When?

There are two intake periods: the first opened late April 2022 and the second will open August 2022. Applications are accepted until the funding is fully allotted or all eligible applications are funded, whichever is first.

How Much?

You can apply for up to $10,000 per employee, up to a maximum of $100,000. You’ll have to make sure you have a job available for the trainee after successful completion of the training. If you have 100 or fewer employees, the grant will cover up to 75% of eligible training fees; for those with 101 or more employees, it will cover up to 50%.

What Training?

Eligible training fees include tuition, student fees, materials (textbooks, software, etc.), exam fees, and certain travel costs. The training has to be delivered by a third party external to the employer. The training must be necessary to equip your employees with new skills or knowledge to meet organizational goals. You can apply for training that’s already taken place, so long as it took place in the same fiscal year of your application. The fiscal year for Job Grant purposes is April 1 – March 31.

Who is Eligible?

Non-profits are eligible to apply. Schools and post-secondary institutions that receive provincial and/or federal funding are not eligible. If you’ve received three of these job grants over the past five years, you’re also not eligible. And – of course – you have to meet all of the eligibility criteria!

Trainees must be Canadian citizens or permanent residents and who work in Manitoba. They could be full-time, part-time or seasonally employed.

Application Questions?

The application is an Excel spreadsheet that you have to complete. There’s the usual identifying contact information, which includes a drop-down menu for “sector”. There’s no option for non-profit or charity, so you’ll have to find the next most applicable category or you might need to use the “other” category.

You’ll need to include a general description of your organization, select whether your training program is related to COVID-19 and if not, briefly explain the business/organizational needs that will be met by the training program.

You’ll also need to provide some details about the training plan, including:

• Course name
• Type of training
• Skills to be learned
• Name of training organization
• Number of training participants
• Total course cost
• Start and end dates
• Credential/certificate earned
• Training participant name

Want More?

Here are the key links for Manitoba employers interested in applying:
Canada-Manitoba Job Grant Application

Canada-Manitoba Job Grant – Employer Fact Sheet

Canada-Manitoba Job Grant – Frequently Asked Questions

Canada-Manitoba Job Grant – News Release

The post Canada-Manitoba Job Grant for Employee Training appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Alberta

Bill 53, Service Alberta Statutes (Virtual Meetings) Amendment Act, 2021 updates other acts, including the Societies Act, so organizations can meet and vote online. Unless the organization’s bylaws, articles or other governing documents expressly provide otherwise, the Societies Act now permits attendance at directors’ meetings or AGMs by electronic means. The entirety of the meetings can be held electronically, electronic notice is sufficient, and voting can take place electronically. The changes came into effect 26 March 2021 and are retroactive to 15 August 2020.

British Columbia

BC has updated legislation to permanently allow societies, cooperative associations and companies the option of holding fully virtual meetings. The Finance Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021 amended the Societies Act so that:

• Electronic meetings (full or partial) are allowed (ss 76, 77)

• Concepts of location or presence are replaced with the concept of attendance (so long as it also allows participation) (ss 76, 77, 82(4), 83)
• Method of voting is still governed by bylaws and means of voting must be authorized in the bylaws (ss 11(1), 83, 84(5), (6))

It’s important to know that the default permission for members to participate in an electronic meeting does not apply if the bylaws provide otherwise (s 83(1)). For more on how the amendments have been applied by BC courts, see CCCC Bulletin (Sept 2021) QuickPicks, p 6.

This permanent change replaces Ministerial Order No. M116. For more information you can check the BC government’s Not-for-profit Organizations page.

Manitoba

In Manitoba, Order in Council 325/2021 (September 29, 2021) has replaced three prior Orders in Council (88/2021 (March 2021), 257/2020 and 132/2020).

The September 2021 Order is identical to the March 2021 Order. It allows for electronic attendance at a meeting if the means permit everyone to adequately communicate with each other during the meeting and it applies “even if such means are not permitted or are specifically excluded by the incorporated body’s by-laws” (see s 7(2) of the Order).

If a notice of meeting has already been given and it is later changed, information about the change must be provided within a reasonable time via email and (where applicable) posting it to the corporation’s website, but a revised notice of meeting is not otherwise required.  Voting can take place electronically so long as the board of directors takes “reasonable measures to ensure” that voter identity is verified and each person who votes does so only in their own right or by a valid proxy.

There are similar provisions for Directors’ meetings.

The Order is effective October 1, 2021 – March 31, 2022, unless revoked sooner.

Among other legislative provisions, the Order suspends and replaces portions of The Cooperatives Act (ss 201(1), (2), 222(7), (8), s 224, ss 236(3), 379(1), (2)), the Cooperatives Regulation Man Reg 95/99 (s 11.3), and The Corporations Act (ss 109(9), 126(4), s 126.1, ss 127(a), s 135).

New Brunswick

There are no specific orders or directives related to the Corporate Registry of Service New Brunswick that speak to meeting delays or flexibility. Non-profits and charities operate under the Companies Act, which provides that all provisions of the Act apply to every non-profit corporation.

What to do? Check your by-laws to know how your corporate meetings are to take place. If your by-laws are silent, s 94 of the Act directs how elections should take place.

Section 94.2 of the act allows for directors to participate in director meetings or committee meetings by phone or “other communication facilities” if the by-laws provide for it or, subject to the by-laws, all the directors consent to that format.

Similarly, section 103.2 allows for attendance at member meetings by phone or “other communication facilities” that allow everyone participating to hear each other if the by-laws provide for it or all members entitled to vote consent to that format.

Newfoundland & Labrador

Bill 51, An Act to Amend the Condominium Act, 2009, the Co-Operatives Act and the Corporations Act, was introduced and passed in November 2020.

The Bill made permanent changes to those acts that allow director meetings, committee meetings, and member meetings to be held by telephone or electronic means. Similarly, voting can be entirely by phone or electronic means. Participants need to be able to clearly hear each other, be able to communicate, and where necessary, allow for anonymous voting.

The permission is subject to the corporation’s bylaws and whether they provide otherwise. The permission is also conditional on all directors consenting (for director and committee meetings), and on approval of the corporation (for member meetings).

Permanent flexibility for electronic and hybrid meetings means that the June 2020 permission to delay AGMs has not been renewed.

Nova Scotia

A Ministerial Direction prohibits societies and other corporate bodies from holding any statutorily required meetings in person if gathering restrictions or other applicable conditions cannot be met.

