Falling Off the Grid – CBSA Launches Anti-dumping Investigation Concerning Certain Small Power Transformers

On April 15, 2021, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) initiated an investigation  concerning the alleged injurious dumping of certain small power transformers from Austria, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (Chinese Taipei), and South Korea (SPT 2021 IN). This investigation was triggered by a formal complaint filed on behalf of a group of Canadian transformer manufacturers, including Transformateurs Delta Star Inc., Northern Transformer Corporation, PTI Transformers Inc., and PTI Transformers L.P.

The CBSA’s Notice of Initiation explains that the subject goods are normally classified under tariff classification numbers 8504.22.00.20 and 8504.23.00.10, although parts and components of small power transformers and incomplete units may also be imported under tariff classification numbers 8504.90.90.10, 8504.90.90.82, and 8504.90.90.90.

According to the CBSA’s investigation schedule, responses to importer request for information (RFI) questionnaire are due by May 10, 2021, whereas responses to the exporter responses to the exporter RFI questionnaire are due by May 25, 2021. The preliminary determination (or termination) of the investigation will be issued on July 14, 2021, with the Statement of Reasons expected to follow on or about July 29, 2021.

This is not the CBSA’s first investigation of imported power transformers. Since November 2012, anti-dumping measures have been applied to large power transformers (i.e., “liquid dielectric transformers having a top power handling capacity equal to or exceeding 60,000 kilovolt amperes (60 megavolt amperes)” from the Republic of Korea).

Tereposky & DeRose regularly provides advice on Canadian anti-dumping and countervailing matters. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or trade remedies issues more generally, we are at your disposal.

Umair Azam
613.237.1208
uazam@tradeisds.com

Daniel Hohnstein
613.237.9005
dhohnstein@tradeisds.com

Greg Tereposky
613.237.1210
gtereposky@tradeisds.com

Canada’s Economic Sanctions: All Bark no Bite? Charges Dropped Against Halifax Man Accused of Violating Syrian Sanctions

Under Canada’s regime of economic sanctions, Nader Kalai, a businessman from Halifax was expected to be the first person to face a trial after violating Canada’s sanctions in Syria. However, the trial ended abruptly in January 2021 as the Crown declined to offer any evidence and asked the Court for an acquittal.

On May 24, 2011, Canada announced that targeted sanctions, in response to the humanitarian crises and resulting breach of international peace and security in the region, would be imposed against members of the current Syrian regime under the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA). The Special Economic Measures (Syria) Regulations impose sanctions against members of the current Syrian regime. In addition to the restrictions on dealings with designated persons, the Regulations prohibit any person in Canada and any Canadian outside Canada to:

  • Import, purchase, acquire, carry or ship any goods, excluding food for human consumption, from Syria;
  • Provide or acquire financial services to, from or for the for the benefit of or on the direction or order of Syria or any person in Syria;
  • Invest in Syria;
  • Export, sell, supply or ship to Syria of goods, including technical data, used for monitoring telecommunications;
  • Export, sell, supply or ship luxury goods to Syria;
  • Export, sell, supply or ship goods listed in Schedule 2 of the Regulations, including any technical data related to such goods;
  • Causing, assisting or promoting prohibited activities is likewise prohibited.

As a backgrounder to the proceeding, Kalai was accused of violating SEMA and initially, his trial was set for May 2020. The hearing was then delayed to the following month as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The three-day trial starting on August 18, 2020, was to be judge-alone and much of it was to be done by video-conferencing. The trial was expected to be unique as only one person has been prosecuted under SEMA since its introduction in 1992 which at the time resulted in a guilty plea and a small fine for the accused, a company.

The accusations against Kalai of violating the measures imposed on Syria included making a payment of 15 million Syrian pounds (approximately C$140,000) to a company called Syrialink, a Syrian company, on November 27, 2013. The Crown alleged that the transaction took place when Kalai was in Canada.

An earlier ruling by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia shows that the presiding judge held that while the evidence before the Court was admissible, Crown had produced little or no evidence in support of the documents being admitted for the truth of their contents and the Crown did not meet the threshold for substantive reliability.

In June 2018, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) laid the charges against Kalai for violating the Canadian sanctions regime. After a two-year-long investigation into Kalai, the CBSA claimed that he had misled Citizenship and Immigration Canada in acquisition of his status as a Canadian permanent resident. Had he been convicted, Kalai would have faced up to five years in prison.

