Can a creditor who institutes a hypothecary recourse recover "Extra-judicial professional fees...for services"? A Quebec Court rules

December 1, 2010

Download this publication

Since the amendments made to the Civil Code of Québec (“C.C.Q.”) in 2002, article 2762 provides that:

2762. A creditor having given prior notice of the exercise of a hypothecary right is not entitled to demand any indemnity from the debtor except interest owing and costs.

Notwithstanding any stipulation to the contrary, costs exclude extra-judicial professional fees payable by the creditor for services required by the creditor in order to recover the capital and interest secured by the hypothec or to conserve the charged property.

Back to the publications list

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

Subscribe to publications

Publications that might interest you

September 19, 2024

Financing Quebec’s Energy Transition: Unlocking the Potential of Flow-Through Shares

Quebec has set ambitious energy transition and industrial decarbonization targets. The shift to greener practices has to be taken in a context where our energy consumption could rapidly grow under the combined effect of a number of factors, such as the reindustrialization of our economy, population growth, transport electrification and the potential for artificial intelligence to consume vast amounts of energy. Investing in the development of energy infrastructure is therefore critically important, as an abundance of energy is key to economic prosperity. The problem is that public finances are already stretched to the limit with the need to renovate our aging infrastructure, among other things. Encouraging private equity investment is thus vital, and tax incentives can be very effective in this respect. The American example In 2022, the United States passed its Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), with the goal of stimulating investment in the renewable energy sector, in particular. More specifically, the IRA altered or created a number of tax credits to encourage private investment.1 Over the past two years, US businesses have announced a total of almost US$276 billion in new investments in clean energy generation and the capturing or elimination of carbon dioxide and other forms of industrial decarbonization, an increase of 34% on the two years previous.2 The IRA is effective in that it takes the respective situations of various energy sector stakeholders into account in a creative, flexible and pragmatic way, especially where taxation is involved. Energy project promoters often have to wait many years for their projects to generate income and profits, even though the banks and other investment funds they solicit financing from can be presumed to be operating profitable businesses. The tax losses that occur in the years during which such projects are designed and built are therefore of little interest to developers, but of immediate interest to investors. And so, a tax equity market has emerged, in which businesses subject to taxes can invest in the shares of entities set up to develop such projects so as to benefit from tax credits and faster depreciation. Typically, the entity that cashes in the investment and develops the project distributes 99% of income, losses and tax credits to investors until a predetermined return is achieved. Once that return is achieved, the investor’s share of the benefits decreases, and the developer has the option of buying out the investor’s residual share. The IRA has transformed how federal clean energy tax credits are monetized, and it is now possible to buy and sell such credits without having to make a long-term investment. For businesses, this new way of doing things is an additional and attractive way to participate in the growing tax credit market.3 In 2023, the volume of the tax equity market for American projects was around US$20 to 21 billion, up about US$18 billion from the previous year.4 It appears that the trend will continue. It is estimated that the value of the current market, which is particularly attractive to banks, is set to double to US$50 billion a year by 2025.5 The equivalent of flow-through shares The Quebec and Canadian tax deductions mechanism that most closely resembles the US tax equity market is probably flow-through shares. Through these, businesses in the mining and renewable energy sectors can transfer their mining exploration expenses and other expenses—specifically designated as eligible—to investors, who can then deduct them from their own taxable incomes.6 These businesses can thus issue shares at a higher price than they would receive for common shares to finance their exploration and development operations. Investors are willing to pay a higher price in return for the tax deductions afforded by the eligible expenses incurred by the issuing businesses, which can amount to a maximum of 120% of the equity invested in the shares.7 Investors can also claim a 15% or 30% federal tax credit. However, because tax incentives cannot be transferred, our mechanism is more rigid than the American one, and it can only be applied to mineral exploration and development expenses and certain specific expenditures related to renewable energy and energy conservation projects, such as electricity generation using renewable sources like wind, solar energy and geothermal energy.8 With ambition and innovation comes the need to take action Quebec could draw inspiration from the IRA to increase the attractiveness of flow-through shares and broaden their scope of application, thereby creating a new tool to finance the energy transition. The renewable energy sector is similar to the mining sector in many respects, not least in terms of the considerable amount of capital required to build the infrastructure needed to operate a mine or energy generation facility. The flow-through share mechanism, which is well-established and popular with investors,9 could be just as successful in our energy transition context. Making such incentives easier to transfer would also drive the emergence of a market similar to the US tax equity market. A number of Québec flagship companies, such as Hydro-Québec,10 Innergex11 and Boralex,12 are also very ambitious when it comes to developing large-scale energy projects. They face major financing challenges, as do those in the industrial decarbonization and infrastructure renewal sectors. Innovation is necessary to meet these challenges and make the transition to a more sustainable, but just as prosperous, world, and to do so in good time.13 Link Rhodium Group and MIT’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEPR), Clean Investment Monitor, link Brandon Hill, How to take advantage of tax credit transferability though the Inflation Reduction Act, Thomson Reuters Institute, April 16, 2024, link Allison Good, Renewables project finance to keep pace in 2024, but tax equity rule looms, S&P Global, January 12, 2024, link Lesley Hunter and Mason Vliet, The Risk Profile of Renewable Energy Tax Equity Investments, American Council on Renewable Energy, December 2023, link Link, page in French only Link Link Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada, Flow-through shares & the mineral exploration tax credit explained, link Link Link Link The authors would like to acknowledge the participation and the work done by Sophie Poirier in this publication