In place of in-person meetings, the Direction permits virtual and hybrid meetings whether or not virtual meetings are otherwise allowed or provided for in an enactment, article, bylaw or governing agreement.

Other requirements for the meetings should be met, such as quorum, record, notice; participants must be able to adequately communicate with one another.

It applies to societies incorporated under the Societies Act as well as all other societies or corporate bodies, incorporated by or under provincial laws or otherwise.

Alternatively, meetings can be deferred without penalty for a period of up to 90 days after the last date of the declared state of emergency. Where a meeting is deferred, everyone entitled to be present at the meeting must be notified in advance of the meeting date as required by applicable law, article, bylaw. If no notice period is stated, it must be no less than 7 calendar days.

This directive is in place for the duration of the State of Emergency (unless terminated earlier by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing). The State of Emergency has been extended more than 40 times, most recently until October 31, 2021.

Northwest Territories

The Northwest Territories has no specific orders or directives related to the Societies Act that speak to meeting delays or flexibility.

What to do? Check your by-laws to know how your corporate meetings are to take place. Unless your bylaws state otherwise, section 16.1 of the Act allows for a member to attend an AGM by phone or other mode of communication if everyone can hear each other.

If you’re still unsure, you may want to reach our to either NWT Corporate Registries, your legal counsel, or CCCC Member Support Team.

Nunavut

Nunavut has no specific orders or directives related to the Societies Act that speak to meeting delays or flexibility.

What to do? Check your by-laws to know how your corporate meetings are to take place. Section 5 of the Act requires that a society’s by-laws set out the mode of general meetings and section 17 of the Act requires that the AGM be held in Nunavut. The Act is otherwise silent on how societies are to hold the meeting.

Ontario

The ability to hold electronic corporate meetings has been extended to September 30, 2022.

Corporations under the following acts can continue holding virtual meetings until September 30, 2022:

• Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010 
• Business Corporations Act
• Co-operative Corporations Act
• Condominium Act, 1998
• Corporations Act

This means that despite provisions in a corporation’s letters patent, supplementary letters patent or by-laws of a corporation that provide otherwise, member, board and board committee meetings can be held electronically until September 30, 2022.

If you have questions about the extension of the effective period of the temporary legislative provisions related to virtual meetings, you can contact the government directly at OnCondo@ontario.ca and BusinessLawPolicy@ontario.ca.

For more from Ontario, visit COVID-19 changes to meetings and business operations.

Prince Edward Island

Prince Edward Island has no specific orders or directives related to the Companies Act that speak to meeting delays or flexibility. Charities operate under Part II of the Companies Act as well as applicable sections in other parts of the Act.

Your bylaws should tell you all you need to know about your meetings. To be granted letters patent for a non-profit company, a petition must accompany the application. That petition must include a variety of detailed information including the “mode of holding meetings, provision for quorum, rights of voting…” as per s 90(2)(b). The Act does not speak to digital, telephone, remote or other forms of meetings.

To help plan compliant meetings, see PEI’s Operational Plan FAQs and Public Health Measure Guidance.

Quebec

An Order in Council (1313-2021) issued on October 13, 2021 renews the public health emergency along with a laundry list of other Orders in Council and Ministerial Orders.

One of the renewed orders was Ministerial Order (2020-029). This Order allows any meeting of a deliberative body that normally takes place in person to be held by other means so long as everyone can communicate with each other immediately. If a secret ballot would normally be required, it can be held by any means of communication that everyone agrees upon, or alternatively, in a way that preserves the secret nature of the vote and can be verified.

“Deliberative bodies” includes non-profit organizations governed by the Companies Act [Act], as confirmed in a government press release [French only].

Since November 2019, the Act has allowed meetings by phone, videoconference or other digital means so long as everyone can communicate with each other immediately (ss 89.2-89.4, 224). But this permission in the Act is subject to bylaws of the corporation. So if the bylaws prohibit phone or electronic meetings, the Act isn’t much help.

That’s why Order 2020-029 was necessary. It essentially overrides any bylaw or other corporate provisions that would prohibit alternate meeting options. Since the public health emergency has been continually renewed since it was declared March 13, 2020 it is almost certain the Order will also continue to be renewed, extending the option for virtual meetings.

Saskatchewan

In Saskatchewan, the Non-profit Corporations Regulations, 1997 were amended by Order in Council to authorize non-profit corporations to hold member meetings by phone or electronic means, so long as the articles or bylaws do not prohibit it and participants are able to adequately communicate with one another. It was effective as of February 26, 2021.

The Non-profit Corporations Act requires that member meetings “shall be held at the place within Saskatchewan provided in the bylaws” (see s.122). The Order amends the definition of “held at the place” by adding a definition to s.13 of the Act to remove the geographic restriction. 

This amendment updates a previous change, made in May 2020, by adding clarifying language and specifying that people who attend virtually are deemed to be present at the meeting.

Yukon

Depending on the type of organization, a Ministerial Order issued March 2, 2021 relating to AGMs may still be effective. It applies for a “designated period.”

• For associations and societies, that is 90 days after the end of the state of emergency
• For corporations and limited partnerships, that is 30 days after the end of the state of emergency

The state of emergency ended August 25, 2021. That means the 30 days for corporations and limited partnerships has passed, and the 90 days for associations and societies will end November 23, 2021.

The Order allows AGMs to be partially or entirely by phone or electronic means. It’s allowed even if the bylaws don’t provide for the meeting, and whether the directors have chosen to hold an electronic meeting or if a member calls such a meeting. The Order allows all members to attend, participate, and where applicable, vote all by electronic means. Similarly, directors’ meetings can be held electronically. These meetings are deemed to have been held in Yukon and participants are considered to be present.

The Ministerial Order allowing for electronic meetings is retroactive to any time in the designated period, or before the state of emergency was declared (March 27, 2020). You can read more about the Yukon’s legislation changes for COVID-19 here.

Federal

As of January 1, 2021, the normal rules for calling AGMs and presenting financial statements apply. A 2020 order extending deadlines for federally incorporated charities was not renewed.

Corporations Canada outlines three options for charities to consider:

• Virtual AGM

For virtual meetings, you need to check your by-laws to see what they allow. If the bylaw specifically allows virtual meetings, great! You can hold a fully virtual meeting. If the bylaw is silent or doesn’t permit virtual meetings, you can consider a partially virtual meeting. Some attend in person and other participate virtually as long as everyone can communicate.