Kalai, who has been placed under the European Union sanctions regime, was described by a European court as being a “leading businessperson operating in Syria with significant investments in the construction industry.”

The efficacy of the Canadian sanctions regime appears to be in stark contrast with respect to its American counterpart. The United States Department of Justice laid charges against three individuals, including two residents of Ontario, Canada in an indictment with conspiracy to export U.S. goods to Iran resulting in extra-territorial arrests (See, International Sanctions lead to charges being laid in Canada and Iran by US Authorities).

The lawyers at Tereposky & DeRose have significant experience in the design and implementation of sanctions-related compliance programs, including policies, procedures, employee training, and internal control mechanisms. They also regularly assist both Canadian and international businesses, financial institutions, and individuals with internal investigations when “red flags” appear and provide advice on compliance in these areas. Where breaches have occurred, they have worked closely with their clients in making voluntary disclosures and in engaging with the ensuing investigations conducted by the RCMP and Global Affairs Canada.

If you would like to discuss any aspect of the Canadian sanctions regime, contact Vince DeRose, Jennifer Radford or Umair Azam at:

Vince DeRose
613.237.8862
vderose@tradeisds.com

Jennifer Radford
613.237.9777
jradford@tradeisds.com

Umair Azam
613.237.1208
uazam@tradeisds.com

The U.S. Blinks First – No Tariffs on Imports of Canadian Aluminum

Facing imminent Canadian countermeasures against the United States’ Section 232 tariffs  on Canadian articles of aluminum (see What goes around comes around… Canada Issues List of Proposed Countermeasures against U.S. Aluminum Duties), on September 15, 2020, the United States withdrew its duties, retroactive to September 1, 2020.

Harking back to the days of Voluntary Restraint Agreements (VRAs), the United States issued a list of “expected” monthly import volumes for Canadian imports over the September-December 2020 period:

September: 83,000 tonnes

October: 70,000 tonnes

November: 83,000 tonnes

December: 70,000 tonnes

If shipments in any month exceed the expected volume, the United States expects that shipments in the next month will decline by a corresponding amount.  If imports exceed 105 percent of the expected volume in any month, the United States may re-impose the 10 percent tariff going forward.

At the end of the year, Canada and the United States will review the state of aluminum trade and expected market conditions in 2021.

Tereposky & DeRose regularly provides advice on Canadian trade matters. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, we are at your disposal.

Greg Tereposky
613.237.1210
gtereposky@tradeisds.com

Daniel Hohnstein
613.237.9005
dhohnstein@tradeisds.com

The U.S. Blinks First – No Tariffs on Imports of Canadian Aluminum (15 September 2020)

Pool of Ten Appeal Arbitrators Established for the WTO Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA)

On 31 July 2020, the (now 23) signatories to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) (Australia; Benin; Brazil; Canada; China; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Ecuador; the European Union; Guatemala; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Mexico; Montenegro; New Zealand; Nicaragua; Norway; Pakistan; Singapore; Switzerland; Ukraine; and Uruguay) announced the pool of 10 standing arbitrators that will hear appeals under the mechanism:

1. Mr. Mateo Diego-Fernández Andrade (Mexico)
2. Mr. Thomas Cottier (Switzerland)
3. Ms. Locknie Hsu (Singapore)
4. Ms. Valerie Hughes (Canada)
5. Mr. Alejandro Jara (Chile)
6. Mr. José Alfredo Graça Lima (Brazil)
7. Ms. Claudia Orozco (Colombia)
8. Mr. Joost Pauwelyn (EU)
9. Ms. Penelope Ridings (New Zealand)
10. Mr. Guohua Yang (China)

Members will be selected to hear an appeal using the same principles and methods that apply to form a division of the Appellate Body under Article 17.1 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) and Rule 6(2) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, including the principle of rotation.

As per the MPIA, the pool of arbitrators comprises persons, unaffiliated with any government, who are of recognized authority, with demonstrated expertise in law, international trade and the subject matter of the covered agreements generally. In order to promote consistency and coherence in decision-making, to the extent practicable the members of the pool will discuss amongst themselves matters of interpretation, practice and procedure.