Read more
May 2, 2024

Uncovering the intricacies of sports infrastructure financing

Two Montréal landmarks have proudly hosted some of the city’s most memorable sporting events. The Olympic Stadium (Figure 1) and the IGA Stadium, which have been and remain quintessential in our sporting history, are in need of renovations so that sports fans can continue to “raise the roof” for years to come. Figure 1: The Olympic Stadium: A prominent feature of the Montréal skyline. These stadiums may be iconic, but the issues with their roofing systems—or lack thereof—have plagued the Montréal news for over 30 years. It is estimated that installing a retractable roof over the centre court at IGA stadium could cost $70 million, and replacing the Olympic Stadium’s roof and support ring, no less than $870 million.1 These projects may be considered priorities,2 but the skyrocketing construction and renovation costs are already causing a stir.3 And to make matters worse, the problem will not be solved definitively, as the lifespan of the new Olympic Stadium roof is estimated at 50 years.4 These projects are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to our sports infrastructure. According to the Minister responsible for Sport, Recreation and Outdoors, Isabelle Charest, “This is a huge endeavour. A good part of the infrastructure could use some work and revamping. And in some cases, we need new infrastructure, period.”5 In other words, the needs are varied and many. Investing in charming small, local skating rinks, multi-purpose municipal sports facilities and even towering stadiums used by professional sports leagues is essential to fostering physical well-being and keeping the population healthy ... or simply entertained. Mindful of the importance of physical activity as well as voters’ appreciation for sports, the Quebec government invested $300 million in the Programme d’aide financière aux infrastructures récréatives, sportives et de plein air (PAFIRSPA, financial aid program for recreational, sporting and outdoor activity infrastructure).6 One component of this program provides financing for up to two-thirds of the cost of renovating, upgrading, building or developing sports and recreational facilities, up to a maximum amount of $20 million per project. Applicants seeking financing from the program had to submit their applications by December 5, 2023. While the PAFIRSPA may seem ambitious, the projects it covers are obviously far less expensive than modern professional sports arenas, which have become true engineering and technological marvels over the years. The cost of building Tottenham Hotspur Stadium in London in 2019, for instance, has been estimated at £1.1 billion,7 which itself is a pittance compared to the US$5.5 billion needed to build the SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles, where the football teams Rams and the Chargers have been playing since 2023.8 As in most situations, money matters when it comes to sports infrastructure. A winning financing strategy is not everything—it’s the only thing. In this first instalment of our series of articles on sports law, we will focus on sports infrastructure financing and examine what lies beneath the surface, as we begin to uncover the challenges, strategies and issues. The Rules of the Game Sports infrastructure financing lies at the crossroads of the entertainment business and the public interest, and it differs from other types of financing in a number of ways. On one hand, the public’s ever-growing appetite for sporting events over the years has spawned numerous colossal projects requiring financing packages similar to those for public or industrial infrastructure projects of the same scale. On the other, the economic benefits and social impact of projects of various sizes often warrant the use of public funds, and the involvement of local communities may be imperative in the case of facilities where utility takes precedence over profitability. In addition, a wide range of financing mechanisms can be used, depending not only on the sums involved, but also on the identity of the infrastructure owners. For the purposes of this article, we will consider financing in relation to three types of ownership: (i) wholly private, (ii) public and private, and (iii) wholly public. We will be taking a closer look at specific financing options and associated issues in our next sports law article. Wholly Private Ownership Financing This refers to infrastructure owned by a private entity and operated by a private administrator, which may or may not be the same entity. One example is the Bell Centre (Figure 3), privately owned by Groupe CH, which is in turn owned by the Molson family and other investors. Figure 3: The 2022 National Hockey League Draft was held at the Bell Centre. This type of ownership usually involves wholly private financing, with the owner injecting the funds required to carry