In terms of voting, again, check your bylaws. Participants can vote digitally if it’s not prohibited and the voting platform complies with regulations (i.e. maintain anonymity).

• Resolution Instead of AGM

Practically, this is probably only an option for corporations with a small membership. The resolution must, at minimum include (1) director elections, (2) financial statements, (3) appointing the auditor or waiving such appointment. All other business items normally communicated at the AGM must also be included.

• Delay Calling the AGM

If it would be detrimental to call the AGM within the normal timeframe, non-for-profit corporations can apply to delay the AGM. You need to apply at least 30 business days before the notice to members has to be sent. Corporations Canada has a page with all the information you need on how to apply for an extension.

For more, check out this article on Holding a Successful AGM.

The post AGM Options Across Canada: 2021 Fall Update appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Alberta

Bill 53, Service Alberta Statutes (Virtual Meetings) Amendment Act, 2021 updates other acts, including the Societies Act, so organizations can meet and vote online. Unless the organization’s bylaws, articles or other governing documents expressly provide otherwise, the Societies Act now permits attendance at directors’ meetings or AGMS by electronic means. The entirety of the meetings can be held electronically, electronic notice is sufficient, and voting can take place electronically. The changes came into effect 26 March 2021 and are retroactive to 15 August 2020.

British Columbia

Ministerial Order No. M116 came into effect April 21, 2020 and will remain in effect until the declaration of a state of emergency expires or is cancelled (it was extended until 27 April 2021 and will presumably be renewed again).

This Order allows societies to host virtual or hybrid meetings, even if the society’s bylaws or any regulations under the Societies Act state otherwise.

Additionally, section 71 of the Societies Act provides flexibility for the timing of AGMs. Under s.71(3) the Registrar of Companies extended the date by which a society must hold its AGM. The extension goes no later than November 1 of the calendar year after the calendar year in which an AGM would otherwise have to be held, and which the Registrar authorizes.

The options are helpfully summarized here.

Manitoba

In Manitoba, Order in Council 88/2021 (17 March 2021) has replaced two prior Orders in Council (257/2020 and 132/2020).

The 2021 Order is identical to the previous Order. It allows for electronic attendance at a meeting if the means permit everyone to adequately communicate with each other during the meeting and it applies “even if such means are not permitted or are specifically excluded by the incorporated body’s by-laws” (see s 7(2) of the Order).

If a notice of meeting has already been given and it is later changed, information about the change must be provided within a reasonable time via email and (where applicable) posting it to the corporation’s website but a revised notice of meeting is not otherwise required.  Voting can take place electronically so long as the board of directors takes “reasonable measures to ensure” that voter identity is verified and each person who votes does so only in their own right or by a valid proxy.

There are similar provisions for Directors’ meetings.

The Order is effective March 31, 2021 – September 30, 2021 unless revoked sooner.

Among other legislative provisions, the Order suspends and replaces portions of The Cooperatives Act (ss 201(1), (2), 222(7), (8), s 224, ss 236(3), 379(1), (2)), the Cooperatives Regulation Man Reg 95/99 (s 11.3), and The Corporations Act (ss 109(9), 126(4), s 126.1, ss 127(a), s 135).

New Brunswick

There are no specific orders or directives related to the Corporate Registry of Service New Brunswick that speak to meeting delays or flexibility. Non-profits and charities operate under the Companies Act, which provides that all provisions of the Act apply to every non-profit corporation.

What to do? Check your by-laws to know how your corporate meetings are to take place. If your by-laws are silent, s 94 of the Act directs how elections should take place.

Section 94.1 of the act allows for directors to participate in director meetings or committee meetings by phone or “other communication facilities” if the by-laws provide for it or, subject to the by-laws, all the directors consent to that format.

Similarly, section 103.2 allows for attendance at member meetings by phone or “other communication facilities” that allow everyone participating to hear each other if the by-laws provide for it or, all members entitled to vote consent to that format.

Newfoundland & Labrador

Bill 51, An Act to Amend the Condominium Act, 2009, the Co-Operatives Act and the Corporations Act, was introduced and passed in November 2020.

The Bill made permanent changes to those acts that allow director meetings, committee meetings, and member meetings to be held by telephone or electronic means. Similarly, voting can be entirely by phone or electronic means. Participants need to be able to clearly hear each other, be able to communicate, and where necessary, allow for anonymous voting.

The permission is subject to the corporation’s bylaws and whether they provide otherwise. The permission is also conditional on all directors consenting (for director and committee meetings), and on approval of the corporation (for member meetings).

Permanent flexibility for electronic and hybrid meetings means that last year’s permission to delay AGMs has not been renewed.

Nova Scotia

A Ministerial Direction prohibits societies and other corporate bodies from holding any statutorily required meetings in person if gathering restrictions or other applicable conditions cannot be met. In place of in person meetings, the Direction permits virtual and hybrid meetings whether or not virtual meetings are otherwise allowed or provided for in an enactment, article, bylaw or governing agreement.

Other requirements for the meetings should be met, such as quorum, record, notice; participants must be able to adequately communicate with one another.

It applies to societies incorporated under the Societies Act as well as all other societies or corporate bodies, incorporated by or under provincial laws or otherwise.

Alternatively, meetings can be deferred without penalty for a period of up to 90 days after the last date of the declared state of emergency. Where a meeting is deferred, everyone entitled to be present at the meeting must be notified in advance of the meeting date as required by applicable law, article, bylaw. If no notice period is stated, it must be no less than 7 calendar days.

This directive is in place for the duration of the State of Emergency (unless terminated earlier by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing). The State of Emergency has been extended for the 28^th time to May 2, 2021.

Northwest Territories

The Northwest Territories has no specific orders or directives related to the Societies Act that speak to meeting delays or flexibility.

What to do? Check your by-laws to know how your corporate meetings are to take place. Unless your bylaws state otherwise, section 16.1 of the Act allows for a member to attend an AGM by phone or other mode of communication if everyone can hear each other.

Corporate Registries has stated that it will “not be dissolving any societies for failing to file their Notice of Directors and financial statements due to a society’s inability to hold an AGM because of the COVID-19 health emergency.”

Nunavut

Nunavut has no specific orders or directives related to the Societies Act that speak to meeting delays or flexibility.

What to do? Check your by-laws to know how your corporate meetings are to take place. Section 5 of the Act requires that a society’s by-laws set out the mode of general meetings and section 17 of the Act requires that the AGM be held in Nunavut. The Act is otherwise silent on how societies are to hold the meeting.

