The new Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act came into force October 17, 2011. All federally incorporated not-for-profit corporations must continue into this new Act by October 17, 2014. Failure to continue the not-for-profit corporation will result in dissolution.
The new Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act makes positive improvements to the not-for-profit sector particularly in the areas of powers, corporate governance and accountability. Under the old regime, a not-for-profit corporation only had the powers expressly granted to it under its Letters Patent. Under the new Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, a not-for-profit corporation has the powers of a natural person subject only to restrictions in the articles, thus opening opportunities for non-for-profit to engage in activities that might previously have been unable to pursue. Corporate governance has been brought more into line with those applicable to the for-profit sector. Accountability has been made more rational, with greater accountability to members including the right of members to access oppression remedies, and with the mandated requirement for audited financial statements being eliminated for some lower revenue corporations.
The transition by a not-for-profit corporation from the old act to the new Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act is made by a continuance. A continuance is filing of Articles of Continuance, along with the new by-laws with the Director for the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act. The Articles of Continuance and new by-laws must be approved by the members by special resolution prior to submission. While there is no fee for the continuance, the process is not trivial and requires significant changes to the by-laws. The good news is that in many cases the by-laws may be significantly reduced because the default provisions of the new Act may be relied upon. A clear understanding of the new Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act is required in order to appropriately formulate the new by-laws to preserve the intentions of the members.
We represent the interests of a number of not-for-profit corporations located in Ottawa and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario.
Frequently Asked Questions
I have a corporation the shares of which are held only by me and members of my immediate family. Do I really need to have annual minutes?
If your corporation is audited by the CRA and matters, such as the declaration of dividends, have not been formally documented by a written resolution of the directors or in annual minutes, the consequence can be severe. There are other risks that may be avoided by having minutes prepared annually. This is analogous to your dentist who encourages you to have good dental hygiene and periodic check-ups so that small problems do not become big problems. Practicing good corporate hygiene just makes good sense.
The minimum legal obligation of a corporation is to hold an annual meeting of shareholders to consider the financial statements, elect directors and to appoint (or dispense with the appointment of) the auditor. In practice, and as permitted by statute, narrowly held corporations often dispense with an annual meeting in favor of signed resolution of all of the shareholders. The failure to hold annual resolutions, or obtain written resolutions in lieu, can lead to legal action from disgruntled shareholders.
The practice of holding annual meetings (or resolutions in lieu) also tends to ensure that corporate matters requiring attention are addressed, such as share transfers, changes to directors, and address changes, which if left unaddressed could become significant problems.
An effective method of ensuring good “corporate hygiene” is for the corporation to instruct its accounting advisors to provide legal counsel with an annual letter of instructions to document applicable financial matters.
It is not uncommon that a new client brings us a minute book that has not been properly organized, or that has not been updated for many years. It is not a cause for embarrassment. We strongly encourage that the minute books be updated before an issue arises, such as a CRA audit.
I want to become an entrepreneur and start a business. Should I incorporate now, or start as a sole proprietorship and delay incorporation to a later date?
The advisability of incorporation is dependent on the particular facts and personal preferences of the entrepreneur. The role of the Lawyer and other professional advisors is to help draw out the relevant facts and explore personal preferences to assist the entrepreneur in making the decision that is right for her. Some of the relevant factors include:
Risk. Is the proposed business inherently risky? The shield of limited liability that an incorporated entity provides to the entrepreneur is an important benefit (note that the shield from liability is not absolute);
Tax. A valuable attribute of an incorporated entity is the relatively low tax rate (approx. 16%) payable on the first $500,000 of net income. This allows a profitable incorporated entity to grow much quicker using internally generated working capital than a similarly sole proprietorship where a marginal tax rate in excess of 50% of profits may be payable. An exception is where the sole proprietor has other sources of income and it is anticipated that the new business will suffer losses in the start-up year(s) – it may be possible to set off the losses against the other income and thus reduce the overall tax burden;
Costs. Incorporation of the business at an early stage is less expensive than incorporation once the business is up and running. Once the business (sole proprietorship) is up and running it is generally necessary to use a “rollover” transaction to transfer the business from the sole proprietorship to the corporation.
Separate Existence. An incorporated entity has a legal existence separate and apart from the entrepreneur. This provides for a number of real and perceived benefits including (generally): broader alternatives for raising capital; easier salability of the business and possible availability of lifetime capital gains exemption to avoid tax on sale, continuous existence past the life of the entrepreneur, public perception of greater substance, and easier separation of personal and business dealings.
“I’ve been told I need a Shareholder’s Agreement - do you have a standard agreement I can use” is something we hear with frequency. It reflects an understanding by the client that a Shareholder’s Agreement is a “good thing”, but without an understanding of what that good thing is. Generally the response of legal counsel to this question is that there is no such thing as a “standard” Shareholder’s Agreement, let’s meet and talk. So what is it about Shareholder’s Agreements that are so valuable and why isn’t there a standard form, like a real estate agreement?
At a high level of abstraction, a Shareholder’s Agreement is a document that expresses the expectations of shareholders in respect of a corporation through legal obligations and rights. The task of the Lawyer in preparing the Shareholder’s Agreement is threefold - discerning what the expectations are (and those expectations are often not fully formed) – providing counsel on the legal and tax implication on the various alternatives by which those expectations may be realized - and expressing those expectations in the form of contractual terms that bind the parties.
For example, shareholders in a narrowly held private corporation may have an expectation that on death the shares will be purchased. In the absence of a Shareholder’s Agreement, this expectation may not be realized. There is no statute or common law requiring or obligating a purchase. If the remaining shareholders are unwilling to agree to a purchase, the estate is left with the shares and a tax bill. Nothing of course prevents the parties from negotiating a purchase, but the relative bargaining power may have shifted in unpredictable ways, and planning opportunities, such as insurance funding, may have been missed. A Shareholder’s Agreement that addresses these expectations will reflect the parties prior expectations for fairness, and will create certainty. Legal counsel will discuss alternatives including the corporate purchase of the shares, purchase by the remaining shareholders, and hybrids including spousal rollovers, the tax implications under the alternatives to the estate and to the remaining shareholders, the use of insurance funding, payment terms, security and so forth.
In family held corporations, expectations for succession (how management is succeeded) and liquidation (how the shareholding interests are turned into cash) are particularly difficult and require unique and sometimes innovative solutions. A Shareholder’s Agreement is a valuable tool in estate planning for resolving how competing expectations for liquidation and succession are accommodated.



.jpg)