For more information on the history of the MPIA see: 19 WTO Members Formalize Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA); 16 WTO Members Establish Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA); Norway Joins Canada and the European Union In Establishing An Interim WTO Appeal Arbitration System; and Canada and the European Union Announce An Interim Bilateral Arbitration Solution for the WTO Appellate Body Deadlock.

Tereposky & DeRose LLP regularly provides advice and acts as counsel in international trade disputes, including WTO dispute settlement proceedings. If you have any questions about the foregoing subject, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Daniel Hohnstein
613.237.9005
dhohnstein@tradeisds.com

Greg Tereposky
613.237.1210
gtereposky@tradeisds.com

Pool of 10 Appeal Arbitrators Established for the WTO MPIA (03 August 2020)

Farewell to the NAFTA and Welcome to the USMCA/CUSMA/T-MEC

After more then twenty-five years, the highly successful North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) will enter into retirement on July 1st, 2020, as it is replaced and superseded by the new regional trade agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

The NAFTA has been an important source of stability and opportunity for businesses throughout North America, establishing a system of rights, obligations and rules that have liberalized cross-border trade and investment in a predictable manner, reflecting the negotiated outcomes of its members. Although the NAFTA has not been without its challenges, including the adverse effects of supply chain consolidations as an integrated North American market emerged, it has generally enhanced the competitiveness and profitability of the stakeholders that have leveraged its benefits. It remains one of the earliest and most successful examples of a modern regional trade agreement.

This is by no means the end of an era. The NAFTA has established the very foundation of the new agreement, which is variously referred to as the “USMCA” in the United States, the “CUSMA” in Canada, and the “T-MEC” in Mexico.

That said, there are many new provisions and changes that will enter into force with the new agreement, and some of these differences — as well as how they will interact with one another — will not become fully apparent to stakeholders until they are encountered in practice. For all market participants, there are bound to be some interesting times ahead.

Tereposky & DeRose regularly provides advice on the interpretation, application, and implementation of international trade agreements. Should you have any questions regarding the CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC or any other trade matter, we are at your disposal.

Daniel Hohnstein
613.237.9005
dhohnstein@tradeisds.com

Greg Tereposky
613.237.1210
gtereposky@tradeisds.com

Farewell to the NAFTA (30 June 2020)

Mexico Defeats Half a Billion ISDS Arbitration Claim Under NAFTA

Tereposky & DeRose had the privilege of assisting the Secretaría de Economía represent Mexico in a claim seeking US$472 million plus interest and costs brought by a US national pursuant to Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). By award dated June 5, 2020, the UNCITRAL rules Tribunal in Joshua Dean Nelson v. The United Mexican States dismissed all of the investor’s claims and ordered the Claimant to pay over US$2 million in costs to Mexico.

The Claimant alleged that his investment in a telecommunications company called Tele Fácil México S.A. de C.V. (Tele Fácil) had been unlawfully expropriated. Specifically, the Claimant alleged that Mexico had expropriated Tele Fácil’s rights to interconnect with Telmex (pursuant to a purported Interconnection Agreement between Tele Fácil and Telmex) and to earn revenues on that Interconnection Agreement. The Claimant also alleged that the fair and equitable treatment provisions of NAFTA were breached by a purported denial of justice in the Mexican courts. The Tribunal unanimously rejected all of the claims on the merits.

In dismissing those claims, the Tribunal made the following observations:

  • Tele Fácil failed to provide convincing evidence as to the existence of an Interconnection Agreement between Telmex and Tele Fácil. The “inevitable conclusion” is that Tele Fácil had no rights under the purported Interconnection Agreement with Telmex. In this context, “Claimant cannot claim that a right it does not have under Mexican law is capable of being expropriated”;
  • “Tele Fácil had, at best, a business opportunity, a bet based on its own interpretations and speculations, that was proven wrong”;
  • “The speculative nature of the business opportunity that Claimant unsuccessfully attempts to qualify as “rights” at the core of the business of Tele Fácil is further confirmed by the overwhelming evidence on the record”;
  • “Claimant cannot ask this Tribunal to find Respondent liable for Tele Fácil having failed on a bet supported on assumptions and speculations that were proven incorrect”;
  • “The main lines of business of Tele Fácil were completely unrelated with what Claimant now portraits as the core business of Tele Fácil (the differential in the rates) and Tele Fácil simply decided, with no reasonable business explanation, to abandon such main lines of business”;
  • “If Tele Fácil or the shares lost value, such loss is the result of a business decision of Tele Fácil and its shareholders and not of actions or omissions of Respondent”;
  • The “conspiracy theories” submitted by Claimant “are mere speculations and the evidence submitted in no way supports the serious accusations made by the Claimant”;
  • The evidence of the record does not support Claimant’s “conspiracy theory to favor Telmex” or “a plot to deprive Tele Fácil” from the rights that it allegedly had under the purported Interconnection Agreement;
  • “The unprecedent situation was created by Tele Fácil’s conduct and the risks it decided to assume to bet for a business opportunity”; and
  • “It is not for this Tribunal to second-guess the decisions made by domestic courts or to act as a court of appeals. Claimant’s allegations do not evidence a serious flaw or malice in the application of the law but simply a disagreement on the reasoning.”

With respect to costs, the Claimant’s arbitration costs, including legal fees and expenses, totalled just over US$6.4 million. By contrast, Mexico’s total arbitration costs were just over US$2.5 million. The Tribunal ordered that the Claimant pay Mexico over US$2 million in costs.

The Tereposky & DeRose defence team was composed of Partners Jennifer Radford and Vince DeRose, Senior Counsel Cameron Mowatt, Economist Alejandro Barragán, and Mexican Legal Counsel Ximena Iturriaga.

Jennifer Radford
613.237.9777
jradford@tradeisds.com

Vince DeRose
613.237.8862
vderose@tradeisds.com

Mexico Defeats Half a Billion ISDS Arbitration Claim Under Nafta (19 June 2020)

 

Canada’s Implementation of the Regulatory Infrastructure for the New North American Free Trade Agreement (USMCA/CUSMA/T-MEC)

On July 1st, 2020, the new North American free trade agreement will enter into force. The new agreement is referred to as the “USMCA” in the United States (i.e., the United States-Canada-Mexico Agreement), the “CUSMA” in Canada (i.e., Canada, United States and Mexico Agreement), and the “T-MEC” in Mexico (i.e., Tratado entre México, Estados Unidos y Canadá).

In accordance with the Protocol replacing the NAFTA with the USMCA (which functions as described), the new agreement will supersede the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) upon entering into force (except to the extent that provisions in the new agreement refer back to provisions in the NAFTA).

Implementation of the provisions of the new agreement into domestic laws, regulations and administrative policies has been an ongoing process. For example, the Government of Canada published over twenty new regulations and regulatory amendments in the Canada Gazette, Part II (Volume 154, number 9) on 29 April 2020. These instruments serve to incorporate the CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC into Canada’s regulatory regimes while removing references to the NAFTA, effective July 1st.

More recently, the Uniform Regulations covering trade in goods under the new agreement were issued. The provisions of the Uniform Regulations elaborate upon the rights and obligations set forth in Chapters Four through Seven of the trade agreement, specifying the requirements and conditions that must be met for cross-border shipments of goods to receive preferential market access. For the most part, the Uniform Regulations are devoted to the interpretation, application and administration of the rules of origin, and the text helpfully includes extensive examples and explanations (provided in italics) to illustrate how the rules actually work in different factual scenarios.

For companies who currently participate in North American value chains under the NAFTA rules, examination of the Uniform Regulations is essential to understand what has changed and what has remained the same. There may be new opportunities to re-optimize value in production processes (e.g., under the new cumulation rules). Conversely, there may be new restrictions or thresholds on regional value content that need to be taken into account in order to ensure that shipments continue to qualify for preferential treatment. These assessments must be undertaken on a product-by-product basis because the rules apply differently to different goods and under different circumstances.

Tereposky & DeRose regularly provides advice on the interpretation, application, and implementation of international trade agreements. Should you have any questions regarding the CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC or any other trade matter, we are at your disposal.