Ontario

The ability to hold electronic corporate meetings has been extended to December 31, 2021.

In 2020 a schedule was added to the Corporations Act for “special rules during emergency.” An April 6, 2021 regulation extends the application of these “special rules during emergency” to December 31, 2021.

This means that despite provisions in a corporation’s letters patent, supplementary letters patent or by-laws of a corporation that provide otherwise, member, board and board committee meetings can be held electronically until the end of 2021.

Prince Edward Island

Prince Edward Island has no specific orders or directives related to the Companies Act that speak to meeting delays or flexibility. Charities operate under Part II of the Companies Act as well as applicable sections in other parts of the Act.

Your bylaws should tell you all you need to know about your meetings. To be granted letters patent for a non-profit company, a petition must accompany the application. That petition must include a variety of detailed information including the “mode of holding meetings, provision for quorum, rights of voting…” as per s 90(2)(b). The Act does not speak to digital, telephone, remote or other forms of meetings.

To help plan compliant meetings, see PEI’s Meeting Guidance and Gatherings Guidance.

Quebec

An Order in Council (570-2021) issued on April 21, 2021 renews the public health emergency along with a lengthy list of other Orders in Council and Ministerial Orders.

One of the renewed orders was Ministerial Orders (2020-029). This Order allows any meeting of a deliberative body that normally takes place in person to be held by other means so long as everyone can communicate with each other immediately. If a secret ballot would normally be required, it can be held by any means of communication that everyone agrees upon, or alternatively, in a way that preserves the secret nature of the vote and can be verified.

“Deliberative bodies” includes non-profit organizations governed by the Companies Act [Act], as confirmed in a government press release [French only].

Since November 2019, the Act has allowed meetings by phone, videoconference or other digital means so long as everyone can communicate with each other immediately (ss 89.2-89.4, 224). But this permission in the Act is subject to bylaws of the corporation. So if the bylaws prohibit phone or electronic meetings, the Act isn’t much help.

That’s why the Order 2020-029 was necessary. It essentially overrides any bylaw or other corporate provisions that would prohibit alternate meeting options. Since the public health emergency has been continually renewed since it was declared March 13, it is almost certain it will continue to be renewed, extending the option for virtual meetings.

Saskatchewan

In Saskatchewan, the Non-profit Corporations Regulations, 1997 were amended by Order in Council to authorize non-profit corporations to hold member meetings by phone or electronic means, so long as the articles or bylaws do not prohibit it and participants are able to adequately communicate with one another. It was effective as of February 26, 2021.

The existing Non-profit Corporations Act requires that member meetings “shall be held at the place within Saskatchewan provided in the bylaws” (see s.122). The changes made in May 2020 had updated the definition of “held at the place” to remove geographic restrictions. The recent amendments add clarifying language and specify that people who attend virtually are deemed to be present at the meeting.

Yukon

A Ministerial Order (2 March 2021) effectively extends a May 2020 Order.

It allows a society under the Societies Act, an association under the Cooperative Associations Act and a for-profit corporation to hold AGMs partially or entirely by phone or electronic means. It’s allowed even if the bylaws don’t provide for the meeting, and whether the directors have chosen to hold an electronic meeting or if a member calls such a meeting. The Order allows all members to attend, participate, and where applicable, vote all by electronic means. Similarly, directors meetings can be held electronically.

These meetings are deemed to have been held in Yukon and participants are considered to be present.

The order applies for the “designated period” which means the period beginning March 17, 2020 and for societies and associations, ends 90 days after the end of the state of emergency. The state of emergency was renewed for the fourth time on March 3, 2021 for 90 days.

The Ministerial Order allowing for electronic meetings is retroactive to any time in the designated period, or before the state of emergency was declared (March 27, 2020).

Federal

A 2020 order extending deadlines for federally incorporated charities has expired. As of January 1, 2021, the normal rules for calling AGMs and presenting financial statements apply.

Corporations Canada outlines three options for charities to consider:

1. Virtual AGM

As for virtual meetings, you need to check your by-laws to see what they allow. If the bylaw specifically allows virtual meetings, great! You can hold a fully virtual meeting. If the bylaw is silent or doesn’t permit virtual meetings, you can consider a partially virtual meeting. Some attend in person and other participate virtually as long as everyone can communicate.

In terms of voting, again, check your bylaws. Participants can vote digitally if it’s not prohibited and the voting platform complies with regulations (i.e. maintain anonymity).

2. Resolution Instead of AGM

Practically, this is probably only an option for corporations with a small membership. The resolution must, at minimum include (1) director elections, (2) financial statements, (3) appointing the auditor or waiving such appointment. All other business items normally communicated at the AGM must also be included.

3. Delay Calling the AGM

If it would be detrimental to call the AGM within the normal timeframe, non-for-profit corporations can apply to delay the AGM. You need to apply at least 30 business days before the notice to members has to be sent. Corporations Canada has a page with all the information you need on how to apply for an extension.

For more, check out this article on Holding a Successful AGM.

Charity leaders are invited to share how they are responding to the COVID-19 challenges  within their organization in our online community forum, The Green: COVID-19 Response Room.

The post AGM Options Across Canada: 2021 Edition appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

With severe restrictions on liberty that are in a constant state of flux, it’s not surprising to find a lot of people wondering “what about our Charter rights?” In this post, we’re going to look at the Charter and how it works: what rights it protects, and how courts consider Charter rights claims.

We’ve created a space in The Green for Christian leaders who want to talk about these issues – pandemic restrictions, religious freedom, conflicting opinions, uncertainty. Share your thoughts in a space where people are committed to listening well and respecting each other. Please join in!

Now, as you get started with Charter Rights 101, I’ll warn you in advance that this post is longer than usual, so you’re going need a few minutes.

Protected Rights

The Charter is part of our constitution. As a constitutional document it is ‘supreme’ in that all other laws must be consistent with the Charter. And while our constitution – and Charter – are Canada’s ‘supreme’ documents, the Charter actually begins with a preamble recognizing that Canada is “founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” But before you start planning out a religious freedom claim with this statement in mind, you should know that the Supreme Court of Canada explains it as simply being an articulation of the “political theory on which the Charter’s protections are based.”

