Avid Law Logo

BC Corporate & Commercial Law Update: Key Developments in 2024-2025

📅 April 17, 2025👤 By Richard Zhu
BC Corporate & Commercial Law Update: Key Developments in 2024-2025

New Corporate Transparency Requirements

One of the most notable changes is the push for greater transparency in corporate ownership. In 2023, the BC government passed Bill 20 (Business Corporations Amendment Act), paving the way for a public beneficial ownership registry by 2025 (Increasing transparency: British Columbia moves to publicize corporate beneficial ownership - Lexology). This means that information about the individuals who ultimately own or control shares in private BC companies will no longer be kept solely in internal records – it will be filed with and made accessible through a government-managed registry (Increasing transparency: British Columbia moves to publicize corporate beneficial ownership - Lexology) (Increasing transparency: British Columbia moves to publicize corporate beneficial ownership - Lexology). The move follows the Cullen Commission’s recommendations to combat money laundering by shedding light on opaque company ownership (Increasing transparency: British Columbia moves to publicize corporate beneficial ownership - Lexology).

What does this mean for BC businesses? If you own a BC-incorporated company, you’ve likely already been required since 2020 to maintain a private “transparency register” of significant individuals. The upcoming change will require submitting that information to the corporate registry for public access, increasing corporate accountability. Business owners should ensure their transparency records are accurate and up to date, as any errors or omissions may soon be visible to the public and regulators. On the upside, greater transparency is expected to boost trust and deter the misuse of shell companies for illicit activities, creating a more level playing field for honest businesses.

At the federal level, similar transparency reforms have arrived. Amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) took effect on January 22, 2024, requiring federal corporations to report information on individuals with significant control to the federal government for inclusion in a planned public registry (Amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act Officially Ends Ownership Confidentiality in Canada - Сox & Palmer). Once the federal registry is operational, it will disclose key details about controlling shareholders (such as names, citizenship, and how they control the company) to anyone searching the database (Amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act Officially Ends Ownership Confidentiality in Canada - Сox & Palmer). Crucially, the penalties for non-compliance are much tougher – fines up to $1,000,000 (up from the previous $200,000) and even potential dissolution of the corporation for failing to file the required information (Amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act Officially Ends Ownership Confidentiality in Canada - Сox & Palmer). For BC businesses incorporated federally or with federal affiliates, this is a clear signal to get your house in order. The era of anonymous corporations is ending (Amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act Officially Ends Ownership Confidentiality in Canada - Сox & Palmer). Companies should review their ownership structures, identify all individuals who exercise significant control (generally those owning 25% or more, or with significant influence), and prepare to report that information annually and upon changes. The bottom line: transparency is now a legal obligation, and hefty fines await those who ignore it.

Modernizing Legislation for Commercial Transactions

Several legislative updates in BC are aimed at modernizing the business law framework and making commercial transactions more efficient. A prime example is the new Money Judgment Enforcement Act, which received Royal Assent in October 2023 (BCLI welcomes updates to money judgments enforcement legislation - British Columbia Law Institute) and is slated to come into force in 2025. This Act overhauls how court judgments for money are enforced in BC, replacing the decades-old procedures under the Court Order Enforcement Act. The goal is to make it easier and more effective for a winning party to collect what they are owed after a lawsuit (BCLI welcomes updates to money judgments enforcement legislation - British Columbia Law Institute) (BCLI welcomes updates to money judgments enforcement legislation - British Columbia Law Institute).

Under the current system, creditors often have to navigate a patchwork of steps (like obtaining writs of execution or garnishment orders) to enforce judgments. The new Act streamlines this with a modern registry and enforcement process. For example, a notable change is that monetary orders from the Civil Resolution Tribunal (BC’s online small claims and strata dispute forum) can be directly registered in a new money judgments registry, and the tribunal will be able to register a judgment on a party’s behalf (BCLI welcomes updates to money judgments enforcement legislation - British Columbia Law Institute). This saves time and makes collection more automatic for successful claimants. The Act also allows creditors to use a single system to pursue various enforcement methods, rather than initiating separate court processes. For businesses, this means faster and more cost-effective debt collection when you’ve obtained a judgment. Conversely, if your company owes a judgment debt, it will be harder to delay or avoid payment under the new regime. Now is a good time to review credit control practices – robust upfront contract terms and security agreements can help avoid ever being on the wrong end of these enforcement tools. Overall, the modernization is a welcome change that brings BC in line with other jurisdictions, giving creditors better odds of recovering debts while providing clear rules for debtors on how judgments can be satisfied (BCLI welcomes updates to money judgments enforcement legislation - British Columbia Law Institute) (BCLI welcomes updates to money judgments enforcement legislation - British Columbia Law Institute).

