Starting January 22, 2024, all federal corporations created under the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) are required to file information regarding individuals with significant control (ISCs) with Corporations Canada.

1.  Who is an ISC?

According to the CBCA, an ISC is an individual (see: human person) that:

• owns, controls or directs 25% or more of the shares of a corporation individually, jointly or in convert with one or more individuals;
• has control over the corporation without owning any shares; or
• meets a combination of any of the above two factors.

If a corporation’s shareholder is an entity (for example, a corporation, partnership, or trust), the individual(s) in control of such entity must be identified as ISCs.

Additionally, if multiple family members jointly own more than 25% of the shares of a corporation and one family member has sufficient influence over the other family members, such influential individual may be considered an ISC.

2.  What information will be filed?

The following information regarding ISCs must be filed with Corporations Canada:

Information that will be made public:

• full legal name;
• date on which the individual became an ISC;
• description of the ISC’s significant control; and
• mailing address.

Information that will not be made public:

• date of birth;
• country of citizenship;
• country of tax residency; and
• residential address.

If an ISC is less than 18 years of age, information will not be made publicly available until such individual turns 18 years old.

You may file an application to not make the information about an ISC public if:

• making the information publicly available presents or would present a serious threat to the safety of the individual;
• the ISC is declared incapable either by court or under provincial or territorial laws; or
• making the information publicly available would go against the Conflict of Interest Act or a similar legislation of a province or territory.

3.  Who is excluded from the ISC filing requirements?

Most federal corporations are required to comply with the new filing requirements, however, the following corporations are excluded:

• non-federal corporations (for example, a corporation incorporated under a province’s corporations act);
• a reporting issuer under provincial securities legislation or a wholly-owned subsidiary of a reporting issuer;
• a public corporation that trades its securities on a stock exchange designated by the Income Tax Act or a wholly-owned subsidiary of such a corporation; or
• a crown corporation or a wholly-owned subsidiary of a crown corporation.

4.  What does this mean for you?

If your corporation is federally incorporated and not exempt from the filing requirements, failure to maintain and file the ISC information may result in directors or officers facing penalties up to $1,000,000 or possible imprisonment, as well as potential fines to the corporation of up to $1,000,000 and involuntary dissolution.

Please reach out to the Voyer Law team to discuss your annual filing requirements and to maintain your corporation in good standing.

Weekly, we receive phone calls from prospective clients inquiring about provisional patent applications. While provisional patent applications have a number of benefits, especially for cost-conscious startups and entrepreneurs, we too often encounter misconceptions concerning the protections that a provisional patent application provides. In this blog post we will cover what a provision patent application is, its positives and negatives.

What is a provisional patent?

A provisional patent application is essentially a placeholder patent application filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office. Once filed, you have up to 1 year to convert the provisional patent application into a full utility patent application and, if not converted, the provisional automatically expires. Once the utility patent application is filed, the subject matter of the utility patent application (ie. invention) will be granted a claim date effective as of the date the provisional patent application was filed.

There are a few formal provisional drafting requirements, including a title, the name(s) of the inventor(s), address of the inventor(s), correspondence address, and a written description. At times, a drawing on the back of a napkin can be sufficient. The provisional application is not publicly available, and the USPTO does not conduct any review of it.

It is critical to understand that no patent rights are granted by the provisional patent application, except for the ability to file for a full utility patent application within the 1-year time frame for the invention described in the provisional patent application.

Positives

There are a number of benefits to a provisional patent application, namely:

1. Preserves your intellectual property rights as of the provisional’s filing date, which is critical in advance of any public disclosures you are contemplating;
2. Relatively inexpensive, with the cost of a provisional application being substantially less than a full utility patent application;
3. Is not made publicly available;
4. You are “Patent Pending”; and
5. May appeal to investors by beginning an intellectual property portfolio.

Negatives

The downsides to a provisional patent application are:

1. Does not issue as a patent;
2. Is not a utility patent and, unless converted into one, lapses after one year;
3. Since it is not reviewed by the USPTO, no stance is taken on whether the invention is patentable; and
4. Only exists under US law with no similar structure existing in Canada or Europe.