out the desired work. According to media reports, the owner of the Bell Centre invested $100 million in 2015 to renovate it.9 This amount came from Groupe CH and its investors alone. Needless to say, with this type of ownership, any kind of financing is possible, including shareholder equity investment, the issuance of bonds to private subscribers and all forms of bank debt. Combining several of these options is not at all uncommon. In the case of debt financing in particular, making lenders feel as comfortable as possible can be a challenge, and the magnitude of this challenge will depend on the amounts involved. Just how profitable a project will be hinges on whether it can be completed at the agreed-upon cost and whether it will be a commercial success once completed. Generally speaking, using a project’s assets as collateral will not be enough to get lenders on board, and they will require other forms of security, such as shareholder guarantees, fixed-price or capped construction contracts, or the involvement of subordinated lenders. When economic spinoffs are expected to benefit the community, public authorities can also be called upon to guarantee part of the loan repayment or offer various forms of public funding, including forgivable loans, thus reducing the risk assumed by lenders. Efforts to reduce the risk incurred by lenders should, in theory, result in significantly lower financial costs, or in some cases, in obtaining the required financing. Other projects rely on government procurement. Olympique Lyonnais became the first French professional soccer club to be listed on the stock exchange in 2007, when the club’s shares were put up for sale on the Euronext market in Paris. The funds raised in this way were put towards the club’s development projects, including the financing of its new stadium, which opened in January 2016. This financing package consisted of a combination of equity (including proceeds from stock issues), bank loans, traditional bonds and mandatory convertibles.10 Other supplementary yet substantial financing arrangements, such as naming rights agreements, may be used to enhance financing packages. Under such an agreement, a company can acquire naming rights to an arena for a predetermined period, generally between 3 and 20 years, in consideration of a substantial sum of money. In 2017, Scotiabank agreed to pay $800 million over 20 years to rename the building that houses the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey club the “Scotiabank Arena.”11 In addition to renaming facilities, it is possible to sell perimeter advertising or solicit individual donors to purchase a plaque bearing their name at the entrance to a field, in rows or in the bleachers. Read our latest bulletin on this topic Promoters’ financial models are routinely enhanced by other creative revenue streams, including catering concessions, box rental agreements or preferred memberships, parking spaces, boutiques and advertising. Other sources of income include leasing agreements for various uses of the facilities. Some manufacturers in the sports field construction industry even offer financing packages whereby the purchase and installation can be paid for in monthly, quarterly or annual installments, thus reducing the amount of debt or investment required. Signing the relevant contracts before building or renovating the facilities improves the financing package for the project and increases its chances of success. Public ownership financing Ownership of infrastructure by a public entity, regardless of whether it is operated by a private entity or not, can have a significant bearing on the options available and the type of financing selected. Public and private ownership involves an owner from the public sector and a private administrator. The Videotron Centre in Québec City (Figure 4), home of the Québec Remparts hockey club of the Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League, is an example of this type of ownership. It is owned by Québec City and managed by Quebecor Media. Figure 4: The Videotron Centre in Québec City, inaugurated on September 8, 2015. Generally speaking, infrastructure owned and operated in this way is financed jointly using public and private funds. Although the Videotron Centre has not required major renovation work so far, the initial construction of the stadium is an example of public-private financing. It cost a total of $370 million to build. A sum of $185 million came from the Quebec government, and $15.4 million from J’ai ma place, an organization set up specifically to finance the Videotron Centre using funds from the Quebec population. Québec City provided the remaining $169.6 million, which included the $33 million that Quebecor Media paid in 2015 to acquire naming rights (which was transferred to its subsidiary Videotron for an undisclosed sum), $50 million in cash and $86.3 million in the form of a