The continuous disclosure review program consisted of 221 full
and 770 issue-oriented reviews of reporting issuers. Ultimately,
37% of the reviews resulted in issuers being required to make
prospective changes by way of enhancements in future filings,
14% of the reviews resulted in issuers being required to amend
or re-file certain disclosure documents, 16% of the reviews
resulted in issuers being alerted to areas where disclosure
enhancements should be considered, and 9% of issuers were
either cease-traded, placed on a default list or referred to
enforcement. Only 24% (as compared to 53% in 2013) of the
reviews resulted in no changes or additional filings being
required. In total, 76% of the review outcomes required issuers to
take action to improve their disclosure or resulted in the issuer
being referred to enforcement, cease traded or placed on the
default list, compared to 46% in 2013.
The CSA report also provides a number of examples of
deficient disclosure as well as corresponding examples of
more fulsome disclosure. Common financial statement deficiencies
included those in respect of (i) interests in other entities; (ii)
revenue recognition; and (iii) impairment of assets.
Disclosure deficiencies in MD&A were noted with respect to (i)
non-GAAP measures; (ii) forward looking information; and
(iii) additional disclosure for venture issuers without
significant revenue. Meanwhile, other disclosure deficiencies were
identified in respect of mineral projects, executive compensation
and filing of news releases and material change reports.
For more information, see CSA Staff Notice 51-341.
While all jurisdictions participate in the review program, some
local jurisdictions may also publish reports summarizing results in
their jurisdiction which may be found on the individual
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.
Under the Income Tax Act, the Employment Insurance Act, and the Excise Tax Act, a director of a corporation is jointly and severally liable for a corporation's failure to deduct and remit source deductions or GST.
Under the Income Tax Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Canada Pension Plan Act and the Excise Tax Act, a director of a corporation is jointly and severally liable for a corporation's failure to deduct and remit source deductions.
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).