Another area of legislative change that can affect BC businesses are federal laws targeting corporate accountability in supply chains. In mid-2023, Parliament enacted the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (formerly Bill S-211). Starting in 2024, many Canadian companies (including those in BC) must annually report on measures taken to prevent forced or child labour in their supply chains (Bill S-211 means new reporting requirements | EY - Canada). This “Modern Slavery Act” for Canada applies to larger entities meeting certain thresholds (for instance, publicly traded companies or those with significant assets or employees). The first reports were due by May 31, 2024, with information to be published for public and shareholder scrutiny. Practically, even if your business is not captured by these rules yet, the trend is toward greater ethical disclosure. Many businesses are proactively reviewing their suppliers and implementing codes of conduct to ensure they can declare their products are free from exploitative labor. Those who do fall under the law should treat these reports as more than a paperwork exercise – they carry reputational risk and potential penalties if ignored. In short, demonstrating social responsibility is increasingly becoming a legal requirement, not just a branding choice.

Contract Law: Clarity on Exclusion Clauses and Fair Dealing

Several court decisions in the past year have provided guidance on contract law, offering lessons for businesses in drafting and executing agreements. A significant ruling came from the Supreme Court of Canada in Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. v. Pine Valley Enterprises Inc. (2024 SCC 20). This case clarified the use of exclusion clauses in contracts, which are provisions that limit or exclude liability for certain outcomes. The dispute involved a sale of goods (topsoil for a landscaping project) and whether the seller could contract out of the usual legal warranty that the goods would be fit for the buyer’s intended purpose. The Supreme Court affirmed that parties can override default statutory warranties by agreement, so long as their intent to do so is clear (Supreme Court of Canada Continues to Shape Contractual Interpretation Around Common-Sense Pragmatism | BD&P). Importantly, the Court said no specific “magic words” are required – what matters is that the contract, read as a whole, shows the parties meant to opt out of those default protections (Supreme Court of Canada Continues to Shape Contractual Interpretation Around Common-Sense Pragmatism | BD&P). In practical terms, this decision reinforces a common-sense approach: businesses have freedom to allocate risks in a contract as they see fit, but they need to spell it out unambiguously. An exclusion clause tucked in fine print or written in vague terms may not stand up in court. Tip for businesses: When including clauses that limit liability or negate warranties (for example, “As-is” sales or caps on damages), make sure the language is express and conspicuous, and ideally acknowledged by all parties. That way, a court will be more likely to enforce it, as was the case in Earthco, rather than finding that the clause was too oblique to remove the buyer’s normal legal protections.

Another area of contract law addressed recently is the doctrine of illegality in contracts – in other words, when a contract is unenforceable because it involves unlawful conduct. In Scott v. Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc. (2024 SCC 32), the Supreme Court weighed in on a complex scenario stemming from a Ponzi scheme. Investors had signed referral agreements to bring in new clients to the scheme, and when the scheme collapsed, a question arose: were those referral agreements “illegal contracts” (and thus void), or could they still be enforced? The Supreme Court found that the Ontario Court of Appeal had gone too far in declaring the contracts void for illegality (Scott v. Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc. - SCC Cases). The referral agreements themselves did not require the parties to do anything illegal, even though they were connected to an illegal enterprise. The ruling clarified that not every contract associated with unlawful activity will be deemed void – only if the contract’s object or consideration is illegal or if enforcing it would undermine the integrity of the justice system will the courts refuse to enforce it. The practical takeaway is nuanced: businesses should of course avoid any contracts that involve breaking the law, as those won’t be upheld. However, if a counterparty’s conduct (unknown to you) has unlawful aspects, your contract with them isn’t automatically worthless. This provides some reassurance that deals made in good faith won’t lightly be invalidated due to a partner’s wrongdoing. As always, due diligence on who you’re dealing with is the best policy – it helps avoid entanglement in any illegal schemes to begin with.

