{"id":142420,"date":"2026-06-10T09:06:59","date_gmt":"2026-06-10T09:06:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=142420"},"modified":"2026-06-10T09:34:08","modified_gmt":"2026-06-10T09:34:08","slug":"canada-bribery-corruption","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/canada-bribery-corruption\/","title":{"rendered":"Canada: Bribery &amp; Corruption"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-142420","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-bribery-corruption","jurisdictions-canada"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Baker McKenzie<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2019\/12\/Baker_McKenzie_Logo.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Baker McKenzie<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2019\/12\/Baker_McKenzie_Logo.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Bribery &amp; Corruption laws and regulations applicable in Canada<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the legal framework (legislation\/regulations) governing bribery and corruption in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Foreign bribery is governed by the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA), which applies to all Canadian citizens, permanent residents of Canada, persons anywhere whose acts or omissions have been committed in Canada, and organisations incorporated or formed in Canada. Under the CFPOA, it is an offence to:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>give or offer a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind to a foreign (non-Canadian) public official or to any person for the benefit of a foreign public official as consideration for an act or omission by the official in connection with the performance of the official\u2019s duties\/functions; or<\/li>\n<li>induce the official to use his or her position to influence any acts or decisions of the foreign state or public international organisation for which the official performs duties or functions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Criminal Code governs domestic bribery and corruption. Under the Criminal Code it is an offence to:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>give or offer any loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind to public officials (or their family members) for co-operation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with any government business;<\/li>\n<li>bribe any municipal official, officer, or judicial officer; or<\/li>\n<li>provide a \u201csecret commission\u201d to the agent of a principal, including giving or offering a reward, advantage or benefit as consideration for doing or not doing anything related to the affairs or business of an agent\u2019s principal, or demanding, accepting, or offering to accept such a reward, advantage or benefit, or otherwise knowingly being privy to a secret commission.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Offences involving public officials and secret commissions are subject to fines and\/or imprisonment for up to five years, while offences involving officers and judicial officers may be liable to fines and\/or imprisonment for up to 14 years.<\/p>\n<p>Corporate liability can arise where an offence is committed with the knowledge or direction of a \u201csenior officer\u201d, which has been held to include individuals responsible for managing an important aspect of the activities of a business and is not limited to senior management.<\/p>\n<p>Quebec is the only province that broadly addresses bribery at a provincial level through its Anti-Corruption Act. The Anti-Corruption Act establishes various offences for corruption, breach of trust, malfeasance, collusion, fraud, and influence peddling in the public sector and in the administration of justice, the misuse of public funds, and the gross mismanagement of public contracts. It also contains penalties related to hindering investigations and reprisals against whistle-blowers.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Which authorities have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute bribery and corruption in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Canada&#8217;s federal police service, is responsible for investigating most white collar criminal offences, and all bribery related offenses under the Criminal Code and CFPOA. The RCMP has specific programs in place to address anti-corruption and financial crimes. As outlined in response to Question 17, the Canadian government has proposed to establish a Financial Crimes Agency (FCA), with authority over the broadly defined &#8220;financial crimes&#8221;, which includes: &#8220;any conduct that adversely affects, or has the potential to adversely affect, the security or integrity of Canada\u2019s economy or financial system or of any financial market in Canada&#8221;. This agency&#8217;s role in respect of bribery and corruption enforcement, remains to be seen.<\/p>\n<p>The federal Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) is an independent prosecuting authority that prosecutes federal corruption offences. The PPSC publishes guidelines for the application of the provisions of the Criminal Code that deal with remediation agreements, Canada&#8217;s version of deferred prosecution agreements.<\/p>\n<p>Provincially, Crown counsel are responsible for prosecuting Criminal Code offences and other regulatory offences. In Ontario, crown counsel are part of the provincial Ministry of the Attorney General and may also act as civil counsel to other ministries. In Quebec, the Directeur des poursuites criminelles et p\u00e9nales (DPCP) authorizes and directs criminal and penal prosecution on behalf of the province.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How is \u2018bribery\u2019 or \u2018corruption\u2019 (or any equivalent) defined?