxication. In today's case (Widdows
v. Rockwell) the Defendant drove a vehicle and
collided with the Plaintiff pedestrian. The crash caused severe
injuries, including brain damage. At the time the Defendant was
"quite literally, falling-down drunk". Prior to the crash the
Defendant was drinking at a local pub. In finding the pub
jointly and severally liable for over serving a patron and
failing to take reasonable steps to ensure he was not driving
Mr. Justice Kent provided the following reasons: Read the full
article by Erik
Magraken of MacIsaac & Company, published on his blog
BC Injury Law.
Slow Down and Move Over – RCMP Reminder
Just over two years ago on January 1, 2015 the law was amended
to require motorists to Slow Down and Mover Over, for all
vehicles stopped alongside the road, which have flashing red,
blue or amber lights. This change under the Motor
Vehicle Act Regulations enhances safety for people working
on roadways, such as police officers, paramedics, and fire
crews. The laws also apply to maintenance crews, tow truck
operators, or any other people authorized to work along roadways
and utilize emergency lights. Read the full TMTV news
article.
Uber Vancouver: BC Government Announces
Support for Ride-hailing Services
The BC Liberals turned ride-hailing into an election issue
Tuesday [March 7th], promising that if they win at the polls
then British Columbians will be able to hire an Uber driver by
Christmas. Opposition New Democrats immediately fired back,
announcing that if they win the election, the Liberal plan will
never become a reality. Transportation Minister Todd Stone
unveiled the most significant overhaul of BC's taxi industry in
decades, effectively ending the industry's monopoly on service
if the Liberals are re-elected on May 9. BC would green light
ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft, while at the same
time offering cash support and a relaxation of the rules to
existing taxi companies to try to prevent their business from
being devastated by the competition, he said. Read The
Vancouver Sun article
by Joanne Lee-Young and Rob Shaw.
CVSE Bulletins & Notices
The following circular has been posted in March by CVSE:
- Circular
03-17 Transition period between Paper Logs and
Electronic Recording Devices
For more information on these and other items, visit the CVSE
website.
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Emission Inspection Exemption Regulation (320/92) |
REPEALED
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
61/2017 |
Exhaust Emission Standards Regulation (274/2000) |
REPEALED
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
61/2017 |
Motor Vehicle Act Regulations (26/58) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Regs
61/2017, 64/2017
and 65/2017 |
Motorcycle Safety Helmet Exemption Regulation (237/99) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
62/2017 |
Permitted Cost of Services Regulation (286/99) |
REPEALED
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
22/2017 |
Special Direction IC2 to the BC
Utilities Commission (307/2004)
|
Mar. 3/17
|
by Reg
81/2017
|
Mar. 28/17 |
by Reg
119/2017 |
Violation Ticket Administration and
Fines Regulation (89/97) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
74/2017 |
Mar. 27/17 |
by Reg
110/2017 |
Mar. 31/17 |
by Reg
127/2017 |
PROPERTY
& REAL ESTATE |
Property and Real Estate
News:
Mortgage Lending: Update and Practice Points
– from CLEBC
website – Practice Points
In this paper from Residential Real Estate
Conference—2016, the author presents interesting
recent cases that involve various aspects of mortgage lending
and provides practical take aways for each case. Click here
to view a pdf version of the paper.
New Condo-sale Rule brings Relief to Many, Grief to
Some
BC law seeks to end protracted sales process and
provide
financial escape route for owners in rundown buildings
Developers, lawyers, realtors and some condominium owners
rejoiced last summer when the BC government changed the law to
make it easier for strata corporations to sell assets. The
government's Bill
40 lowered the bar so that if 80% of the owners in a
strata corporation vote to dissolve that entity and sell the
site to a developer, they can petition BC Supreme Court for
final approval. The court then takes into consideration whether
owners who oppose the sale will suffer a significant hardship.
Court approval is not a rubber-stamp process, but proposals are
now a lot more likely to find success in court than they would
have before Bill 40 became law. Read the Business in
Vancouver article.
Court of Appeal Upholds Mortgage Exit
Fee in Face of Interest Act Challenge
Section 8 of the Interest
Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-15, prohibits any "fine,
penalty or rate of interest . . . that has the effect of
increasing the charge on the arrears beyond the rate of interest
payable on principal money not in arrears." Relying on this
provision, borrowers often challenge fees and charges that
borrowers levy when seeking to enforce a secured debt that has
gone into arrears. For the defaulting borrower, it can slow down
the lender's effort to seek judgment and, if successful, can
amount to relief from portions of the debt being claimed.
However, what section 8 actually means and how it applies in any
given case is a question that constantly bedevils courts. Two
recent decisions illustrate the practical difficulties in
categorizing the nature of charges accruing to a secured debt
and whether they contravene the Interest Act.