The courts have also continued to develop the principle of good faith in contractual dealings, which has been a hot topic since the Supreme Court recognized a general duty of honesty in contracts a few years ago. In 2024, decisions such as British Columbia v. Taylor in the BC Court of Appeal reiterated that parties must perform their contracts honestly and reasonably. While each case is fact-specific, the trend in the case law serves as a reminder that acting in bad faith – for example, deliberately misleading the other side or exercising contractual powers in a capricious or unfair way – can lead to legal liability even if the contract doesn’t explicitly say so. For businesses, this means that how you behave during the life of a contract matters. Even a well-written contract cannot shield a party who overtly abuses their contractual discretion or deceives their partner. The key is to be transparent and fair in your dealings: if circumstances change, approach renegotiations or contract adjustments openly; if you have a right to terminate or demand strict performance, exercise it within the bounds of fair play. Not only does this reduce the risk of lawsuits, it also preserves business relationships and your reputation as a reliable partner.

Shareholder Disputes and Directors’ Duties

On the corporate governance front, recent cases in BC highlight the importance of following proper legal processes in shareholder disputes and clarify what remedies minority owners can (and cannot) expect. A notable decision is Bhuthal v. Sahsi (2024 BCCA 73), where the BC Court of Appeal stepped in to uphold the correct procedure for derivative actions (i.e. lawsuits brought on behalf of a company by a shareholder). In this case, two equal owners were embroiled in litigation over their companies. One owner tried an unconventional tactic: asking the court to appoint an independent third party to represent the companies, claiming that all insiders were too conflicted to make decisions for the company in the lawsuit (Corporate litigation update – shareholder rights under corporate statutes in Q1 2024 | Special Situations Law). While a lower court allowed this end-run around the usual process, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision. The higher court emphasized that the Business Corporations Act sets out a specific two-step process for situations where those in control of a company can’t or won’t pursue the company’s legal rights (Corporate litigation update – shareholder rights under corporate statutes in Q1 2024 | Special Situations Law) (Corporate litigation update – shareholder rights under corporate statutes in Q1 2024 | Special Situations Law). First, an interested person should apply to act as the company’s representative solely for the purpose of asking for someone else to be appointed. Second, that appointee (often an independent lawyer) can then be appointed to control the conduct of the proceeding (Corporate litigation update – shareholder rights under corporate statutes in Q1 2024 | Special Situations Law). By insisting on this procedure, the Court of Appeal made it clear that you cannot simply bypass the derivative action rules by invoking a court’s general power to “do what’s appropriate.”

For businesses, the Bhuthal case underscores a couple of practical points. If you’re a minority shareholder who suspects wrongdoing by those in control, you must follow the statutory steps – usually, that means applying for leave (permission) to bring a derivative action on behalf of the company. Courts will insist on this structured approach to ensure that only meritorious claims proceed and that the company’s interests are properly represented. On the flip side, for directors and majority owners, this case is a reminder that courts are watching: if there is alleged fraud or misconduct, you can expect a minority shareholder to use the legal tools at their disposal to challenge it, and you won’t be able to avoid a derivative lawsuit simply by claiming everyone is “conflicted.” Good governance and addressing grievances early can prevent these costly court interventions.

Another BC Court of Appeal decision, McDougall v. Knutsen (2024 BCCA 55), touched on the remedies available in shareholder disputes – specifically, the limits of the oppression remedy. The oppression remedy is a powerful tool that allows courts to intervene when a company’s affairs have been conducted in a way that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to a shareholder (often a minority shareholder). In Knutsen, a minority shareholder who felt aggrieved asked the court to order that his shares be bought out, claiming it was unfair for him to remain stuck in the company without the benefits he expected. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that without a finding of actual oppression, the court could not force the other shareholders to buy out the minority’s shares (The Trial Reasons for Judgment | Arpal Dosanjh). In essence, dissatisfaction or a sense of unfairness isn’t enough – there must be evidence that the majority acted in a wrongful manner breaching the shareholder’s reasonable expectations.

For business owners, especially those in smaller companies or family enterprises, the Knutsen case is a useful reality check. Not every shareholder disagreement warrants legal intervention. If you’re a minority shareholder, courts will look for concrete oppressive conduct (such as being excluded from decision-making, denial of rightful benefits, or mismanagement that harms your interests) before granting relief like a mandatory buyout. And if you’re in the majority, you should still act carefully and fairly – while courts won’t automatically rescue every unhappy investor, they will step in if you cross the line into oppressive behavior. Having a well-drafted shareholders’ agreement is often the best preventative: it can set out exit mechanisms (like shotgun clauses or buy-sell arrangements) to handle deadlocks or departures, so that parties don’t have to run to court at all. In summary, recent case law confirms that directors and controlling shareholders must adhere to their duties and statutory remedies, but courts will also uphold the rights of the majority when they have acted lawfully and fairly.