Daniel Hohnstein
613.237.9005
dhohnstein@tradeisds.com

Greg Tereposky
613.237.1210
gtereposky@tradeisds.com

Canada’s Implementation of the Regulatory Infrastructure for the New North American Free Trade Agreement (USMCA-CUSMA-T-MEC) (18 June 2020)

19 WTO Members Formalize Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA)

On 30 April 2020, 19 WTO Members issued a statement formalizing the MPIA, an interim contingency measure based on Article 25 of the DSU in order to preserve the essential principles and features of the WTO dispute settlement system which include its binding character and two levels of adjudication through an independent and impartial appellate review of panel reports. The MPIA was first announced on 27 March 2020 (see 16 WTO Members Establish MPIA).

Tereposky & DeRose LLP regularly provides advice and acts as counsel in international trade disputes, including WTO dispute settlement proceedings. If you have any questions about the foregoing subject, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Daniel Hohnstein
613.237.9005
dhohnstein@tradeisds.com

Greg Tereposky
613.237.1210
gtereposky@tradeisds.com

19 WTO Members Formalize Multi-party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) (30 April 2020)

MARCH-IN-REVIEW

MARCH-IN-REVIEW

Information Regarding COVID-19


International Trade


16 WTO Members Establish Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) – Standing Pool of 10 Appeal Arbitrators to be Established by June 28th

On 27 March 2020, the following sixteen WTO Members issued a joint statement declaring the creation of a Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) for allowing appeals of panel reports in trade disputes:

1. Australia
2. Brazil
3. Canada
4. China
5. Chile
6. Colombia
7. Costa Rica
8. European Union
9. Guatemala
10. Hong Kong
11. Mexico
12. New Zealand
13. Norway
14. Singapore
15. Switzerland
16. Uruguay

The MPIA addresses the current suspension of the WTO Appellate Body due to the blockage of new members from being appointed (see “And then there was One… the Appellate Body Situation”). Other WTO Members can join the MPIA by notification to the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). The MPIA is intended to remain in effect only until the Appellate Body is again fully functional.

Like the EU-Canada and EU- Norway agreements (see “Norway joins Canada and the European Union in Establishing an Interim WTO Appeal Arbitration System”), the MPIA establishes an appeal arbitration procedure under Article 25 of the WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU). In disputes between the participating WTO Members, it replaces the original appeal procedures under Articles 16.4 and 17 of the DSU. It applies to any future dispute between any two or more participating Members, including the compliance stage of such disputes, as well as to any such dispute pending on 27 March 2020 (except if the interim panel report, in the relevant stage of that dispute, has already been issued on that date).

The principal differences between the two previous agreements and the MPIA are as follows:

Creation of a standing pool of appeal arbitrators: Instead of being heard by “three former members of the Appellate Body, serving as arbitrators”, appeals will be heard by three appeal arbitrators selected from a pool of 10 standing appeal arbitrators composed by the participating Members. The pool of arbitrators will comprise persons of recognized authority, with demonstrated expertise in law, international trade and the subject matter of the covered agreements generally. They will be unaffiliated with any government. The composition of the pool of arbitrators will ensure an appropriate overall balance. There is a formal procedure for the nomination of candidates by the participating WTO Members by 29 April 2020 and a pre-selection process for those candidates which is to be completed by 29 May 2020. The pool of arbitrators will be composed by consensus of the participating Members by 28 June 2020.

Separate support structure from WTO Secretariat: The appeal arbitrators will be provided with “appropriate administrative and legal support, which will offer the necessary guarantees of quality and independence, given the nature of the responsibilities involved”. The support structure will be entirely separate from the WTO Secretariat staff and its divisions supporting the panels. Thus, it will be answerable, regarding the substance of its work, only to the appeal arbitrators.

Ability to streamline appeal procedures: The original 90-day period for appeals is affirmed and arbitrators are empowered to take appropriate organizational measures to streamline the proceedings such as page limits, time limits, deadlines and decisions limiting the length and number of hearings required — provided there is no prejudice to the procedural rights and obligations of the parties and due process. If necessary, arbitrators may make non-binding proposals to exclude claims based on the alleged lack of an objective assessment of the facts pursuant to Article 11 of the DSU. That said, if all else fails, the parties may agree to extend the 90-day time period upon a proposal from the arbitrators.