Arguably, one decision, Krayzel
Corp. v. Equitable Trust Co., 2016 SCC 18, does
away with prior judicial distinctions that made commercial sense
(though were difficult to apply) and makes relief under section
8 more likely. The other decision, Bankers
Mortgage Corporation v. Plaza 500 Hotels Ltd., 2017
BCCA 66, illustrates a clear mechanism for lenders to avoid the
perils of section 8 of the Interest Act. Read the full
article by Peter Roberts of Lawson Lundell LLP.
BC Government Enacts New Exemption and
Refunds For Foreign Entity Tax
On March 15, 2017, the BC Government issued Order
In Council 152/17 (the "OIC"), which creates a retroactive
exemption from the 15 percent Foreign Entity Tax (the "Tax") for
foreign nationals applying for permanent residency under BC's
Provincial Nominee Program, and provides refunds for certain
purchasers who have previously paid or are required to pay the
Tax and later become Canadian citizens or permanent residents.
The OIC enacts these changes by way of amendments to the Property
Transfer Tax Regulation. For additional information on the
Tax, see our previous posts here
and here.
Inclusion in BC's Provincial Nominee Program (BC PNP) places a
foreign national into a "fast track" stream with respect to its
permanent residency application. The Program is divided into two
categories: entrepreneurial nominees (i.e. foreign nationals
with high net-worth and business or management experience) and
skilled nominees (i.e. foreign nationals filling in-demand
occupations). Current foreign national provincial nominees who
purchased a principal residence on or after August 2, 2016 (the
effective date of the Tax), and paid the Tax, have 18 months
following the date of their purchase to claim a refund for the
additional tax. The new exemption is available for provincial
nominees who are foreign nationals purchasing principal
residences in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The
exemption applies to the purchase of an improved residential
dwelling, provided the provincial nominee intends to inhabit the
dwelling as their principal residence. The exemption can only be
used by provincial nominees once, and is not available for
companies or taxable trustees. Read the full
article by Peter
Tolensky and
Nicholas Shon of Lawson Lundell LLP.
CRT Roundup – Bylaws, Repairs, and Significant
Change in
Use or Appearance of Common Property
Fournier v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 768, 2017 CRTBC
11 (PDF),
concerned decisions taken at, and actions flowing from, a strata
corporation's special general meeting. At the meeting, two
resolutions were approved: one amending the strata corporation's
bylaws to add a rental-restriction bylaw, the other authorizing
the strata corporation to spend money from the contingency
reserve fund to repair a deck attached to a strata lot. An owner
challenged both "events that occurred at, and as a result of,"
the special general meeting, alleging an improper filing of
consolidated bylaws in the land title office and an improper
expenditure of funds to repair the deck. According to "Land
Title Office records," the strata corporation had registered
bylaws in July 1996. These 1996 bylaws provided "that the strata
corporation shall maintain and repair the exterior of the
buildings, excluding balconies and patios included in the strata
lot, but including the decorating of the whole of the exterior
of the buildings." Since the advent of the Strata
Property Act in 2000, these bylaws were only
amended once (adding an age restriction). Read the full
article by Kevin Zakreski with BCLI.
House Buyer Beware: Landmark BC Court
Ruling Will Shake Real Estate Industry
A BC Supreme Court ruling will send shock waves through the arm
of the Canadian real-estate market that is powered by foreign
capital, say immigration lawyers. The ruling targets a weakness
in Canadian laws that often leads foreign owners of real estate
in cities such as Metro Vancouver and Toronto to claim they are
"residents of Canada for tax purposes" when they are not. The
landmark BC decision requires notary public Tony Liu to pay his
client more than $600,000 because Liu failed to adequately
determine whether the Vancouver house his client was buying for
$5.5 million had been owned by a tax resident of Canada. As a
result, the Canada Revenue Agency did not get paid, at the time
of the sale, the 25 per cent capital gains tax it charges
non-resident sellers of Canadian property on any profit they
make on the sale. So the CRA later demanded the buyer pay the
$600,000 in tax. The buyer, in turn, sued Liu, arguing Liu
failed to discover the seller was not a tax resident of Canada.
The CRA considers people who don't live in the country at least
six months a year and don't pay income taxes here to be foreign
property investors and speculators and thus subject to capital
gains taxes. Three Canadian immigration lawyers said the CRA tax-residency
rule is often not enforced, even in overheated housing
markets in Vancouver and Toronto that are in part fuelled by
offshore money. The complex ruling published this month by BC
Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Affleck strikes to the heart of a
gaping hole in Canadian tax, immigration and property-transfer
law, say the immigration lawyers. Read The Province article
by Douglas Todd.