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Bribery is not specifically defined in either the Criminal Code or the CFPOA. Instead, as discussed in response to question 1 above, these statutes broadly prohibit conferring benefits to public officials under certain circumstances.<\/p>\n<p>In a recent civil law dispute between private parties, a Canadian appellate court adopted the English law definition of a &#8220;bribe&#8221; as a &#8220;commission or other inducement, which is given by a third party to an agent as such, and which is secret from his principal&#8221; and that the meaning of a bribe &#8220;extends well beyond its popular connotation of a corrupt payment, to include any payment or gift made as an inducement to an \u2018agent\u2019 and not disclosed to the \u2018principal\u2019\u201d. However, to be clear, this definition of a bribe pertains to civil law disputes between private parties and not to criminal disputes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does the law distinguish between bribery of a public official and bribery of private persons? If so, how is 'public official' defined? Is a distinction made between a public official and a foreign public official? Are there different definitions for bribery of a public official and bribery of a private person?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Canadian law distinguishes between both the bribery of a public official and the bribery of private persons, and the bribery of a public official and the bribery of a foreign public official.<\/p>\n<p>The Criminal Code addresses frauds related to domestic government and municipal corruption. Section 121 prohibits conferring benefits to officials, and section 123 prohibits conferring benefits to municipal officials. The Criminal Code defines an &#8220;official&#8221; as a person who:<\/p>\n<p>(a) holds an office, or<\/p>\n<p>(b) is appointed or elected to discharge a public duty.<\/p>\n<p>An office is defined as:<\/p>\n<p>(a) an office or appointment under the government,<\/p>\n<p>(b) a civil or military commission, or<\/p>\n<p>(c) a position or an employment in a public department.<\/p>\n<p>Section 426 of the Criminal Code is the main prohibition against domestic private bribery and secret commissions. The offence prohibits providing a benefit to an agent in consideration for the performance (or non-performance) of an act related to the affairs or business of the principal. Section 426 prohibits both the giving and receiving of secret commissions.<\/p>\n<p>The CFPOA addresses foreign bribery and, in particular, benefits conferred to foreign public officials. The CFPOA defines a &#8220;foreign public official&#8221; as:<\/p>\n<p>a) a person who holds a legislative, administrative or judicial position of a foreign state;<\/p>\n<p>b) a person who performs public duties or functions for a foreign state, including a person employed by a board, commission, corporation or other body or authority that is established to perform a duty or function on behalf of the foreign state, or is performing such a duty or function; and<\/p>\n<p>c) an official or agent of a public international organization that is formed by two or more states or governments, or by two or more such public international organizations.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Who may be held liable for bribery?  Only individuals, or also corporate entities?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under both the CFPOA and Criminal Code, individuals, public officials, and corporate entities can be prosecuted for bribery offenses. Corporate entities may be held liable where the act was committed with the knowledge of a senior corporate officer. Recent case law suggests that &#8220;senior officers&#8221; can, in some instances, include those in middle management positions.<\/p>\n<p>Of note, under both the CFPOA and Criminal Code liability can extend to the acts of those who &#8220;directly or indirectly&#8221; commit a bribery offense. As a consequence, a parent company can, in certain circumstances, be held liable for acts carried out by a subsidiary, and where a company uses a third-party agent who commits an offense, depending on the circumstances, liability can arise for both the company and agent. Under the Criminal Code, a parent company can also be liable for aiding or abetting or counselling an offense carried out by a subsidiary.<\/p>\n<p>There are also bribery related provisions in the Conflicts of Interest Act, and the Canada Elections Act, which apply to public office holders and individuals running for election to the House of Commons respectively.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the civil consequences of bribery and corruption offences in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In the civil law context, an individual or corporate entity that engages in bribery or corrupt activities may face tort or contract liability if another party suffers damages as a result of the bribery or corrupt activities.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the criminal consequences of bribery and corruption offences in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Domestic offences with respect to public officials and secret commissions are subject to fines and\/or imprisonment for up to five years, while offences with respect to officers and judicial officers may be liable to fines and\/or imprisonment for up to 14 years. Corporate liability can arise where an offence is committed with the knowledge or direction of a \u201csenior officer\u201d, which has been held to include individuals responsible for managing an important aspect of the activities of a business and is not limited to senior management.