What are those protections? The Charter protects seven broad categories of rights:

• Fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion; thought, belief, opinion and expression; peaceful assembly; and association.
• Democratic rights: the right to vote, a five-year maximum term for legislative bodies (with exceptions for war, invasion or insurrection) and a minimum once-per-12 months meeting of legislative bodies.
• Mobility rights: citizens have the right to enter, remain in or leave Canada; to move from province to province and to look for work in any province.
• Legal rights: apply most directly to interactions with the justice system and include rights like knowing why you’re being arrested, the right to counsel, to not be arbitrarily detained, to be protected against unreasonable searches, to be tried within a reasonable period of time, and to the rights of life, liberty and security of the person.
• Equality rights: provide for equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination on the basis of certain, listed (and unlisted but added through court decisions) characteristics like race, colour, religion, sex, disability.
• Language rights: entrench English and French as the official languages of Canada. Related, citizens have the right for their children to be educated in the minority language in a province.

Application of Rights

The Charter applies to the federal and provincial governments. It doesn’t apply to your neighbour. “Government” includes legislation, direct government actors, and government actors by virtue of legislative control/authority. If the government decided to close religious private schools but not public schools and not other private schools, that would raise Charter claims. If your neighbour vehemently opposes religious schools, thinks they should all be permanently closed and publicly promotes that view, that would not raise a Charter claim.  

It also doesn’t usually apply to private entities.* Business owners, non-government service providers and employers are not obliged to adhere to the Charter. They are obliged to follow human rights codes. These codes or acts often provide similar protections and are usually informed by how we understand Charter rights, but the general rule is that you can’t make a Charter rights claim against a non-government entity.

*There are some grey, “middle ground” areas. If an entity exercises government functions or implements government programs, the Charter would apply. It’s a context-specific question that looks at the nature of the activity to decide whether it is truly governmental in nature. For example, the Charter has not been applied to a university’s mandatory retirement policy, but has been applied to a university’s regulation of freedom of expression by students on university grounds.

Claiming Rights

Whoever is claiming a Charter right has to prove that the right has been infringed. For example, a religious freedom claimant  needs to show that (1) she sincerely believes in a belief or practice that has a nexus with religion and (2) the law or rule interferes with her ability to act in accordance with her beliefs in a way that is more than trivial or insubstantial. That means the beliefs or practice must reasonably or actually be threatened.

Other rights have other tests. The test for an infringement of religious freedom is not the same as, for example, the test for expression or equality.

But just proving an infringement doesn’t end the analysis. If the right has been infringed, the obligation (or “onus”) shifts to the government to try and show that the infringement is justified. This is necessary because no right is – or can be – absolute.

Justifying Rights Infringements

Section 1 of the Charter allows Charter rights to be infringed when the limits are “prescribed by law” and “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

What does that mean? In a 1986 decision known as Oakes, the Supreme Court of Canada set out a test to practically apply section 1 and figure out whether rights infringements can be justified. The Oakes test has a few parts and we’ll quickly walk through each (volumes could be written on each component, so what follows here is only an overview!).

Step One: Is the limit prescribed by law?

What does it mean for a limit to be prescribed by law? This part of the test basically asks first, whether the limit is authorized by law, as opposed to being arbitrary; and second, whether the limit is precise, accessible, and clear enough so that people can regulate their conduct.

This isn’t a high hurdle to pass and to fail the law or rule limiting the right would have to be so obscure that it is “incapable of interpretation with any degree of precision.”

Step Two: Is the limit reasonable?

This step has a number of sub-steps.

Is the objective pressing and substantial?

This asks whether the objective of the law or rule is sufficiently important to justify overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom. At this stage the consequences aren’t yet taken into account. It simply asks what the law is trying to accomplish and could that be important enough that rights would need to acquiesce.

Is the limit rationally connected to the objective?

Another way to phrase this is whether the law is carefully designed to achieve the objective (which is pressing and substantial). There must be a causal connection between the infringement and the benefit sought, asking whether the rights-limiting measure can further the objective.

Is the limit minimally impairing?

Another way to phrase this is whether the law impairs the Charter right as little as possible. It doesn’t have to be perfect, but the government would have to provide an explanation if a significantly less intrusive and equally effective measure was not chosen.

Is there proportionality?

Another way to phrase this is whether the overall effect of the law on the claimants is disproportionate to the objective. Is the harm from infringing the right outweighed by the benefits associated with the rule in a proportional way?

Claiming & Justifying Rights Infringements: An Example

Let’s take the steps outlined above and go through them in a real case. In Taylor v Newfoundland and Labrador, Kim Taylor, along with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), challenged COVID-19 related travel bans.

Section s 28(1)(h) of the Public Health Protection and Promotion Act (PHPPA) authorizes the Chief Medical Officer to restrict travel to the province. In April 2020, a “Special Measures Order” was issued that limited entry to residents, asymptomatic workers and those in extenuating circumstances, with a second “Special Measures Order” modestly expanding the list of circumstances considered extenuating.

Taylor sought an exemption after her mother unexpectedly passed away. She made arrangements to self-isolate for 14 days after arriving in Newfoundland from her residence in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and for the funeral to take place after that period. Her request was denied. She submitted a request for reconsideration, and she was ultimately granted entry, but only after the funeral had taken place.

In the court challenge, Taylor argued two things. First, that s 28(1)(h) of the PHPPA was outside the province’s scope of constitutional authority and that by restricting all travel it violated her s 6 Charter right to mobility. Second, that the province’s decision to deny her entry to attend her mother’s funeral violated her s 7 Charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person. The CCLA also tried to challenge investigative and enforcement provisions but the court did not give CCLA standing (the right to) challenge those additional sections.

Claiming the Right

After reviewing the history of s 6 mobility rights in Canadian court decisions, the court in this case found the claim was to “a simple right of mobility” to travel within Canada and that Taylor’s right was infringed when she was denied entry. Section 6 is a “right of action,” the “right to choose,” the “right to travel for livelihood or residence,” the “right to come and go” as one pleases. Section 6 does not limit mobility rights to a certain part of Canada or to someone’s province of residence. And, the court asked rhetorically, how does someone exercise this right “without the ability to traverse provincial and territorial boundaries?”

Section 7 of the Charter protects the life, liberty and security of the person. Underlying liberty and security of the person is a concern for the protection of autonomy and dignity; the right to make fundamental personal choices free from state interference.

The court disagreed that Taylor’s s 7 rights were infringed because the rights usually protected under this section “are qualitatively different” than the choice to attend a family funeral. Taylor was unable to demonstrate an infringement of her s 7 rights.