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Base Mapping and Geomatic Services Product and Services Price
List Regulation (373/2005) |
Mar. 1/17 |
by Reg
48/2017 |
Interest Rate Regulation (75/2017) |
NEW
Apr. 1/17 |
see Reg
75/2017 |
Property
Transfer Tax Exemption Regulation No. 6 (443/94);
Property Transfer Tax Exemption Regulation No. 7 (93/99);
Property Transfer Tax Exemption Regulation No. 8 (360/2005);
Property Transfer Tax Exemption Regulation No. 9 (189/2006);
Property Transfer Tax Exemption Regulation No. 12 (328/2010);
Property Transfer Tax Exemption Regulation No. 13 (329/2010);
Property Transfer Tax Exemption Regulation No. 14 (56/2014);
Property Transfer Tax Exemption Regulation No. 15 (57/2014);
Property Transfer Tax Exemption Regulation No. 16 (58/2014);
Property Transfer Tax Exemption Regulation No. 17 (59/2014);
Property Transfer Tax Exemption Regulation No. 18 (87/2015);
Property Transfer Tax Exemption Regulation No. 19 (88/2015);
Property Transfer Tax Exemption Regulation No. 20 (89/2015);
Property Transfer Tax Exemption Regulation No. 21 (156/2015);
Property Transfer Tax Exemption Regulation No. 23 (156/2015)
|
REPEALED
Mar. 1/17
|
by Reg
68/2017
|
Property Transfer Tax Regulation (74/88) |
RETROACTIVE
to
Aug. 2/16 |
by Reg
108/2017 |
Mar. 31/17 |
Real Estate Services Regulation (506/2004) |
Apr. 1/17 |
by
Reg 3/2017 |
WILLS
& ESTATES |
Wills and Estates News:
Court Orders Interim Distribution under
Section 155
of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act
In a recent decision, Davis
v. Burns Estate, 2016 BCSC 1982, the Supreme Court
of British Columbia allowed an interim distribution to be made
to a beneficiary of a will under section
155 of the Wills,
Estates and Succession Act pending the resolution
of a wills variation claim. Section 155 prohibits the personal
representative from making a distribution after someone has
started a wills variation claim without the consent of the
Court. As far as I know, this is the first reported decision
dealing with an interim distribution pursuant to section 155,
although there were cases under the now repealed Wills
Variation Act considering whether to allow an
interim distribution under that Act (which contained a
prohibition on distribution during the first six months
following probate, but did not expressly prohibit a distribution
after the six-month period if a claim had been commenced).
Patricia Burns died on March 17, 2015. In her will dated October
23, 2010, she left 20% of the residue of her estate to Brent
Dale, with whom she lived, and 80% to her friend George Quan,
disinheriting her daughter, Leslie Davis. Mr. Dale provided
evidence that he and Ms. Burns were in a marriage-like
relationship. The gross value of the estate was over $2.5
million. Read the full
article by Stan
Rule of Sabey Rule LLP.
Probating a USA Will and BC Assets
Obtaining a grant of probate from the BC court provides
assurance for anyone dealing with an estate that the deceased's
will is legally valid and that the executor has authority to
administer the estate. With the increasing number of foreign
buyers of real estate in BC, the probate process can get
complicated since each jurisdiction has its own probate
procedures. If the deceased lived primarily in another
jurisdiction but owned land or other assets in BC, the executor
of the estate will need to go through probate in BC in order to
deal with the BC assets. Our current legislative framework
provides two methods for dealing with this issue: (1) direct
probate of a foreign will in BC; and (2) having foreign probate
confirmed (technically referred to as ‘resealing') in BC.
Direct probate of a foreign will in BC allows an executor to
apply directly to a BC court for probate, provided there is no
need to apply for a grant in another jurisdiction. Read the full
article by Charlene Joanes of Clark Wilson LLP.
Daughter Receives $185,000 from Will for
Value of Mother's Home –
Home Was Sold before Mother's Death
– Forbes v. Millard Estate, 2017
BCSC 361
The testatrix died February 9, 2015, aged 91, and was survived
by 3 children. The will, which was made in September of 2000,
detailed that her daughter, the petitioner in this action, was
to receive "any property which I may own and be using as a
home at the date of my death". At the time the will was
made, she owned a home on Hornby Island, but it was later sold
and a home in Courtenay, BC, was purchased. The testatrix's
mental health declined after 2002 and by 2004 she was
incompetent, could no longer live independently and she was then
placed in a care home. Due to the increasing cost of her care,
the deceased's attorneys, two of her children, under an enduring
power of attorney, sold her property for $185,000. The dispute
surrounded the bequest to Cherie Forbes of "any property
which I may own and be using at the date of my death". As
the property had been sold before her death, the testatrix did
not own a home. The specific issue in the petition was whether
the petitioner should receive an amount equivalent to the
proceeds of sale of the property as if the will had contained a
specific gift to the petitioner of that amount. The common law
would normally point to the gift having adeemed, or failed, as
there was a legal presumption the testator intended to revoke
the gift. But, WESA came into effect in March 2014 and provided
an important section: Read the full
article published by the Wills Variation Group of MacIssac
& Company.
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
There
were no amendments this month.
|
The
content
of this document is intended for client use only.
Redistribution to anyone other than Quickscribe clients
(without the prior written consent of Quickscribe) is strictly
prohibited.
QUICKSCRIBE SERVICES LTD.
UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS EMAIL SERVICE
To unsubscribe from this service, click here. |