Tereposky & DeRose LLP regularly provides advice and acts as counsel in international trade disputes, including WTO dispute settlement proceedings. If you have any questions about the foregoing subject, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Daniel Hohnstein
613.237.9005
dhohnstein@tradeisds.com

Greg Tereposky
613.237.1210
gtereposky@tradeisds.com

16 WTO Members Establish Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) – Standing Pool of 10 Appeal Arbitrators By June 28th (30 March 2020)

COVID-19 UPDATE: Mandatory Closure of All Non-Essential Workplaces in Certain Provinces

Yesterday afternoon, in an effort to further contain the spread of COVID-19, the Ontario and Quebec governments have ordered the mandatory closure of all no-essential workplaces effective as of tonight, March 24, at 11:59 p.m. In Ontario, this closure will be in effect for 14 days, with a possible extension as the situation evolves. In Quebec, the closure will be in effect until April 13.

Both provinces have confirmed that businesses that can continue operations with employees working remotely or through other contingency measures should do so.

Ontario

The Government of Ontario released it list of essential workplaces that will be allowed to stay open last night. The list includes 19 categories, which are all further defined on the Government of Ontario’s website:

1. Supply chains, i.e. businesses that supply other essential businesses or essential services with the support, supplies, systems or services necessary to operate;
2. Retail and wholesaling;
3. Food service and accommodation;
4. Institutional, residential, commercial and industrial maintenance;
5. Telecommunications and IT infrastructure/service providers;
6. Transportation;
7. Manufacturing and production;
8. Agriculture and food production;
9. Construction;
10. Financial activities;
11. Resources;
12. Environmental services;
13. Utilities and community services;
14. Communications industries;
15. Research;
16. Health care and seniors care and social services;
17. Justice sector;
18. Other businesses, including rental and leasing services, businesses providing mailing, shipping, courier and delivery services, and child care services for essential workers, and home child care services of less than six children; and
19. Business regulators and inspectors.

Ontario does not currently have a process to request an “essential workplace” designation, contrary to Quebec. Businesses should self-assess whether they call within any of the categories above. A 1-800 number and a dedicated website will be made available tomorrow, March 25, for any inquiries.

Quebec

[last updated at 10:40 a.m. on 24 March 2020]

The Government of Quebec published its list of essential services and activities yesterday. The list was updated this morning.

Businesses which fall under any of the 11 categories provided are considered “essential” and are allowed to remain open:

1. Priority health care services;
2. Public security services;
3. Priority government services;
4. Maintenance and operation of strategic infrastructure;
5. Priority manufacturing activities;
6. Priority stores;
7. Media and telecommunications;
8. Banking and financial services;
9. Construction sector;
10. Building maintenance services; and
11. Priority transportation and logistics services.

If a business’ activity is not listed but the business believes that it is essential or that it is an entity that provides essential functions or services, any entity can request to be designated as essential by filling out this form. This request process appears to be only for entities that do not clearly fall within the categories above.

British Columbia

[last updated on 28 March 2020]

On March 26, the Government of British Columbia issued its list of what the province considers to be “essential services”. Essential services in British Columbia “should and are encouraged to remain open” but must follow the orders and guidance provided by the Provincial Health Officer (PHO) to ensure safe operations and reduce the risk of transmission.

The list of essential services is composed of the following:

  • Health and Health Services
  • Law Enforcement, Public Safety, First Responders & Emergency Response Personnel
  • Vulnerable Population Service Providers
  • Critical Infrastructure Service Providers
  • Food and Agriculture Service Providers
  • Retail
  • Transportation, Infrastructure & Manufacturing
  • Sanitation
  • Communication, Information Sharing and Information Technology (IT)
  • Non-Health Essential Service Providers

The detailed list is available online.

Contrary to Quebec and Ontario, non-essential services in British Columbia are permitted to remain open if they can adapt their services and workplace to the orders and recommendations of the PHO. That being said, some types of businesses such as bars have been ordered to close.

Over the past few weeks, our team at Tereposky & DeRose has expeditiously advised businesses on regulatory compliance in the current COVID-19 environment. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, we are at your disposal. Given the urgency of some measures for Canadian businesses, we will respond immediately to all queries regarding COVID-19 related concerns.

***This bulletin will be updated as new information becomes available***

Vince DeRose
613.237.8862
vderose@tradeisds.com

Jennifer Radford
613.237.9777
jradford@tradeisds.com

Stephanie Desjardins
613.237.8680
sdesjardins@tradeisds.com

Covid-19 Update Mandatory Closure of All Non-Essential Workplaces in Certain Provinces (24 March 2020)