<\/p>\n<p>Foreign bribery is governed by the CFPOA which includes penalties, including prison terms up to 14 years and unlimited fines for corporate offenders. Corporations convicted of a CFPOA offence or certain offences under the Criminal Code may be debarred from bidding on projects financed by the World Bank Group or be debarred by other multi-lateral banks under the Agreement for Mutual Enforcement of Debarment Decisions. The Canadian government also administers an Integrity Regime which applies to all federal procurement and real property transactions. Canada\u2019s Integrity Regime authorizes time-limited discretionary debarment of individuals and corporations from contracting or sub-contracting with federal government departments and agencies if they have been convicted of &#8220;integrity offences&#8221;, such as bribery and corruption offences.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does the law place any restrictions on hospitality, travel and\/or entertainment expenses? Are there specific regulations restricting such expenses for foreign public officials?  Are there specific monetary limits for such expenses?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Hospitality, travel, and entertainment expenses may create liability under the Criminal Code or CFPOA. There are no commonly accepted monetary standard or frequency limit for the gifts and hospitalities extended to government officials. The Conflicts of Interest Act, requires Canadian public office holders to report receiving gifts or meals from a single source in a 12-month period if the total value exceeds CAD 200. While the reporting threshold may inform what constitutes an appropriate gift, even business amenities that do not exceed this reporting threshold may be prohibited. The Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector and the complementary Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment permit gifts, hospitality and other benefits that are infrequent, of minimal value, within the normal standards of courtesy and protocol, and do not compromise integrity.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are political contributions regulated? If so, please provide details.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Contributions to political parties and candidates are regulated under federal and provincial law, with low annual contribution limits as well as specific prohibitions on contributions by corporations, trade unions, associations, and groups.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are facilitation payments prohibited or regulated? If not, what is the general approach to such payments?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>With very narrow exceptions, facilitation payments are prohibited under Canada\u2019s Criminal Code and under the CFPOA.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any defences available to the bribery and corruption offences in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There are exceptions to the offence of bribing a foreign public official set out in the CFPOA where: (a) the benefit given is either permitted or required under the laws of the applicable foreign state or foreign public international organization; or (b) payment was made to reimburse reasonable expenses incurred in the promotion or demonstration of the person\u2019s products and services or the execution or performance of a contract between a person and the foreign state.<\/p>\n<p>There are no exceptions listed for Criminal Code bribery or corruption offences.<\/p>\n<p>Bribery offences under the CFPOA and Criminal Code require a mental element of knowledge and intent. As such, a number of defenses recognized at common law are available for these offences (for example, duress and mistake of fact).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are compliance programs a mitigating factor to reduce\/eliminate liability for bribery and corruption offences in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As a practical matter, companies should have a well-developed compliance program in place to mitigate potential liability and penalties. This is obviously important when it comes to policies covering dealings with government officials, but equally important will be compliance with procedures governing dealings with agents and contractors, and the ongoing training of employees on compliance with the company&#8217;s program.<\/p>\n<p>One specific area where an effective compliance program may limit corporate exposure is with respect to offences under section 22.2(1)(c) of the Criminal Code. This section deals with the responsibility of an organization for the acts of senior officers where the senior officer intends to benefit the organization (including by directing others) or where a senior officer, who knows that a representative of the corporation is or is about to be a party to an offence, fails to take \u201call reasonable measures to stop them from being a party to the offence\u201d. While the law remains unsettled, if a compliance program spells out mandatory steps that are considered \u201creasonable measures\u201d, it may qualify as a defense where the area of conduct was under the supervision of senior officers. Such a program, however, will not be a defense at the senior officer level, but may serve in mitigation of the sentence.<\/p>\n<p>Canadian law has recognized a number of high-level elements that make up an effective compliance program. These elements include:<\/p>\n<p><strong>\u2022 Top Level Commitment:<\/strong> This requires that senior officers specifically address bribery risks.<\/p>\n<p><strong>\u2022 Communication, including training:<\/strong> Communication should come from the top, and should include the creation of a confidential means to report bribery conduct.