bank loan. Public ownership means that the sports infrastructure is owned and administered by one or more public entities. In such cases, standard-sized infrastructure can generally be financed entirely using public funds. This is where Quebec’s PAFIRSPA, mentioned above, comes in. For more costly projects, including a public entity in the ownership group—be it public and private or wholly public—opens the door to a range of options. In the United States, this includes using municipal taxes or issuing municipal bonds to finance infrastructure. Construction of the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, New York, which began in 2010 and was completed in 2012, was financed in part by tax-exempt municipal bonds issued by the Brooklyn Arena Local Development Corporation, an entity formed by an agency of the State of New York for financing purposes.12 Nearly 500 million U.S. dollars were raised, covering a significant portion of the arena’s construction costs, as part of a larger redevelopment effort known as Pacific Park Brooklyn (formerly Atlantic Yards). The Barclays Center is now home to the Brooklyn Nets basketball team of the National Basketball Association. We will conclude our overview with a few words on public-private partnerships (PPPs), which are particularly well suited to high-cost infrastructure projects. Under a PPP, the government or another public entity partners with a private company to develop a public infrastructure or services project. PPPs combine the resources, expertise and capabilities of the public and private sectors to deliver projects that benefit the community. PPPs take many different forms and can cover a wide range of activities, from project design and construction to operation and, in some cases, financing. In the design-build-finance (DBF) model, for example, the PPP includes the design, construction and financing of the infrastructure. Bidders participating in the call for proposals must include a project financing package in their proposal. The private company ultimately selected for the project will be responsible for both the design and construction, as well as the initial or ongoing financing of the project. Bidders must therefore negotiate with financial institutions before being awarded the construction contract in order to include a financing package in their proposal. These financial institutions will then closely monitor how the loaned funds are used and how the project is managed. The private company selected at the end of the call for proposals must therefore make undertakings both to the public authority and to its lenders concerning deadlines, construction costs and financing costs as soon as the contract is awarded. This is why the DBF model generally allows for greater efficiency in executing projects, certainty over construction costs and better management of financial risks. One example is the Stade de France, a stadium that can accommodate 81,338 spectators in a football or rugby configuration and was built for the 1998 FIFA World Cup in France. It is located in Saint-Denis, Seine-Saint-Denis, and is owned by the French government, which awarded a 30-year concession contract expiring in 2025 to the Vinci-Bouygues consortium, as part of a scheme almost identical to today’s PPP schemes. Conclusion The investments required for certain multipurpose amphitheatres and other sports facilities are comparable to those for transport infrastructure, energy projects or industrial plants. This, of course, means that sports infrastructure projects can also rely on a similar set of financing packages, along with a few additional ones specific to sports, such as sponsorship advertising in all its forms. Public authorities are more likely to get involved in projects that include ownership by a public entity or have a major social impact. This opens the door to a wide range of financing packages, tailored to each project’s specific needs. Having now covered the basics, we look forward to examining some of these packages in greater detail in future articles. Zacharie Goudreault, Le toit fixe proposé pour le Stade olympique déchire les experts, link TVA Sports, Stade IGA : le toit doit être une priorité pour Montréal selon Legault, Le journal de Québec, August 13, 2023, link Philippe Teisceira-Lessard, Le cauchemar continue, La Presse, July 27, 2023, link Goudreault, op. cit. Gabriel Côté, Québec investit 300 M$ pour les infrastructures sportives, Le journal de Québec, June 19, 2023, link link link Christopher Palmeri, Rams Owner Stan Kroenke Debuts His $5.5 Billion Dream Stadium, Bloomberg, September 10, 2020, link Maxime Bergeron, 100 millions investis au Centre Bell, La Presse, October 14, 2015, link Bouclage du financement du stade des Lumières, Décideurs, August 7, 2013, link link; Pete Evans, Scotiabank pays big for arena naming rights, but did it break the bank?, CBC News, September 4, 2017, link link

