Canada: "Due Diligence" As A Defence To Directors' And Officers' Liabilities

In an age of increasing liability risk, directors and officers are often reminded that it is important to do their "due diligence". In this third installment of our series on D&O liability in Canada,[1] Samantha Horn and Genna Wood of the Toronto office of Stikeman Elliott LLP consider the concept of due diligence both in a general sense and as it specifically applies to the fulfillment of duties under business corporations law, employment law, environmental law and tax law.

What is a Due Diligence Defence?

Due diligence can be raised as a defence against allegations that a director or officer bears personal liability with respect to the corporation's non-compliance with a statutory or regulatory requirement. While statutory due diligence defences are formulated in a wide variety of ways, and consequently vary in the scope of their application, they generally apply where a director or officer made adequate efforts to ensure that the corporation would comply with the law, even if, for some reason for which the director or officer cannot fairly be blamed, those efforts may ultimately have failed to prevent such non-compliance. If this sounds vague, it is perhaps unavoidably so: as discussed below, the scope of the due diligence defence varies somewhat from statute to statute and situation to situation.

Can this defence exist even where a statute doesn't expressly provide for it?

Many statutes expressly qualify some or all of their D&O liability provisions with a "due diligence" defence (even if the term "due diligence" is not always used). However, even where there is no due diligence clause, it may be open to a director or officer to argue that, in virtue of having been "duly diligent", he or she ought not to be regarded as having contravened a statutory duty. For example, under a well-established principle of Canadian law, due diligence defences may generally be asserted where a defendant has been charged with a "strict liability" criminal offence.[2]

How is the defence typically worded?

The wording of due diligence defences varies quite widely amongst statutes, often with significant consequences for the scope of the protection provided. An example of a broad and general due diligence clause is found in the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA):

...due diligence is a defence in a prosecution for an offence under subsection (1).[3]

The precise meaning of "due diligence" in a broadly worded clause such as this would be determined over time, primarily as a result of judicial consideration of the statute. Because there are many similar clauses in a range of statutes that establish various types of public safety and environmental standards,[4] the interpretation of the CCPSA due diligence clause could also be informed by judicial consideration of the corresponding clauses in other statutes (as well as by jurisprudence on due diligence generally, particularly insofar as it emanates from appellate courts).

In contrast with the CCPSA clause, the due diligence provision in Ontario's Toxics Reduction Act, 2009 is more narrowly focused:

If a corporation commits an offence under this section, a director, officer, employee or agent of the corporation who directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced in or failed to take all reasonable care to prevent the commission of the offence, or who participated in the commission of the offence, is also guilty of the offence, whether the corporation has been prosecuted for the offence or not.[5] [emphasis added]

As with the CCPSA definition, this version of the due diligence defence may gradually be refined as case law relating to the statute develops. However, the wording of the Toxics Reduction Act clause is somewhat more specific and might (arguably) be interpreted as ruling out the assertion of a due diligence defence where any form of approval, assent or acquiescence existed. Where no such approval, assent or acquiescence existed, this due diligence clause would appear to allow defendants (including directors and officers) to advance the defence that (for example) they had established and/or followed certain policies or protocols that could reasonably have been expected to prevent the type of non-compliance that allegedly occurred.

Due Diligence in Key Types of Legislation

In the remainder of this post, we look at four commonly encountered types of statutory due diligence defences, namely those imposed by business corporations law, employment law, environmental law and the law of taxation.

Business corporations legislation

Under federal and provincial business corporations statutes, directors may be liable for issuing shares for inadequate non-cash consideration, for the payment of improper dividends, or for payments to shareholders when the corporation is insolvent (or which render the corporation insolvent). The Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) and its provincial and territorial counterparts (e.g. Ontario's Business Corporations Act (OBCA)) provide a statutory due diligence defence in favour of directors for these liabilities. Often referred to as the "reasonable diligence" defence,[6] these provisions offer directors and officers a defence where they can demonstrate that they acted with the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in comparable circumstances. Generally speaking, the CBCA and its provincial and territorial equivalents provide that a director will have met this standard where he or she relies in good faith on the financial statements of the corporation[7] or an auditor's report and the reports of professionals such as lawyers, accountants, engineers, or appraisers.[8] This defence may apply to enable directors to, for example, rely in good faith on independent legal and financial advisors in defending against a hostile take-over bid, a related-party transaction or a director conflict of interest situation.[9] When relying on the advice of a professional, directors should ensure that the professional has appropriate qualifications and ensure that the advice is provided in writing. Directors should actively engage with the professional giving the advice, rather than passively accepting it.