<\/p>\n<p><strong>\u2022 Risk Assessment:<\/strong> External risks (such as country risk and sector risk) should be evaluated along with internal risks (such as poor training, cultures that promote excessive risk-taking and poor financial controls).<\/p>\n<p><strong>\u2022 Due Diligence:<\/strong> Commercial organizations should put in place due diligence procedures that adequately inform the application of proportionate measures designed to prevent persons associated with them from bribing on their behalf.<\/p>\n<p><strong>\u2022 Proportionate Procedures:<\/strong> A specific, tailor-made approach will be preferable to a general approach.<\/p>\n<p><strong>\u2022 Monitoring and Review:<\/strong> Methods may include staff surveys, testing and verification of procedures by outside parties and certified compliance by multilateral bodies.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Has the government published any guidance advising how to comply with anti-bribery and corruption laws in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The Government of Canada has not published specific guidance, setting out the elements of an effective corporate compliance program. However, as Canada is a party to the OECD Conventions, Global Affairs Canada raises awareness of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, which were updated in June 2023. These guidelines give recommendations to multilateral enterprises operating in or from OECD countries. The guidelines provide non-binding principles and standards for responsible business conduct in a global context consistent with applicable laws and internationally recognised standards. Canada has a National Contact Point to support these guidelines.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, the Government of Canada conducts outreach to enhance awareness and to encourage companies to adopt measures to meet their legal obligations under the CFPOA and certain offences under the Criminal Code, to have a zero-tolerance approach to the bribery of foreign public officials.<\/p>\n<p>Government bodies which provide training and outreach and\/or raise awareness of anti-corruption issues include: the RCMP, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), Global Affairs Canada, Export and Development Canada, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), the Department of Justice, Public Services and Procurement Canada, the Competition Bureau of Canada, and the Treasury Board Secretariat.<\/p>\n<p>The RCMP has also developed an anti-corruption awareness risk assessment tool for stakeholders, which may be provided by the RCMP on request.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are mechanisms such as Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) or Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs) available for bribery and corruption offences in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The Criminal Code establishes a remediation agreement regime, which is Canada&#8217;s version of DPAs. Remediation agreements are used in certain cases as an alternative to prosecution and serve as a means to hold organizations accountable while putting in place measures to mitigate the risk of future offences and harm to third parties, such as employees, victims and investors.<br \/>\nUnder the regime, the Attorney General has the discretion to invite an organization accused of an enumerated offence to negotiate a remediation agreement with crown counsel. Enumerated offences include public and private bribery offences under sections 121, 123 and 426 of the Criminal Code and foreign bribery offences under sections 3 and 4 of the CFPOA. Under the remediation agreement, the accused organization would agree to take specified actions in return for the charges against the accused organization being stayed. If an invitation to negotiate a remediation agreement is not received, an accused organization may attempt to negotiate a plea bargain with crown counsel in exchange for a guilty plea. The PPSC publishes guidelines for the application of the provisions of the Criminal Code that deal with remediation agreements.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does the law in your jurisdiction provide protection to whistle-blowers? Do the authorities in your jurisdiction offer any incentives or rewards to whistle-blowers?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>While there is no comprehensive whistle-blower legislation in Canada, the law provides some protections to whistle-blowers. The Criminal Code prohibits employers or their agents from:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Threatening an employee to prevent that employee from providing information to law enforcement; or<\/li>\n<li>Retaliating against an employee who has provided information to law enforcement.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Provincial securities legislation also provides protections, but these protections vary from province to province. Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Ontario have enacted protections, while other provinces have yet to legislate formal protections.<\/p>\n<p>Under Canada\u2019s Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, federal public sector employers must create a code of conduct to protect whistle-blowers. Similar provincial legislation exists in some provinces.<\/p>\n<p>Under the federal Competition Act, any person may notify the Competition Bureau of an offence and request that their identity be kept confidential. Employers are prohibited from retaliating against whistle-blower employees who act in good faith and on the basis of a reasonable belief, through dismissing, suspending, demoting, disciplining, harassing or otherwise disadvantaging an employee, or denying an employee a benefit of employment.