Read more
February 21, 2024

New corporate transparency requirements in Canada, Québec and the U.S. – What Canadian and Québec companies need to know

Over the last several years, member countries of the OECD, including Canada and the U.S., have committed to various international undertakings dealing with corporate governance. In keeping with these commitments, since 2019, the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) has required business corporations incorporated under the CBCA to prepare and maintain a register of individuals with significant control over the corporation. Nearly all Canadian provinces, including Québec, have also amended their legislation to make control of companies incorporated in their jurisdiction more transparent. For instance, since March 31, 2023, companies registered with the Québec Enterprise Register (REQ) must report their ultimate beneficiaries to the REQ. Providing greater transparency in the control of Canadian businesses is a continuing process, and additional provisions that apply to federal business corporations came into force on January 22, 2024, and others, applicable to businesses registered with the REQ, will come into force on July 31, 2024. The provisions of the Corporate Transparency Act of the United States requiring companies to report beneficial ownership information came into force on January 1, 2024; some of these provisions are of interest for Canadian companies. Canada – Public register of individuals with significant control Since June 2019, business corporations incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act have been required to maintain a register of “individuals with significant control” (ISCs) containing the following information: the name, date of birth and last known personal address of each ISC the citizenship, country or countries where the ISCs are residents for tax purposes the date on which each of these individuals became an ISC the manner in which the individual is an ISC and any other information required by the regulation.1 Although federal corporations must make this register accessible to the Director tasked with administering the Canada Business Corporations Act, to shareholders and creditors of the corporation and to investigative bodies, the register was not accessible to the public until recently. On November 2, 2023, the federal legislator amended the provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act to, among others: allow ISCs to provide an address for service in addition to their personal address provide that a portion of the ISC information compiled by federally incorporated businesses must be sent to the Director tasked with administering the CBCA provide that the Director must make the following information on ISCs accessible to the public: their name their address for reporting purposes if such an address is provided or, failing which, their personal address the date on which they became an individual with significant control and a description of the manner in which each one is an individual with significant control Note that even if the date of birth, citizenship, country or countries where the ISC is a resident for tax purposes and their personal address (if they provided an address for reporting purposes) must be provided to the Director overseeing the Canada Business Corporations Act, this information will not be made public. The Director may, however, in turn provide to any police force, the Canada Revenue Agency and any provincial body that has responsibilities similar to those of the Canada Revenue Agency, bodies that have investigative powers in relation to certain offences, a provincial enterprise register or provincial agency enforcing corporate law in that province all or part of a corporation’s ISC information, which goes beyond the information it makes available to the public. A corporation must send its ISC information electronically through the Corporations Canada website, at incorporation (if incorporated after January 22, 2024), annually and concurrently with the filing of its annual declaration, within 30 days following its merger with another CBCA corporation, within 30 days of the date on which it becomes subject to the CBCA after incorporating under the laws of another jurisdiction, and within 15 days following any changes made to its register of ISCs. These amendments came into force on January 22, 2024. To assist federal corporations in drawing up a list of their ISCs, the Director tasked with administering the Canada Business Corporations Act posted a letter template on its website that federal corporations may send to their shareholders, their ISCs and to anyone who could reasonably be expected to have the relevant knowledge to identify their ISCs.2 The purpose of that letter is to help the corporation in identifying its ISCs. It is mandatory for shareholders to