Justifying the Infringement

In this case, the s 7 rights didn’t move on to the justification stage because the court disagreed they were violated. The s 6 rights were violated, and the question then became whether that violation was justified.

Step One: Is the limit prescribed by law?

The PHHPA is a piece of legislation, which makes the answer here an easy “yes”.

Step Two: Is the limit reasonable?

Is the objective pressing and substantial?

The court held that the objective of the travel ban was “to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the province” and that “the existence of COVID-19 as a public health emergency is beyond question.”

Is the limit rationally connected to the objective?

Taylor argued that the government failed to show why the requirement for self-isolation was insufficient to address its concern, noting that the government had “already been successful at flattening the curve.” The government used modeling to justify its policy and decision. While the government is supposed to bear the burden of proof to justify rights limitations, the court commented that “no evidence has been adduced to counter [the government’s] conclusion” or question the modeling methodology. Based on the uncontradicted evidence, the court held it was “beyond argument” that the restriction was an effective means to meet the objective.

Is the minimally impairing?

The court accepted that a “pandemic is not a magic wand which can be waved to make constitutional rights disappear” or immunize a decision of the Chief Medical Officer from review. However, the court also found that even though other measures were taken, based on the evidence presented, none of them were effective substitutes for the travel ban. The travel ban was “integral” to “wrestling this disease into submission” and it satisfied “the least drastic means component” of the test.

Is there proportionality?

In a perfunctory analysis on this point, the court found “while restrictions on personal travel may cause mental anguish to some, and certainly did so in the case of Ms. Taylor, the collective benefit to the population as a whole must prevail.”

In the end, the government succeeded in justifying the rights violation. Ms. Taylor’s application was dismissed.

Conclusion

And that, patient readers, in a nutshell is how a real-life Charter rights claim was analyzed. What can we learn? Evidence is exceedingly important, and even though a claimant doesn’t bear the burden of disproving a justification, leaving evidence uncontradicted will not help your case.

Charter challenges are always, well, a challenge. But from this example we learn that in the context of COVID-19 claimants have an even greater uphill battle. It may be clear that certain Charter rights, from association to mobility, are infringed by government regulations. On the question of religious freedom under COVID restrictions, see Professor Brian Bird’s recent column in the Vancouver Sun. Establishing an infringement is only the first step in making a Charter claim – it doesn’t necessarily mean that the courts will grant a remedy or overturn restrictions. The more difficult task is to demonstrate whether the infringement is justified in a free and democratic society given the deference of courts to public health officials, and the weight given to government objectives during the pandemic.

Join the Conversation!

We would love to hear how you are wrestling with the questions around pandemic restrictions and religious freedoms. And we would love to hear how you are continuing to deliver the Gospel during pandemic restrictions. 

We’ve created a space in The Green for Christian leaders who are willing to talk to each other, listen to each other, and develop a respectful and stimulating dialogue. Please joins us! We would love to hear your questions and have you share your ideas.

The post Charter Rights 101 appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Alberta

The temporary relief provided by Ministerial Order 009-2020 is no longer effective as of August 15, 2020. Requirements for holding corporate AGMs and other meetings resume, and annual return filing timeless are reinstated.

The Ministerial order had granted a variety of administrative relief for organizations incorporated under the Societies Act, including suspending the obligation to hold in-person meetings, suspending report and returns to the Registrar, extending time for charitable registrations and renewals, and others.

British Columbia

Ministerial Order No. M116 came into effect April 21 and will remain in effect until the declaration of a state of emergency expires or is cancelled (it was again extended, now until November 10, 2020).

Additionally, section 71 of the Societies Actprovides flexibility for the timing of AGMs. Under s.71(3) the Registrar of Companies extended the date by which a society must hold its AGM to a date not later than November 1 of the calendar year after the calendar year in which an AGM would otherwise have to be held, and which the Registrar authorizes.

The options are helpfully summarized here.

Manitoba

In Manitoba, Order in Council 257/2020 has replaced Order in Council 132/2020. The new Order is almost identical to the old. It allows for electronic attendance at a meeting if the means permit everyone to adequately communicate with each other during the meeting and it applies “even if such means are not permitted or are specifically excluded by the incorporated body’s by-laws” (see s 7(2) of the Order).

If a notice of meeting has already been given and it is later changed, information about the change must be provided within a reasonable time via email and (where applicable) posting it to the corporation’s website but a revised notice of meeting is not otherwise required.  Voting can take place electronically so long as the board of directors takes “reasonable measures to ensure” that voter identity is verified and each person who votes does so only in their own right or by a valid proxy.

There are similar provisions for Directors’ meetings.

The key difference in the new Order is that it doesn’t give any more time extensions for holding AGMs.  The Order is effective October 1, 2020 – March 30, 2021 unless revoked sooner.

Among other legislative provisions, the Order suspends and replaces portions of The Cooperatives Act (ss 201(1), (2), 222(7), (8), s 224, ss 236(3), 379(1), (2)), the Cooperatives Regulation Man Reg 95/99 (s 11.3), and The Corporations Act (ss 109(9), 126(4), s 126.1, ss 127(a), s 135).

New Brunswick

There are no specific orders or directives related to the Corporate Registry of Service New Brunswick that speak to meeting delays or flexibility. Non-profits and charities operate under the Companies Act, which provides that all provisions of the Act apply to every non-profit corporation.

What to do? Check your by-laws to know how your corporate meetings are to take place. If your by-laws are silent, s 94 of the Act directs how elections should take place.

Section 94.1 of the act allows for directors to participate in director meetings or committee meetings by phone or “other communication facilities” if the by-laws provide for it or, subject to the by-laws, all the directors consent to that format.

Similarly, section 103.2 allows for attendance at member meetings by phone or “other communication facilities” that allow everyone participating to hear each other if the by-laws provide for it or, all members entitled to vote consent to that format.

Newfoundland & Labrador

As explained in a public advisory from earlier this spring, timelines under the Corporations Act were varied by Ministerial Order. This means that

1. A non-profit corporation can delay holding its AGM for 6 months if the time to call an AGM occurred between May 3, 2020 and October 31, 2020
2. Annual 2020 return filings can be delayed for 6 months if the anniversary month of incorporation was May to October

Nova Scotia

A Ministerial Direction allows for virtual meeting options or meeting deferral whether or not it would otherwise be allowed under any other applicable law, including enactments, articles, bylaws or governing agreements. This directive is in place for the duration of the State of Emergency (unless terminated earlier by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing). It has been further extended to November 15, 2020.