<\/p>\n<p>There is no comprehensive framework to provide whistle-blowers with incentives or rewards. However, the Ontario Securities Commission has implemented incentive programs for whistle-blowers and the CRA offers financial incentives for whistle-blowers who provide information about international non-compliance of Canadian taxpayers.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does the law in your jurisdiction enable individual wrongdoers to reach agreement with prosecutors to provide evidence\/information to assist an investigation or prosecution, in return for e.g. immunity or a reduced sentence?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) provides for immunity or reduced sentencing for cooperation by an accused as an exceptional measure. The Criminal Code does not provide for immunity, but Canadian courts have recognized a legal basis to grant immunity. The PPSC Deskbook, which sets out the guiding principles for federal prosecutors, provides that immunity may be granted when a suspect, accomplice, accused or witness agrees to provide truthful testimony, valuable information, cooperation or assistance. Full immunity, including immunity from future prosecution for crimes that the information provider is know to have committed, but for which no charges are laid, is rare. More commonly, the PPSC may offer limited immunity or prosecutorial consideration, such as: accepting a guilty plea to a lesser offence, staying certain charges, or jointly recommending a reduced sentence. While immunity is typically offered upon completion of an investigation, prosecutors will enter into \u201cuse immunity\u201d investigative assistance agreements, which focus on the use that can be made of information provided, not acts which will not be prosecuted.<\/p>\n<p>In order to determine whether immunity is appropriate in the circumstances, a prosecutor will weigh several factors: seriousness of the offence, reliability of the informant\/accused, reliability of anticipated evidence, full and candid disclosure, importance of testimony, nature and extent of person\u2019s involvement in the offence, other forms of reward, history of cooperation, protection of the public, and disclosure prior to detection. An individual prosecutor is required to consult with the Chief Federal Prosecutor and Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions and other parties, as required, prior to entering into an immunity agreement. Immunity Agreements are typically provided as part of pre-trial disclosure and entered as exhibits during trial.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How common are government authority investigations into allegations of bribery? How effective are they in leading to prosecutions of individuals and corporates?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Canada is increasingly focusing on combating bribery and will investigate complaints or information from whistle-blowers concerning bribery.<\/p>\n<p>Police, regulators, and prosecutors may initiate an investigation. The RCMP and other police services may initiate investigations independently or working alongside Crown counsel. Crown counsel play a larger role in the early stages of an investigation where judicial authorisations are required for the purposes of evidence gathering. Federally, the PPSC has drafted guidelines governing investigations and the relationship between crown counsel and investigative agencies. The role of the proposed FCA in Canada&#8217;s fight against corruption remains to be seen.<\/p>\n<p>From 2018 \u2013 2022, the RCMP closed 33 investigations into allegations of foreign bribery, resulting in charges for only five individuals and one corporation under the CFPOA. Many investigations were closed due to insufficient evidence, investigations not meeting the RCMP&#8217;s mandates, and information requested from other countries not being received. As of October 2025, since the CFPOA came into force in 1999, there have been charges laid in 9 cases with 4 individuals convicted, 4 entities sanctioned and 1 remediation agreement approved by Canadian courts. Currently, there are 17 reported active investigations under the CFPOA, but no charges have been laid since November 2020.<\/p>\n<p>In the October 2023 Phase 4 Report of Canada&#8217;s implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention by the OECD Working Group (OECD Phase 4 Report), the OECD Working Group found that, despite the positive steps taken by Canada, the enforcement of foreign bribery offences remains exceedingly low 25 years after the adoption of the CFPOA in relation to the size of Canada&#8217;s economy and the industrial sectors in which its companies operate. The OECD Working Group made 40 recommendations, including that Canada conduct an analysis of its foreign bribery enforcement actions to date to identify challenges that may impede effective investigation and prosecution of foreign bribery and related offences and to develop an action plan to address such concerns. The March 2026 OECD Working Group Follow-Up Report (Follow-Up Report) notes that Canada has not yet implemented 8 of the 17 recommendations and has only partially implemented another 5 aimed at addressing the &#8220;exceedingly low&#8221; enforcement. The report further remarks that Canada&#8217;s whistleblowing framework remains fragmented, which further impedes law enforcement from access to information to begin investigations.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the recent and emerging trends in investigations and enforcement in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As outlined in the OECD Phase 4 Report, Canada has taken steps in bolstering its anti-corruption enforcement tools and in using its existing enforcement mechanisms. Specific recent and emerging trends relate to use and accessibility of remediation agreements, government investments to establish agencies in the fight against white collar crime, and jurisprudence developing the contours of CFPOA offences.