The CBCA and its provincial and territorial equivalents also provide defences that may be applicable against claims of breach of fiduciary duty, duty of care or of the general duty to act in accordance with the legislation and constating documents. Depending on which statute is applicable and which duty is alleged to have been breached, the applicable statutory defence will generally be either a "good faith reliance" defence, a "reasonable diligence" defence, or a combination of the two.[10]

In addition to being diligently engaged with the management of the corporation by attending meetings, reviewing reports from experts and employees, and dissenting on decisions with which they disagree, directors should also ensure that the record of their participation is adequate to support a due diligence argument should the need to mount such a defence ever arise.

Indemnification under business corporations statutes

Under the CBCA (and generally under similar provincial and territorial statutes), a director or officer may be indemnified by the corporation against all costs, charges and expenses he or she reasonably incurs in respect of any civil, criminal or administrative actions or proceedings in which he or she is implicated in the capacity of director or officer.[11] It should be noted that the minimum standard for such indemnification to be permissible is that the director or officer have acted honestly and in good faith, with a view to the corporation's best interests.[12] Strictly speaking, this is not a diligence standard, but it is nevertheless the case that exercising "due diligence" before taking actions or decisions will generally help a director or officer to satisfy the "honesty and in good faith" test and thereby to qualify for indemnification.

Legislation governing recovery of unpaid wages, etc.

Directors may also face statutory liability for unpaid employee wages, vacation pay and reimbursable expense claims, depending on the statute of incorporation and the province in which the corporation operates. Under the CBCA,[13] OBCA[14] and many of the other provincial business corporations statutes,[15] directors may be liable to employees for up to six months' wages.[16] In addition, the OBCA also covers vacation pay accrued for up to twelve months under Ontario's Employment Standards Act,2000 (Ontario ESA).[17] Amounts recoverable from a director personally are usually restricted to amounts that fell due during the director's time in office and there are mechanisms designed to ensure that, where possible, directors will share such liabilities.[18]

In addition to the CBCA, OBCA, etc., it is also important to bear in mind that provincial employment legislation (such as the Ontario ESA) can also come into play in cases of unpaid wages. Unlike the business corporations act provisions, which apply to businesses incorporated under those acts (no matter where they operate), the ESA provisions apply generally to most workplaces within a province's borders, including the great majority of commercial enterprises. The Ontario ESA (like similar statutes elsewhere) provides an alternate means of securing payment of unpaid wages and vacation pay, with one chief difference being that it creates a complaint-driven investigative and regulatory process rather than relying on employees to initiate civil proceedings on their own. Like the business corporations statutes discussed above, it specifically provides for recovery against directors personally.[19]

To return specifically to due diligence, the CBCA provides for a due diligence defence with respect to claims for unpaid amounts, allowing directors to argue that they acted with "the care, diligence and skill of a reasonably prudent person" to avoid non-payment.[20] This "due diligence" standard sets the bar relatively high because it is objective and requires the exercise of skill. In other words, directors who were very unsophisticated with respect to business matters (or, more colloquially, "in over their heads") might not meet this due diligence standard even if they had sincerely tried to do what was right. The CBCA provision explicitly incorporates the defence of good faith reliance on financial statements and professionals, although one commentator has stated that this defence would likely have narrow application to employment law situations.[21]

In order to make out the defence, directors ought to ensure that appropriate controls are in place regarding the payment of employee wages, such that any problems that could arise will be brought promptly to the attention of the board. Once the board becomes aware that there may be issues regarding payment, it ought to take steps to rectify the problem, and document the steps taken, e.g. with detailed board minutes that show the directors engaging with the issue. Directors should also require management and other employees who report to them to provide frequent status updates until the matter is resolved. Finally, a director who disagrees with the board's decision about a course of action should ensure that his or her dissent is properly recorded.

