On December 20, 2010, a provincial/territorial government
working group released a consultation paper
to elicit feedback on potential options respecting the
incorporation of individual sales representatives of registered
dealers and advisers. Specifically, the paper considers the
benefits and regulatory concerns surrounding the issue of payments
by dealers and advisers to non-traditional business structures, as
well as the options being examined.
While National Instrument 31-103
Registration Requirements and Exemptions
does not deal with the incorporation of individual sale
representatives, MFDA Rule 2.4.1 permits
individual sales representatives of a MFDA member to have his or
her commissions paid directly to a non-registered corporation under
certain conditions. IIROC
rules, meanwhile, do not allow the relationship
between a dealer and a person conducting securities-related
business on behalf of the dealer to be that of an incorporated
Ultimately, the paper invites feedback on a number of options
under consideration, including legislative proposals and amendments
to IIROC rules. Comments on the consultation paper are being
accepted by the governments of Alberta and Quebec until February
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
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."
The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) issued a statement and a new compliance bulletin in response to recent news reports related to allegations that certain employees of banks were pressured to upsell to consumers to meet unrealistic sales targets and keep their jobs.
On February 24, the Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal in Teva Canada Inc. v. Bank of Montreal. The appeal concerns who bears the loss for cheques payable to fictitious or non-existing payees, which were fraudulently issued by an employee.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).