<\/p>\n<p>Canada&#8217;s remediation agreement regime has been criticized by civil society stakeholders for its lack of transparency and the limited frequency of its use. To date, the regime has been used twice, once under each of the CFPOA and the Criminal Code. In response to this criticism, the Canadian government is likely to further evaluate the existing regime to look for opportunities to provide clarity to corporations that may qualify for participation and, thereby, increase its use. The regime grants the Attorney General the discretion to invite an organization accused of an enumerated offence to negotiate a remediation agreement with crown counsel.<\/p>\n<p>In late 2022, the first remediation agreement was entered into with respect to charges, under the CFPOA, against Ultra Electronics Forensic Technology Inc (UEFTI). The remediation agreement was approved by the Superior Court of Quebec in early 2023 and will serve as a foundational precedent for corporations seeking non-trial resolutions for corruption charges. In May 2023, the Superior Court of Quebec published the details of the remediation agreement between the PPSC and UEFTI. The four-year agreement included a monetary penalty, a victim surcharge and a forfeiture totalling over $10.5 million. In addition, UEFTI must cooperate with any investigation or prosecution related to the offences, must report to the PPSC on the implementation agreement and is to abide by the terms of an anti-bribery and corruption program under the supervision of an external auditor, retained at its expense. This remediation agreement is precedent setting on a few subjects: the public nature of the proceeding unless the requirements of s. 486 of the Criminal Code are satisfied; that remediation agreements may be approved where victim compensation is not practical; that the court will provide deference to the remediation agreement as a joint submission by the Crown and the accused; and when determining whether a remediation agreement should be approved the court will consider the broader public interest.<\/p>\n<p>The Canadian government tabled legislation to stand up the FCA in April 2026, which continues to make its way through the Parliamentary process. The Agency&#8217;s mandate is to investigate serious and complex financial crimes, contribute to the recovery of proceeds of crime and participate in international efforts to counter financial crimes. &#8220;Financial crime&#8221; is defined broadly and the Commissioner of the Agency has the proposed authority to establish &#8220;criteria&#8221; to determine which matters will be investigated by the Agency. It is possible that offenses under the CFPOA may be investigated by the Agency in the future.<\/p>\n<p>Canada continues to have mixed success in its prosecution of offenses under the CFPOA. In 2021, the Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered a new trial in a case clarifying the mental element of bribery offenses under the CFPOA (R v Barra, 2021 ONCA 568), which did not proceed. In R v Arapakota, the trial judge found the accused not guilty on the basis that the Crown had failed to meet its burden to show that the impugned act\/omission resulted in a benefit to both a foreign public official and the accused that amounted to a material economic advantage. In other words, that there was a quid pro quo. On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) (2025 ONCA 660) confirmed the lower court decision and held that &#8220;the prosecution must show that the advantage offered or given was intended to bring about specific result in the form of an act or omission by the official&#8221;. The Crown was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), and the appeal was heard on April 16, 2026, with judgement to follow. In its determination, the SCC will determine the correct statutory interpretation of the CFPOA&#8217;s bribery offence under section 3(1)(a), specifically, whether the drafting &#8220;in consideration for&#8221; creates a burden on the Crown to show a quid pro quo in order to convict an accused.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is there a process of judicial review for challenging government authority action and decisions? If so, please describe the key features of this process and remedy.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Decisions and actions of government bodies and agencies are subject to judicial review at both the provincial and federal level, depending on the source of statutory authority of the administrative decision maker. A party can challenge both the substantive decision itself and\/or the fairness (or lack thereof) of the process that led to the decision. Only final decisions are subject to judicial review and, depending on the jurisdiction, there may be strict time limits for commencing an application. Generally, a party must exhaust all alternative remedies within the statutory or administrative framework being challenged before applying for judicial review.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Have there been any significant developments or reforms in this area in your jurisdiction over the past 12 months?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As discussed above and below, in the previous 12 months, a September 2025 appellate court decision narrowly interpreted the elements of the CFPOA bribery offence resulting in a subsequent appeal to the SCC. In addition, the OECD Phase 4 Follow-UP Report was issued in March 2026. On top of these developments in the criminal law and enforcement context, there has been a more recent appellate level court decision relating to the tort of civil bribery.