One difference between the CBCA and OBCA is that the latter's statutory reasonable diligence defence does not apply to the directors' personal liability for unpaid wages and accrued vacation pay.[22] Because the OBCA does not create a statutory due diligence defence with respect to this particular liability, the responsibility of directors for unpaid wages and accrued vacation pay could be more difficult to avoid, but in general, the advice above would still apply.

Environmental legislation

Directors and officers may be personally liable for the violation of environmental statutes. For example, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act[23] (CEPA) provides that if a corporation commits an offence under the Act, any director, officer, agent or mandatary of the corporation who directed, authorized, assented to or acquiesced in the decision is a party to and guilty of the offence. Subject to certain exceptions,[24]CEPA also provides a due diligence defence if the accused establishes that he or she exercised "all due diligence" to prevent the commission of an offence.[25] While the precise meaning of "all due diligence" does not appear to have been determined through litigation, the broader and more general phrasing of the requirement in CEPA (as opposed to the CBCA, for example) likely reflects the relatively severe consequences of a conviction under that act (that is, by making the defence easier to establish).

In addition, in Ontario the Environmental Protection Act[26] (EPA) places a positive statutory duty on directors and officers to take all reasonable care to prevent the corporation from, among other things: illegally discharging or causing or permitting an illegal discharge of a contaminant; failing to notify the governmental authority of such a discharge; or contravening an order made under the EPA.

The leading environmental case in Ontario regarding the defence of due diligence and directors is that of R v. Bata Industries Ltd.,[27] where the court enumerated a list of factors that it will take into consideration when determining whether a director has satisfied the statutory duty:

  • Whether the board of directors established a pollution prevention "system" and whether there was supervision or inspection or improvement in business methods;
  • Whether each director ensured that the corporate officers were instructed to set up a system sufficient within the terms and practices of its industry of ensuring compliance with environmental laws;
  • Whether each director ensured that the officers reported back periodically to the board on the operation of the system, and were officers instructed to report any substantial non-compliance to the board in a timely manner;
  • Whether the directors relied on environmental compliance reports provided by the officers of the corporation, or other reports provided to them by corporate officers, consultants, counsel or other informed parties;
  • Whether the directors could substantiate that the officers were promptly addressing environmental concerns brought to their attention by government agencies or other concerned parties including shareholders;
  • Whether the directors were aware of the standards of their industry and other industries which deal with similar environmental pollutants or risks; and
  • Whether the directors immediately and personally reacted when provided notice the system has failed.

Administrative orders (such as preventative clean up orders) are also being issued more regularly in Ontario to directors and officers, especially in insolvency situations. Certain of these EPA orders can be made against a person who has or had the management or control of an undertaking or property, including an officer or director (as a person in management or control of the undertaking and/or property), and it is these orders that are being used against officers and directors in Ontario. On the face of the EPA one does not need to have been in control of the property when it is suspected that contamination may have occurred. Unlike the statutory duty discussed above, there is no due diligence defence (or limitation period) for such orders, and they can impose significant liability on certain persons to either clean-up or prevent unlawful discharges from occurring. Furthermore, the orders are not predicated on an offence having been committed or anything unlawful having been done. In effect, those provisions of the EPA could see directors or officers ordered to clean up contamination caused by, among others, previous owners and/or neighbours.


Directors may be personally liable if their corporation fails to deduct, withhold, pay or remit amounts for employee payroll deductions, non-resident withholding tax, share purchase credits as required,[28] employee Canada Pension Plan contributions[29] or employment insurance.[30] Directors may assert a due diligence defence if they can demonstrate that they exercised the degree of care, diligence and skill to prevent the failure that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in comparable circumstances.[31]

In Buckingham v. R.,[32] the Federal Court of Appeal held that a director will not face personal liability for his or her corporation's failure to remit taxes if he or she can show that he or she was specifically concerned with the tax remittances and exercised due diligence with a view to ensuring that they were made. However, where a director condones the continued operation of the corporation by diverting employee source deductions to other purposes, the due diligence defence will be unavailable. This is to ensure that directors of a corporation in financial difficulty are not tempted to divert remittances due to the Crown to other creditors in hopes of keeping the corporation afloat.