We believe that provisional patent applications are an immensely valuable resource for our clients, especially where deployed as a cost-effective means to secure a filing date for a subsequent utility patent in advance of contemplated public disclosures of the invention. However, when considering a provisional patent application, it’s critical to keep in mind that it’s a stepping stone to a full utility patent, and not a stand-alone patent application itself.

Feel free to reach out to the Voyer Law team to discuss provisional patent applications and a filing strategy for your invention.

For most businesses, infringement of copyright is going to result in lost profits. But what about businesses where infringement of their IP could lead to more engagement and sales?

The video game industry has this issue. Developers and publishers want to benefit from the free marketing that comes with their users creating and sharing content of their Game, but they don’t necessarily want to permit users to do whatever they want with their intellectual property.

Meanwhile, streamers, video producers, let’s players, modders and other forms of video game content creators are having an increasingly difficult time navigating the complexities of copyright law in understanding what they are and are not allowed to do with Game developers IP when making their own content.

The Copyright Acts in both the US and Canada have not been updated to address this issue, thus creating a legal grey zone that results in game creators themselves having to address how users can use their IP in their own content policies.

What is a Fan-Content Policy?

We are seeing the growing use of Game companies implementing ‘Fan-Content Policies’ alongside their more standardized Terms of Service and Privacy Policy documentation. Fan-Content Policy terms could be a whole separate document or be implemented into the more standardized terms to form part of those larger policies.

Seemingly more Game companies are opting to have separate Fan-Content Policies so they can be displayed clearly and concisely to players. Common everyday language is also best to use in Content Policies to convey the information contained in a simple and easy to understand way with limited legalese.

Ultimately, Fan-Content Policies seek to address this legal grey area as best one can outside the context of statutory copyright protections, often detailing how a user can use the Game’s IP to create their own content, and the other rules and requirements surrounding its use.

Common Terms in Fan-Content Policies

Some terms that are often included in Fan-Content Policies include:

• General Rules: what you can and cannot do with the Game and its IP while creating your own content.
• Authorized Uses: detailing what uses are permitted or excluded. Like the General Rules, but this language is often much more legal and akin to a license grant. Often Commercial Uses are not accepted (but monetization via advertisements so long as videos follow the policy may be carved out and approved).
• Mods: whether modifications to the Game are permitted, and if so, how they are permitted and under what contexts (for example, overwhelmingly often they state Mods can never be commercialized or sold).
• Other Agreements: how the Fan-Content Policy works in tandem with other agreements the user is bound to, such as Terms of Service, Privacy Policies and End-User License Agreements.
• Company Property: how the User can use Company property outside just the Game, such as trademark or tradenames.
• Credit: how a User must credit the Game, Developer and/or Publisher in the making of their Game content
• Jurisdiction: what country’s laws govern the policy. Could be the jurisdiction of the user or another specified country.
• DMCA Takedowns: how the policy addresses takedowns on third-party platforms via DMCA.
• Enforcement of Rights: arguably the most influential provision, that states that despite the rules and regulations of the policy, the IP holders ultimately reserve the right to take legal action for misuse of IP as determined by the IP owner in its absolute discretion.

At the End of the Day, Enforcement of Rights Still Remains

In a way, the Enforcement of Rights provision could be the only provision of significant weight in the whole policy, as it signifies and clarifies that these Fan-Content Policies essentially operate in a copyright law legal vacuum and the decision to either withdraw or enforce certain rights as it relates to the intellectual property will always remain with the IP owner. Despite the rules and permission detailed within the policy, the IP owner still has all the power in the relationship regardless of whether content creators were following the rules of the policy or not.

Whatever proposed licensed granted by any policy as it relates to the use of the Game is always going to be (and should be) non-exclusive and revokable by the developer/publisher at any time. Selective enforcement of intellectual property can occur at any time, as is permitted by relevant copyright statutory provisions.

In summary, Fan-Content Policies seek to inform users on how they are permitted to use the Game and surrounding intellectual property for their own content creation. A well-drafted Content Policy seeks to foster a symbiotic relationship between game creators and content creators to create a healthy and more transparent community relationship.

However, developers and content creators alike should still remember that the rights owner still has ultimate power to revoke any permissions granted in a Content Policy unless otherwise stated.

For more information on Fan-Content Policies, or to get your own drafted, feel free to reach out to Voyer Law.