respond to the corporation’s request and failure to respond may result in significant fines and even imprisonment. Québec – Search a natural person by last name and first name Since April 1, 2023, most private businesses that required to register in Québec must report to the Registre des entreprises du Québec the names, residential address and date of birth of each of their ultimate beneficiaries, and the type of control exercised by them or the percentage of shares or units of the corporation owned by these ultimate beneficiaries or of which they are the beneficiaries. In general, an ultimate beneficiary of a business is a natural person who owns or is the beneficiary of 25% or more of the voting rights for that business, who owns or is the beneficiary of 25% or more of its fair market value or who has an influence that could result in de facto control over the business. The information reported on ultimate beneficiaries is accessible to the public and free for anyone consulting the REQ. The requirement to report ultimate beneficiaries applies to almost all businesses registered in Québec and is not limited to businesses incorporated under Québec law nor to business corporations. Therefore, any foreign legal person that is required to register in Québec must report its ultimate beneficiaries. The same applies to partnerships, such as general partnerships and limited partnerships, and some trusts. As of July 31, 2024, it will be possible to search the REQ using the last name and first name of a natural person. Accordingly, from that date, it will be possible to obtain the list of all businesses registered in the REQ of which a person is a director, officer, one of the three shareholders controlling the greatest number of votes and an ultimate beneficiary by searching by his or her last name and first name. The last and first name of the natural person and his or her residential address will appear in the search results. However, if a work address was reported to the register for that person, only the work address will appear. Federally incorporated businesses registered with the REQ A federally incorporated business that does business in Québec must maintain a register of its ISCs under the Canada Business Corporations Act and report information on its ultimate beneficiaries to the REQ. Although most ISCs of a federally incorporated business will also be the ultimate beneficiaries under the Act respecting the legal publicity of enterprises and vice versa, the two acts do not define an ISC and ultimate beneficiary in exactly the same way. A person may be an ultimate beneficiary under the Act respecting the legal publicity of enterprises without necessarily being an ISC under the Canada Business Corporations Act (and vice versa). Consequently, the content of the register of ISCs for a federally incorporated business — and thus information it will have reported to the Director in charge of the Canada Business Corporations Act — may not be identical to the ultimate beneficiary information it will have reported to the REQ. However, federally incorporated businesses that do not do business in Québec are not required to register under the Act respecting the legal publicity of enterprises. All other provinces, except for Alberta,3 have now incorporated provisions into their business corporations legislation requiring corporations registered under the laws of that province to maintain a register of individuals with significant control. As a result, these provisions only apply to business corporations incorporated under the law of the province and, therefore, do not apply to business corporations incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act or under the business corporation act of another province. Corporate Transparency Act in the United States coming into force – Impact on Canadian businesses On January 1, 2021, the Corporate Transparency Act, part of the U.S. Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, came into force. Just like the amendments made to the Canada Business Corporations Act and to the Act respecting the legal publicity of enterprises (Québec), the aim of the Corporate Transparency Act is to prevent and fight against money laundering, terrorism financing, corruption, tax fraud and other illicit activities, among others, by increasing the transparency of private companies incorporated in or registered in the United States. On January 1, 2024, the reporting requirements in the Corporate Transparency Act to identify “beneficial owners,” which are basically equivalent to ISCs under the Canada Business Corporations Act and “ultimate beneficiaries” under the Act respecting the legal publicity of enterprises (Québec), came into force. Businesses covered by the act and incorporated before January 1, 2024, have until January 1, 2025, to file their first Beneficial Ownership Information