Emerging Trends: Governance, Disclosure, and ESG Considerations

Beyond the courtroom and legislature, broader regulatory trends are shaping corporate governance and disclosure practices. One major trend is the increasing emphasis on ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) factors in business. Companies are facing new expectations to report on sustainability and governance matters that would have been considered extra-financial a decade ago.

For instance, climate-related disclosure is on the horizon of becoming mandatory for many companies in Canada. The newly formed Canadian Sustainability Standards Board (CSSB) released proposed national standards for climate-related financial disclosures in 2024, with a final version expected by the end of 2024 (Canadian mandatory climate disclosure rules in the forecast). These standards are designed to align with global frameworks and will likely be adopted (perhaps in 2025 or soon after) by Canadian securities regulators, including the BC Securities Commission, for public companies. In practical terms, public companies and large private companies should prepare to report their climate risks and greenhouse gas emissions in a more rigorous way. Even if you run a smaller private business, awareness of climate risks and sustainable practices is increasingly important – banks, investors, and business partners are starting to ask for this information as part of their due diligence. It’s wise to get ahead by integrating climate considerations into your risk management and strategy now. This can include measuring your carbon footprint, considering the impact of extreme weather on your operations, or ensuring your governance structures (like the board or a committee) are overseeing climate-related risks. Early action will make compliance easier once formal rules kick in, and it can also enhance your reputation with customers and stakeholders who value sustainability.

Board diversity and governance transparency are another aspect of ESG gaining legal traction. Federally, amendments to the CBCA now require public corporations to not only disclose the gender diversity of their boards and senior management, but also diversity in other underrepresented groups such as Indigenous peoples, racialized communities, and persons with disabilities. While these federal rules apply to CBCA companies, they reflect a nationwide push for more inclusive leadership in business. BC-based companies listed on stock exchanges are also encouraged (and in some cases required under exchange policies or securities guidelines) to adopt diversity policies and disclose progress. The practical effect is that boards are under pressure to refresh their composition and consider a wider range of candidates to bring diverse perspectives. For BC entrepreneurs and businesses, this means governance practices are evolving: strong corporate governance now encompasses not just financial oversight but also transparency in how the company is run and who is running it. Embracing these governance best practices can improve decision-making and is looked upon favorably by investors and partners.

Finally, it’s worth noting the changes in federal competition and antitrust law, which can affect corporate strategy for mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures. Over the past two years, the Canadian government introduced significant amendments to the Competition Act, culminating in new provisions coming into force in 2023 and 2024. These changes have tightened the rules on mergers and anti-competitive conduct. For example, the long-standing “efficiencies defence” – which previously allowed a merger to proceed if cost savings outweighed anti-competitive effects – has been repealed (The Evolving Landscape of Merger Review: Understanding Canada’s Competition Act Amendments and Forth | Blakes). Additionally, the Competition Bureau now has greater leeway to challenge mergers based solely on high market share or concentration, with new presumptions shifting the burden onto merging parties to prove a deal won’t substantially lessen competition (The Evolving Landscape of Merger Review: Understanding Canada’s Competition Act Amendments and Forth | Blakes). For BC businesses, the takeaway is that if you are planning to sell your company, merge with a competitor, or even enter into collaborations with competitors, you must be mindful of these stricter laws. Transactions that might have flown under the radar before could face more scrutiny now. It’s prudent to seek legal advice early in the deal planning stage to navigate the new landscape. Even on the day-to-day commercial side, practices like pricing strategies, distribution agreements, or industry collaborations should be reviewed for compliance – the penalties for anti-competitive behavior (like price-fixing or abuse of dominance) were also increased. In short, competition law is becoming more enforcement-heavy in Canada, aligning with global trends, and businesses need to adjust their compliance measures accordingly.

Conclusion: The period of 2024-2025 has brought a wave of changes to corporate and commercial law in British Columbia. Greater transparency in corporate ownership, modernized enforcement of judgments, clarified contract doctrines, and evolving duties in governance all point to a business environment that values accountability and fairness. BC business owners and corporate directors should take stock of these developments. By staying informed and proactive – updating compliance practices, revising contracts, and following good governance principles – companies can not only avoid legal pitfalls but also position themselves for success in a landscape where trust and transparency are paramount. As always, consult with legal counsel about how these changes impact your specific business, and don’t hesitate to take advantage of the resources and expertise available to help navigate the new rules. The law is moving forward, and with the right guidance, so can your business.

Sources:

← Back to All News