The most extensive discussion of the interpretation of the defence is contained in Soper v. R.[33] In that 1997 case, Robertson J.A. indicated that Revenue Canada was not correct in suggesting, in what was then the current version of its Information Circular 89-2, that a director, in order to satisfy the due diligence requirement, must take positive action by setting up controls to account for remittances, by asking for regular reports from the company's financial officers on the ongoing use of such controls, and by obtaining confirmation at regular intervals that withholdings and remittances had taken place. (It is nonetheless prudent for directors take steps such as requesting confirmation of tax remittances.)

The views of the Canada Revenue Agency on the interpretation of s. 227.1, including the due diligence defence, are now found in Information Circular 89-2R2 (March 24, 2006). Paragraphs 11-18 of the Circular provide guidance on steps directors ought to take to ensure that they have a due diligence defence available to them:

  1. Directors should make sure that the corporation is properly withholding deductions. Also, a corporation and its directors must act responsibly. Directors must make every reasonable effort to ensure that source deductions, GST/HST, excise duty, and amounts charged under the ATSCA [Air Travellers Security Charge Act] and the SLPECA [Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006] are withheld, collected, remitted, and paid.
  2. Directors are not liable if they exercise due diligence, that is, the care that a reasonably prudent person would take in similar circumstances to make sure that the corporation deducts, withholds, collects, remits, or pays the amounts due. To do this, directors should use methods such as:

(a) establishing a separate account for withholdings from employees and remittances of source deductions and for remittances of GST/HST, excise duty, and amounts charged under the ATSCA and the SLPECA;

(b) calling on financial officers of the corporation to report regularly on the status of the account; and

(c) obtaining regular confirmation that withholdings, remittances, or payments have in fact been made during all relevant periods.

  1. If the corporation is in receivership or bankrupt, one of the responsibilities of directors may include advising the receiver and manager or trustee in writing of the banking arrangements in place for paying the source deductions withheld, the GST/HST, excise duty, and charges under the ATSCA and the SLPECA.
  2. To demonstrate that they exercised due diligence, directors must show that they took reasonable steps to prevent the failure to deduct, withhold, remit, or pay. In other words, the steps must be taken before the failure has occurred.
  3. Directors are obliged to be aware of what is happening in the corporation that they are a director of. They must maintain effective lines of communication between them and the corporation's responsible employees.
  4. Directors cannot claim that they were unaware of their obligations or the corporation's obligations under the statutes. A reasonably prudent person who knows that he or she is a director but is uncertain about his or her responsibilities must at least try to find out what is expected of him or her and to carry out that duty.
  5. While directors may delegate their statutory responsibilities to other people, they remain responsible for ensuring that payroll deductions, GST/HST, excise duty, and charges under the ATSCA and the SLPECA are remitted.
  6. An objective standard is applied when considering a due diligence defence. This does not mean that the director's particular circumstances are to be ignored. The circumstances must be considered against an objective standard of a "reasonably prudent person."


The liability risk of directors and officers of Canadian companies can be mitigated by careful consideration of the due diligence defence and the specific types of actions that it requires in areas such as employment, environmental, taxation and corporate governance. As always, obtaining and following the advice of qualified counsel who are fully apprised of the details of a company's specific situation will be a key step in ensuring compliance.


[1] The first post, which addressed six key concepts related to directors' duties, is available here. Our second post, which addressed key issues that directors need to focus on in the area of cybersecurity, is available here.

[2] See generally, R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] S.C.J. No. 59 at para. 60. In contrast, an "absolute liability" offence is proven and can produce a conviction (with certain exceptions) solely on the basis of the commission of the act, no matter what the defendant's state of mind happens to have been or what efforts may have been taken to avoid the misconduct in question. Because it is generally unconstitutional for an offence with serious consequences on conviction to carry absolute liability, these offences are not generally of great concern to a director or officer.

[3] Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, S.C. 2010, c. 21, s. 41(2).