It applies to societies incorporated under the Societies Act as well as all other societies or corporate bodies, incorporated by or under provincial laws or otherwise.

Northwest Territories

The Northwest Territories has no specific orders or directives related to the Societies Act that speak to meeting delays or flexibility.

What to do? Check your by-laws to know how your corporate meetings are to take place. Unless your bylaws state otherwise, section 16.1 of the Act allows for a member to attend an AGM by phone or other mode of communication if everyone can hear each other.

Nunavut

Nunavut has no specific orders or directives related to the Societies Act that speak to meeting delays or flexibility.

What to do? Check your by-laws to know how your corporate meetings are to take place. Section 5 of the Act requires that a society’s by-laws set out the mode of general meetings and section 17 of the Act requires that the AGM be held in Nunavut. The Act is otherwise silent on how societies are to hold the meeting.

 Ontario

Ontario has again extended flexibility for meetings under the Corporations Act. The Special Rules During Emergency that have been extended to May 31, 2021 include:

• Allowing corporate member meetings to be held by phone or electronic means (Section 3; temporarily suspending s125.1 of the Corporations Act)
• Allowing corporate director meetings to be held by phone or electronic means (Section 5; temporarily suspending s283(3.1) of the Corporations Act)
• Allowing elections and votes to be held by alternate means when it’s not feasible to abide by the bylaws (Section 6; temporarily suspending s287(1) of the Corporations Act)

The time extension granted for annual meetings (section 7) was not renewed. The amendments allowing for deferred annual meetings will expire 120 days after the end of the emergency period. The emergency period began March 17. It ended when the Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act, 2020 came into force on July 24, 2020.

Corporations must have held (or hold) their annual meetings as follows:

• If the last day you were required to hold your AGM was during the emergency period, the meeting must have been held within 90 days after July 24, 2020 (by October 22, 2020)
• If the last day you were required to hold your AGM was within 30 days after the emergency, the meeting must be held within 120 days after July 24,2020 (by November 21, 2020)

Prince Edward Island

Prince Edward Island has no specific orders or directives related to the Companies Act that speak to meeting delays or flexibility. Charities operate under Part II of the Companies Act as well as applicable sections in other parts of the Act.

Your bylaws should tell you all you need to know about your meetings. To be granted letters patent for a non-profit company, a petition must accompany the application. That petition must include a variety of detailed information including the “mode of holding meetings, provision for quorum, rights of voting…” as per s 90(2)(b). The Act does not speak to digital, telephone, remote or other forms of meetings.

To help plan compliant meetings, see PEI Gatherings Guidance.

Quebec

An Order in Council (1150-2020) issued on November 4, 2020 renews the public health emergency along with a laundry list of other Orders in Council and Ministerial Orders.

One of the renewed orders was Ministerial Orders (2020-029). This Order allows any meeting of a deliberative body that normally takes place in person to be held by other means so long as everyone can communicate with each other immediately. If a secret ballot would normally be required, it can be held by any means of communication that everyone agrees upon, or alternatively, in a way that preserves the secret nature of the vote and can be verified.

“Deliberative bodies” includes non-profit organizations governed by the Companies Act [Act], as confirmed in a government press release [French only].

Since November 2019, the Act has allowed meetings by phone, videoconference or other digital means so long as everyone can communicate with each other immediately (ss 89.2-89.4, 224). But this permission in the Act is subject to bylaws of the corporation. So if the bylaws prohibit phone or electronic meetings, the Act isn’t much help.

That’s why the Order 2020-029 was necessary. It essentially overrides any bylaw or other corporate provisions that would prohibit alternate meeting options. Since the public health emergency has been continually renewed since it was declared March 13, it is almost certain it will continue to be renewed, extending the option for virtual meetings.

Saskatchewan

In Saskatchewan, OC 222/2020 authorizes non-profit corporations to hold annual general meetings (AGMs) by phone, video-conference or other electronic means, so long as the articles or bylaws do not prohibit it and participants are able to adequately communicate with one another. It is effective as of the day of filing, which is May 14, 2020.

The existing Non-profit Corporations Act requires that member meetings “shall be held at the place within Saskatchewan provided in the bylaws” (see s.122). The Order amends the definition of “held at the place” by adding a definition to s.13 of the existing Non-profit Corporations Regulations, 1997 to remove the geographic restriction. 

Yukon

A Ministerial Order issued earlier this year (May 13, 2020) remains in effect. A society under the Societies Act, an association under the Cooperative Associations Act and for-profit corporations are allowed to hold AGMs partially or entirely by phone or electronic means even if the bylaws don’t provide for the meeting, if the directors choose to hold it by those means or a member calls such a meeting and it allows all member to attend, participate, and where applicable, vote.

Similarly, directors meetings can be held electronically.

These meetings are deemed to have been held in Yukon and participants are considered to be present.

The order applies for the “designated period” which means the period beginning March 17, 2020 and for societies and associations, ends 90 days after the end of the state of emergency. The state of emergency was renewed for the second time on September 9, 2020 for 90 days. It is retroactive to any time in the designated period, or before the state of emergency was declared (March 27, 2020).

Federal

An August order extending deadlines for federally incorporated charities remains in place. It allows charities to delay calling the AGM and delay presenting financial statements by six months.

That means the 2020 AGM can be extended to the shorter of the following two options: (1) 21 months after the previous AGM and no more than 12 months after the last financial year-end or (2) December 31, 2020.  You don’t have to apply to Corporations Canada to take advantage of these extensions.

As for virtual meetings, you need to check your by-laws to see what they allow. If the bylaw specifically allows virtual meetings, great! You can hold a fully virtual meeting. If the bylaw is silent or doesn’t permit virtual meetings, you can consider a partially virtual meeting. Some attend in person and other participate virtually as long as everyone can communicate.

Corporations Canada suggests an alternative could be to sign a resolution instead of an AGM. Practically, this is probably only an option for corporations with a small membership. The resolution must, at minimum include (1) director elections, (2) financial statements, (3) appointing the auditor or waiving such appointment. All other business items normally communicated at the AGM must also be included.

For more, check out this article on Holding a Successful AGM.

Charity leaders are invited to share how they are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic within their organization in our online community forum, The Green: COVID-19 Response Room.

The post AGM Options Across Canada appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Exciting announcements have been made this week about places of worship!

Ontario announced that all places of worship across the province can re-open to 30% capacity, Alberta announced it was removing gathering restrictions on places of worship, and both Saskatchewan and New Brunswick recently increased worship gathering size.