Report. Businesses incorporated after that date must file their first report no later than 30 days after the date they first register with a U.S. government authority. Reports on beneficial ownership of businesses are filed with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, an agency of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, better known by its acronym FinCEN. Reporting businesses must submit an updated report within 30 days of any change in information previously reported to FinCEN. Reports on beneficial ownership are not accessible to the public and are not subject to the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. The information contained in these reports will be, however, generally accessible to United States law enforcement agencies and United States federal tax authorities. Foreign law enforcement authorities may also be granted access in certain circumstances through United States federal intermediary agencies. Provided they have received the consent of their clients, financial institutions will also have access to the information to facilitate compliance with customer due diligence requirements under applicable law. All corporations incorporated in the U.S. must file beneficial ownership information reports unless they are legally exempt. Exempt businesses include: most businesses whose securities are registered under the Securities Act of 1934 large businesses, i.e., businesses with more than 20 full-time employees in the U.S., having a facility in the U.S., and having reported over U.S.$5 million in gross revenues or sales in the previous reporting period. It follows that in most cases, unless it is exempted, usually because it will qualify as a “large business” due to the number of its employees and its revenues, a U.S. subsidiary of a Canadian corporation will have to comply with the act and report the identity of its Canadian beneficial owners. A reporting business must, among other things, report the full name, the date of birth and the address of all its beneficial owners. The U.S. subsidiary of a Canadian corporation must also submit a copy of the Canadian passport (or from the country of citizenship of the person in question) for each of its beneficial owners. A person is deemed a beneficial owner of a corporation if he or she is a natural person who, directly or indirectly, exercises substantial control over the reporting corporation, or owns or controls at least 25% of the corporation’s ownership interests (shares, units or others), in voting rights or in value. The definition of “substantial control” for the purposes of the Corporate Transparency Act is much broader and more specific than what is found in equivalent Canadian legislation. An individual has “substantial control” over a reporting corporation under the Corporate Transparency Act if such individual (i) is a senior officer in the corporation, (ii) has authority to appoint or remove certain officers or a majority of the directors (or similar body) of the reporting corporation, (iii) is an important decision maker of the reporting corporation or (iv) has any other form of substantial control over the reporting corporation. The Corporate Transparency Act imposes serious penalties on individuals who willfully fail to file or update beneficial ownership information or who willfully file false information. These penalties include civil penalties of up to U.S.$500 per day of violation, fines of up to U.S.$10,000, as well as potential; imprisonment for a period up to two years. Note that the act contains a presumption against senior officers in respect to reported information that is false, incomplete or not up to date. These officers could therefore be held personally held liable for civil penalties and fines and could be subject to imprisonment if the reported information proves to be false or incomplete or not up to date. Senior officers must therefore be especially vigilant and ensure that the reporting requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act are met. The Director tasked with administering the Canada Business Corporations Act has posted a template for the register of ISCs on its website. This register can be found at: https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/corporations-canada/sites/default/files/documents/2023-12/04.3_isc-register-template_en.xlsx This template can be found at: This template can be found at: https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/corporations-canada/sites/default/files/documents/2023-12/06.1_request_for_information_template_isc_en.pdf The three territories, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, still have yet to amend their legislation to require a register of individuals with significant control to be maintained for business corporations incorporated under the business corporation acts of those territories.