<\/p>\n<p>In March 2023, Damodar Arapakota was acquitted of charges under the CFPOA (R v Arapakota, 2023 ONSC 1567). The Crown appealed to the ONCA, which confirmed the lower court decision in September 2025. The ONCA held that the trial judge erred in only one respect, which did not otherwise compromise the acquittal. The trial judge erred in finding the Crown was required to prove that the accused &#8220;contemplated a specific act or omission by a public official at the time the bribe was offered or given&#8221;. However, the trial judge correctly found that in order to convict under section 3(1)(a) of the CFPOA, an accused must receive a &#8220;quid pro quo in the form of an act or omission by a foreign public official in connection with the performance of the official&#8217;s duties or functions&#8221;. In making this determination, the ONCA engaged in a statutory interpretation analysis of section 3(1)(a) to determine the intended meaning of &#8220;as consideration for&#8221;. This same issue was argued before the SCC in April 2026 and a decision in this respect remains pending.<\/p>\n<p>Under the ONCA&#8217;s determination, in order to s convict an accused, prosecutors will need to show that an accused knowingly or intentionally offered a benefit, something akin to a &#8220;material economic advantage&#8221;, as consideration for official acts of the public foreign official and that the accused did so for the purpose of, or in order to obtain or retain an advantage in the course of the accused&#8217;s business. These requirements present a high threshold for a prosecutor to meet and may result in future acquittals unless an investigation uncovers evidence of subjective intent.<\/p>\n<p>If this exacting mens rea requirement for offences under the CFPOA is upheld, there may be more remediation agreements as prosecutors seek to avoid the uncertainty of trial and the possibility of an acquittal.<\/p>\n<p>In October 2023, the OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions released its Phase 4 Report of Canada&#8217;s implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. The OECD Phase 4 Report reviewed Canada&#8217;s achievements and challenges with respect to the enforcement of anti-foreign bribery laws, particularly since the Phase 3 evaluation of March 2011. At a high level, the OECD Working Group found that Canada has enacted important legislative reforms to enhance its foreign bribery framework since 2011, including: increasing available sanctions, repealing the facilitation payment exemption, introducing national jurisdiction under the CFPOA, and introducing the remediation agreement framework.<\/p>\n<p>However, the OECD Working Group found that, despite the positive steps taken by Canada, given the size of Canada&#8217;s economy and the industrial sectors in which the companies operate, the enforcement of foreign bribery offences remains exceedingly low 25 years after adopting the CFPOA. The Follow-Up Report, published in March 2026, summarizes the progress made by Canada (as reported in November 2025) from its 2023 Phase 4 evaluation and includes the following steps taken in Canada:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Embedding a prosecutor in the RCMP&#8217;s Sensitive and International Investigations Unit.<\/li>\n<li>Confirming with the Canadian Legal Information Institute to publish all foreign bribery resolutions, including remediation agreements.<\/li>\n<li>Developing a 36-month action plan to remedy challenges impeding CFPOA enforcement for RCMP investigators, including the following foals: strengthening foreign obtained evidence and Canada Evidence Act issues; improving disclosure practices and reducing regional variability; enhancing international co-operation; increasing corporate co-operation and Remediation Agreement readiness; and strengthening best practices and investigative techniques.<\/li>\n<li>Systematically monitoring credible Canadian and international media for foreign-bribery allegations.<\/li>\n<li>Updating training and guidance for CRA auditors on bribes and kickbacks.<\/li>\n<li>Updating FINTRAC guidance red flags for identifying suspected laundering of the proceeds of corruption and bribery.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Canada has no plans to take action on recommendations to extend remediation agreements to natural persons, provide more guidance on the use of remediation agreements or voluntary disclosures under the CFPOA. Canada is next set to report back to the OECD concerning its further progress on implementing recommendations made in the Phase 4 Report in March 2028.<\/p>\n<p>On the civil law side, in February 2026, the Alberta Court of King&#8217;s Bench (Cantak v Haderer, [2026] AJ No. 13) found a strong prima facie case of civil bribery to support an application for an attachment order and Mareva injunction, which gave rise for a claim of damages, a proprietary interest in certain illicit payments and a right to trace and claim those funds. The decision sets out the principles of civil bribery, following an earlier decision by the Manitoba Court of Appeal (Winnipeg (City) v Sheegl, 2023 MBCA 63) where the court held that an action is available against both the payer and payee of the bribe and that there is no requirement of a false representation, reliance, or a finding of dishonesty. The Alberta court granted the application and held that defendants cannot avoid liability by engaging in complex and creative schemes used to distance bribes from an agent or to obfuscate what is actually occurring, including indirect payments, inducements or benefits to an agent which give rise to a real potential for a conflict of interest.