[4] For example, the due diligence language in the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act is virtually identical to that in a number of other federal statutes, including the Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-27, s. 31.3, theSpecies at Risk Act, S.C. 2002, c. 29, s. 100 and the Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, S.C. 2005, c. 45. s. 42(1).

[5] Toxics Reduction Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 19, s. 44(6).

[6] OBCA s. 135(4); CBCA s. 123(4).

[7] In some cases, such as the OBCA, there may be an express requirement that the financial statements be in accordance with GAAP.

[8] In some cases, the defence may apply where there was good faith reliance on financial statements and reports represented by officers of the corporation to be correct. See OBCA, s. 135(4), paras. (a)-(c).

[9] Andrew Gray, Canada Business Corporations Act Commentary & Analysis, s. 123. Corporate Law Partner (Federal and Ontario) (Thomson Reuters, 2015).

[10] OBCA, s. 135(4)(c). The OBCA's express reference to "employees", introduced in the 2007 amendments to that statute, may be a response to the Peoples Department Stores decision which denied the good faith reliance defence to directors of a CBCA corporation who had relied on the advice of the company's Vice President (Finance) who, while experienced and possessing a B.Comm., was not a "professional". Note also that the OBCA requires the reliance to have been "reasonable in the circumstances" or "based on reasonable grounds".

[11] CBCA, s. 124(1). Note that under s. 124(5), where such an individual is completely cleared by a court of all wrongdoing, he or she is generally entitled to indemnification.

[12] CBCA, s. 124(3).

[13] CBCA s. 119(1): "Directors of a corporation are jointly and severally, or solidarily, liable to employees of the corporation for all debts not exceeding six months wages payable to each such employee for services performed for the corporation while they are such directors respectively."

[14] OBCA, s. 131(1): "The directors of a corporation are jointly and severally liable to the employees of the corporation for all debts not exceeding six months' wages that become payable while they are directors for services performed for the corporation and for the vacation pay accrued while they are directors for not more than twelve months under the Employment Standards Act, and the regulations thereunder, or under any collective agreement made by the corporation."

[15] Note that other business corporations statutes may differ significantly and should be consulted specifically where they apply.

[16] Technically, these amounts can include debts for services performed by an employee in addition to the services for which an employee's wages were paid, but the amount payable by a director is capped at the equivalent of six months' wages.

[17] S.O. 2000, c. 41, s. 81(2).

[18] Specifically, the contribution provisions in CBCA, s. 119(6) and OBCA, s. 131(5).

[19] One distinction of note is that, under the Ontario ESA, an employee may commence an action to collect wages from a director before having exhausted proceedings against his or her employer (see Ontario ESA, s. 81(2)), while under business corporations legislation, a director's liability in this area is generally contingent on the employee's having unsuccessfully attempted to recover the amounts owed from the corporation (see, e.g., CBCA, s. 119(2), para. (a) and OBCA, s. 131(2), para. (a)).

[20] CBCA s. 123(4).

[21] See P. Martel, Business Corporations in Canada – Legal and Practical Aspects (Toronto: 2013). Martel gives the example of directors who refuse to pay an amount to an employee based on a legal opinion that such an amount is not payable, or who keep staff employed by the corporation based on financial statements or accountants' reports wrongly showing that the corporation is able to pay the wages.

[22] OBCA, s. 135(4), which sets out the directors' due diligence defence, does not apply it to s. 131, the section that creates the liability for unpaid wages and vacation pay.

[23] Canadian Environmental Protection Act, S.C. 1999, c. 33, s. 280.

[24] These exceptions apply to mens rea offences where the accused has knowingly provided false information to regulators, obstructed investigations, or has reckless disregard for the safety of other persons.

[25] Canadian Environmental Protection Act, S.C. 1999, c. 33, s. 283.

[26] Environmental Protection Act (Ontario) R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, s. 194. The Ontario Water Resources Act contains a similar provision.

[27] [1992] O.J. No. 236.

[28] Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), s. 227.1.

[29] Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8 s. 21(1).

[30] Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23.

[31] Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), s. 227.1(3).

[32] 2011 FCA 142.

[33] (1997), 97 D.T.C. 5407 (Fed. C.A.).

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

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
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).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.