Category Archives: Technology

Canada Considering Creating a Database of Beneficial Owners of its Corporations

Posted on by

CBC is reporting that the Canadian government is mulling over the possibility of emulating jurisdictions trying to curb the problems of the individuals who can (still a little too easily) hide behind corporations, by creating a public register of  beneficial owners. The Federal government may thus amend the statute that governs corporations created under the federal regime (as opposed to this incorporated under provincial statutes), so as to force them to disclose who the real owners are.

To be clear, yes the federal statute at issue already says corporations created under the CBCA must create and maintain a register stating who the real owners are, and logging a modicum of info as to each, including date of birth, etc. However, until now, this info can remain secret (even IF the register is actually created and maintained), locked in a minute-book that no one ever sees, so to speak. The change that the government is now contemplating would make such information part of a PUBLIC register, thereby taking this info from entirely private to public -of course subject to hiding really private info.

As to this, I’d say that with everything I have seen over the years, with individuals declaring false names and addresses (e.g., PO boxes, etc.), holding shares for somebody else (under scrutiny or investigation), declaring an other lawyer’s office at the domicile of a shareholder, etc., it’s not a moment too soon! I think we could definitely do with a little more transparency as to Canadian corporations. The current regime is simply too naïve to lead to a system that one can rely on to know who’d really behind any private corporation. Want an example? Check out this story in this morning’s paper (in French), about a security company that the Federal government apparently regularly hires. Blink, blink… yes, I know.

Mind you, rules are fine, but having rules that are serious enough (with strong enforcement behind them) is something else. Not sure the current set of rules is quite adequate to convince overly creative (read scumbag) businessmen, fraudsters and mafiosi to play by them whenever they use corporate vehicles to do their dirty work.

Meanwhile, Québec is doubling down on its own efforts to curb this kind of problem. Starting next month, corporations registered in the province will have to provide more info on their owners, provide IDs of directors, etc. Québec is also starting to require corporations to determine who the real owners are, and to collate that info, internally at least. Apparently, starting next year, the REQ register will also include info on beneficial owners behind the ones listed as shareholders, and even start allowing searches of the REQ database to identify what entities any given individual is involved in. Not a moment too soon!

American Farmers Win Right to Repair their John Deere Tractors -Sort of

Posted on by

The media’s reporting that the American Farm Bureau Federation signed a Memorandum of understanding -or MoU) with the maker of JOHN DEERE tractors to facilitate maintenance and repair of that kind of equipment in the future, without necessarily going through authorized dealers and technicians.

In today’s world, farm tractors are complicated bits of machinery which can no longer be repaired on-site by farmers themselves. All too often, the documentation, information and specialized tools required to perform requisite maintenance or repairs just isn’t available at large, so that the only possibility for farmers is to obtain the services of technicians authorized by John Deere itself. Contrary to how it used to be, a farmer can no longer hope to service his (her) tractor himself (herself), this is simply no longer possible; even calling upon a local mechanic to do so may be problematic as he (she) may not even have all the information, documentation and tools to get the job done.

Now, further to execution of the recent MoU, the manufacturer should make available to John Deere tractor owners documentation, information, specifications and specialized tools (like software) which may be require to allow or facilitate maintenance or repairs on tractors of that make.

Interestingly, the MoU states it does not force John Deere to disclose any confidential information or trade secrets, something that may very well end-up gutting the right to repair, some feel. After all, little prevents a company from claiming things like detailed specifications and documentation are proprietary and/or confidential or secret.

It will be interesting to see how John Deere goes about this, in practice, and the extent to which this kind of right to repair arrangement may spread to other manufacturers, industries or activities, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere like in Canada. In the meantime, at the very least, this is a step in the right direction.

Even More Changes Coming for the Competition Act and a Story About Rental Rates Shenanigans Illustrating Why It May Be Needed

Posted on by

Not content with the 2022 changes to the Competition Act, Canada was announcing this week that it will be looking into making even more changes, based on a consultation it has now undertaken. Use of technology is changing how society is going about things and the economy is of course following suit. In a context of constant changes, it’s not very surprising we also need to keep updating our statute that deals with preserving competition between businesses.

Canada will be looking to make changes such as those discussed in a recent document published by the government and which provided us with a fair indication as to what may be in store for the Competition Act, moving forward.

This is happening in Canada but other countries like the U.S. are experiencing the same kind of thing.

In a story that seems a good example of what we’re talking about, the Verge was reporting a story earlier this week about the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) looking into practices by some American landlords (lessors) potentially fixing prices for rental space (to a degree), by using the RealPage software to collaborate.

The story at issue relates to the fact that, nowadays, large landlords often subscribe to a platform called YieldStar (connected to RealPage) that easily allows them to share part of the data about their rental rates, in various markets. Over time, the system has enough data to suggest possible rentals rates to landlords looking to rent premises, as compared to other deals in the same area for such premises. In practice, this may lead to higher rates than would otherwise have been the case, had landlords not shared info like this.

In essence, if every landlord ends-up sharing data with other landlords in the market (in this instance, through use of a specific software), we may end-up with a coordinated effort that results in an increase in rental rates across the country. If this amounts to collusion, then legally there may be an issue of competition law, by the sheer use of RealPage and YieldStar, including certain message boards that are part of that offering. That’s the question the DOJ is looking into anyway.

Interesting fact pattern that’s symptomatic of the interaction which technology can have with competition law. Sharing is fine, but cartel-like practices may be crossing a line.