As governments have eased restrictions for business, industry and services a plethora of guidance has been released (Alberta will soon have 60+; Ontario has 100+; Newfoundland & Labrador has almost 50) and churches are asking “what restrictions apply to us?”

In Ontario, the Stage 2 Reopening Plan explains that “the government will make available guidance, including limiting attendance to 30 per cent of building capacity and practicing physical distancing” and that “guidance will also be provided for spiritual leaders and their staff.”

CCCC received notice that “Further to the news earlier this week allowing places of worship to resume services at 30% capacity starting Friday June 12, 2020, the Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development has provided guidelines to help places of worship re-open safely.” Those guidelines are found here: Guidance on Health & Safety for Places of Worship (you can also find this document from the Ontario Workplace Resources page; scroll to the bottom and search the table for “worship”).

Still, many Ontario church leaders are wondering whether more is forthcoming. On June 15, the Ontario Ministry of Health released additional guidance containing much more detail as to core elements of religious practice, making it similar to the highly prescriptive and limiting guidance from other provinces (see listing below). It is only available through a fairly obscure Ministry of Health list of guidance and not in the main government listing of sector-specific guidance.

Some local public health authorities have also released guidance (i.e. Middlesex-London, Toronto).

Provincial guidance for places of worship or gatherings can be found here:

Alberta: Relaunch Guidance for Places of Worship

British Columbia: Guidance for Faith-Based Organizations

Manitoba: Public Gatherings

New Brunswick: Q&A – Religious Services

Newfoundland & Labrador: Guidance for Gatherings

Nova Scotia: Drive-in Religious Services; Gathering restrictions

Ontario: Guidance on Health & Safety for Places of Worship

Prince Edward Island: Worship Service Guidance

Saskatchewan: Places of Worship Guidance – 1/3 Occupancy, Max 30

Yukon: Faith-Based Service Guidance – lesser of 30% capacity or 50

It is encouraging to see recognition of the essential role of churches in meeting the heightened emotional, psychological and spiritual vulnerabilities of our communities during this unusual season.

Churches and charities have diligently served the physical needs of vulnerable people and have been creative in their responses to closures and lockdown.

But equally as important, churches meet the oft-hidden need for hope, psychological security and spiritual wellbeing in the broader community.  We know and share in the conviction that our faith is what gives hope and strength to carry on during difficult times and are thankful that church doors are starting to reopen.

For additional guidance on workplace safety, provincial and territorial re-opening plans and other key links, see Re-opening Plans Across Canada.

Ministry workers are invited to share how they are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic within their organization in our online community forum, The Green: COVID-19 Response Room.

The post Church Doors Are Opening! appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Last week, both Saskatchewan and Manitoba issued Orders in Council to allow virtual meetings for corporations, adding to the list of provinces trying to provide flexibility for corporate meetings.

Saskatchewan

In Saskatchewan, OC 222/2020 authorizes non-profit corporations to hold annual general meetings (AGMs) by phone, video-conference or other electronic means, so long as the articles or bylaws do not prohibit it and participants are able to adequately communicate with one another. It is effective as of the day of filing, which is May 14, 2020.

The existing Non-profit Corporations Act requires that member meetings “shall be held at the place within Saskatchewan provided in the bylaws” (see s.122). The Order amends the definition of “held at the place” by adding a definition to s.13 of the existing Non-profit Corporations Regulations, 1997 to remove the geographic restriction. 

Manitoba

In Manitoba, Order in Council 132/2020 allows for electronic attendance at a meeting if the means permit everyone to adequately communicate with each other during the meeting and it applies “even if such means are not permitted or are specifically excluded by the incorporated body’s by-laws” (see s 8(2) of the Order).

If a notice of meeting has already been given and it is later changed, information about the change must be provided within a reasonable time via email and (where applicable) posting it to the corporation’s website but a revised notice of meeting is not otherwise required.  Voting can take place electronically so long as the board of directors takes “reasonable measures to ensure” that voter identity is verified and each person who votes does so only in their own right or by a valid proxy.

There are similar provisions for Directors’ meetings.

Annual meetings that are required to be held on or after March 31, 2020 and before September 1, 2020 must be held no later than September 30, 2020.

The Order is effective March 31, 2020 – September 30, 2020 unless revoked sooner.

Among other legislative provisions, the Order suspends and replaces portions of The Cooperatives Act (ss 201(1), (2), 222(7), (8), s 224, ss 236(3), 379(1), (2)), the Cooperatives Regulation Man Reg 95/99 (s 11.3), and The Corporations Act (ss 109(9), 126(4), s 126.1, ss 127(a), s 135).

Other Provinces: Recap

As discussed in an earlier blog post, BC, Nova Scotia and Ontario have all granted similar permissions. For ease of reference, links to each provincial directive is included below.

BC

Ministerial Order No. M116 is effective April 21 until the declaration of a state of emergency expires or is cancelled. Additionally, section 71 of the Societies Act provides flexibility for the timing of AGMs. The options are helpfully summarized here.

Nova Scotia

A Ministerial Direction allows for virtual meeting options or meeting deferral whether or not it would otherwise be allowed under any other applicable law, including enactments, articles, bylaws or governing agreements.

Ontario

Ontario has issued another Order in Council to address other issues related to virtual meetings and annual meetings for businesses and charities incorporated under the Corporations Act.

Alberta

A Ministerial Order provides a variety of administrative relief for organizations incorporated under the Societies Act, including suspending the obligation to hold in-person meetings, suspending report and returns to the Registrar, extending time for charitable registrations and renewals, and others. For details, see this blog post.

Federal Corporations

Full details can be found in this blog post. Corporations Canada noted alternative AGM options for federally incorporated charities: a virtual AGM, written resolutions or delay calling the meeting.

Need Help? Reach Out!

CCCC is here to help you through these uncertain times. We encourage you to reach out if you require assistance and we will be happy to serve you.

CCCC members can access the Member Resources of CCCC website for articles, webinars, checklists, templates and can contact our team for additional guidance. If you are not a member of CCCC, we invite you to join today to access our full collection of resources and our team of experts who can answer your questions and provide additional guidance. 

Ministry workers are invited to share how they are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic within their organization in our online community forum, The Green: COVID-19 Response Room.

The post COVID-19: Virtual AGMs in Saskatchewan & Manitoba appeared first on CCCC Blogs.