Read more
October 12, 2022

Sales without legal warranty at the buyers’ risk: Clarity is key

On July 15, 2022, Justice François Lebel of the Court of Québec rendered a decision1 confirming that, in the case of the sale of immovable property, a clear and unambiguous exclusion clause, whereby the warranty is waived at the buyer’s risk, results in a break in the chain of title preventing the buyer from taking any legal action under such warranty against the seller and previous sellers. Justice Lebel thus declared the originating application against the defendants Marshall and Bergeron inadmissible and dismissed the call in warranty. This decision is consistent with the recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Quebec in Blais,2 rendered in May 2022, which clarified the state of the law on the consequence of waiving a legal warranty where successive sales are involved. The facts In March 2009, the defendant Bergeron sold an income property (hereinafter the “Property”) to the defendants, the Marshalls, with a legal warranty of quality. In May 2012, the Marshalls in turn sold the Property to the defendants Hamel and Drouin, still with a legal warranty of quality. In December 2016, the defendants Hamel and Drouin resold the Property to the plaintiff, but this time [translation] “without legal warranty of quality, at the buyer’s risk, but with warranty of ownership”. In the fall of 2020, the plaintiff had work done to repair the drain tile system. It was at that point that it discovered the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil under the Property’s foundation, rendering the soil unsuitable for residential use. According to an expert report, the alleged contamination stemmed from a heating oil tank once located in a shed behind the Property. The tank was apparently removed before the sale in December 2016. The plaintiff was seeking a reduction in the sale price and to have the defendants Hamel and Drouin, as well as the two previous sellers, the defendants Marshall and Bergeron, held solidarily liable. The plaintiff referred to the warranty of quality provided for in articles 1726 and following of the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.) and the warranty against public law restrictions provided for in article 1725 C.C.Q. The plaintiff also claimed to be the victim of fraud on the part of the defendants Hamel and Drouin. After being called in warranty by the defendants Hamel and Drouin, the Marshalls moved to dismiss the substantive claim and the action in warranty. They claimed that the sale of the Property between the defendants Drouin and Hamel and the plaintiff was made at the buyer’s risk and that such a clause in a subsequent deed of sale irrevocably breaks the chain of title, thereby preventing the plaintiff from taking any legal action against the seller and previous sellers. The law and the importance of a clear clause According to article 1442 C.C.Q., which codifies the principles arising from the decision in Kravitz,3 buyers may seek to have the sellers previous to their own seller held liable. However, for such an action to be deemed valid, it must be established that: The defect existed at the time that the previous sellers owned the immovable; and The right to the legal warranty was transferred to the plaintiff through subsequent sales. Indeed, the buyer of an immovable may take legal action directly against a previous seller in accordance with article 1442 C.C.Q. However, this article presupposes that the right to the legal warranty was passed on from one owner to the next, right down to the current buyer seeking to file a claim for latent defects. In other words, the legal warranty must have been transferred to each owner through the chain of title. In Blais, the Court of Appeal confirmed that an unambiguous warranty exclusion clause results in a break in the chain of title. Such a clause prevents the buyer of an immovable from taking legal action directly against the former owners who sold the immovable with a legal warranty. Given the decision in Blais, it is now clear that such a clause waiving the legal warranty closes the door to any direct recourse against a seller’s predecessors, even if such predecessors sold the immovable with a legal warranty.4 In these circumstances, a buyer who acquires an immovable at their own risk will be deprived of their right to take legal action directly against the previous sellers, insofar as the warranty exclusion clause in the deed of sale is clear and unambiguous. In this case, Justice Lebel considered that the wording of the warranty exclusion clause in the deed of sale, which was binding on the plaintiff, was clear and unambiguous, and that a sale at the buyer’s “risk” excludes both the warranty of quality and the warranty of ownership, which covers the public law restrictions of article 1725 C.C.Q. Justice Lebel indicated that there was a break in the chain of title resulting from the sale at the buyer’s risk and that the plaintiff could not claim that it was still entitled to take legal action directly against any sellers other than the defendants Hamel and Drouin. He therefore ruled in favour of the defendants Marshall and Bergeron and declared the originating application against them inadmissible. Key takeaways A warranty exclusion clause in a deed of sale will only be deemed valid if it is clear and unambiguous. The mention that a sale is made “at the buyer’s risk” completely eliminates the warranty of quality provided for in article 1726 C.C.Q. and the warranty of ownership provided for in article 1725 C.C.Q. A deed of sale containing a valid warranty exclusion clause AND a mention that the sale is made “at the buyer’s risk” precludes any recourse by the buyer against the seller, but also against previous sellers. With the current state of the Quebec real estate market, the decision in Hamel, which ties in with the Court of Appeal’s teachings in Blais, certainly clarifies how case law established in recent years should be applied, in particular as concerns the effect of a warranty exclusion clause on successive sales. The members of our Litigation and Dispute Resolution group are available to advise you and answer your questions. 9348-4376 Québec inc. c. Hamel, 2022 QCCQ 5217 Blais c. Laforce, 2022 QCCA 858. General Motors Products of Canada Ltd v. Kravitz, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 790 Supra note 1, paras. 6 and 8.

Read more