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any planned or potential developments or reforms of bribery and anti-corruption laws in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As noted abovewith respect to R v Arapakota, 2023 ONSC 1567, the Crown appealed to the SCC and the appeal was heard on April 16, 2026. The SCC reserved its decision and it will be published in the months ahead. This determination by the SCC should be a watershed moment on the elements of the CFPOA bribery offence that will dictate the evidentiary burden of Crown prosecutors going forward.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">To which international anti-corruption conventions is your country party?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Canada is a signatory to the OECD Convention. The CFPOA was enacted in order to implement Canada&#8217;s obligation under this Convention. As a member of the Organization of the American States, Canada is also party to the Inter-American Convention against Corruption (IACC) along with 35 other Member States. Finally, Canada ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption in 2004.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Do you have a concept of legal privilege in your jurisdiction which applies to lawyer-led investigations? If so, please provide details on the extent of that protection. Does it cover internal investigations carried out by in-house counsel?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Both lawyer-client (also known as legal advice privilege or attorney-client privilege) and litigation privilege (also known as work product privilege) may apply to a lawyer-led investigation in Canada.<\/p>\n<p>Lawyer-client privilege protects communications between a lawyer and client that is in furtherance of providing legal advice. The communication must be in relation to the giving or obtaining of legal advice and there must be an expectation of confidentiality over the communication. Lawyer-client privilege may apply to communications from both in-house and outside counsel. It is the client that holds the privilege and only the client can decide to waive the privilege. Specific instances in which lawyer-client privilege may be lost include cases where the communication is itself criminal, when there is a clear, imminent, and serious risk to public safety, where it is necessary to prevent a wrongful conviction, and when the client voluntarily discloses the information to a third party.<\/p>\n<p>Often in an internal investigation initiated to address potential bribery or corruption it is the work product itself that the party wants to protect. Litigation privilege applies where the document at issue was created for the dominant purpose of preparing for actual or anticipated litigation. Litigation privilege may extend to communications with, and documents prepared by, third parties engaged to assist with litigation (such as forensic or accounting experts).<\/p>\n<p>Whether considering lawyer-client or litigation privilege, it will be important to clearly establish the identity of the client at the beginning of the investigation. Is it just the corporation, does counsel also act for certain directors or officers of the company, or is the representation limited to a special committee struck for the purpose of the investigation? Clearly delineating the parameters of the relationship will help ensure privilege is not erroneously waived.<\/p>\n<p>Further, in the context of investigations involving multiple corporations, such corporations may consider entering into a common interest privilege agreement. Common interest privilege is a type of privilege that allows the sharing of otherwise privileged information between third parties without the loss of privilege, so long as the communication is limited to parties sharing a sufficient common interest. Common interest privilege agreements must be made for the specific circumstances of the investigation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How much importance does your government place on tackling bribery and corruption? How do you think your jurisdiction\u2019s approach to anti-bribery and corruption compares on an international scale?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>To date, Canada has not pursued bribery and corruption matters with the same vigour as, for example, the United States or the UK. Canada has been criticized in recent years for its limited enforcement efforts. As noted in the OECD Phase 4 Report, enforcement of the foreign bribery offence remains &#8220;exceedingly low&#8221; 25 years after the adoption of the CFPOA in relation to Canada&#8217;s economy and the industrial sectors in which Canadian companies operate. However, the government recently tabled enabling legislation for the FCA with a broad mandate to tackle financial crime. It remains to be seen whether bribery and corruption enforcement will be a focus of the new agency; however the new legislation and the funds earmarked in the Spring Economic Update (April 2026) to stand up the organization over the next five years signal an enforcement shift.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Generally, how serious are corporate organisations in your country about preventing bribery and corruption?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Canadian corporations are becoming more serious about preventing bribery and corruption, particularly those with cross border operations that may be captured by aggressive regulators, like the US or UK. Canada is a resource rich country, with Canadian companies regularly conducting resource exploration and projects in other jurisdictions, which may have poorly enforced anti-corruption laws. Canadian mining companies now tend to consider bribery and corruption as one of the initial risk assessments to be undertaken before entering into a new jurisdiction, and continually train and monitor staff and agents regarding interactions with public officials, including issues around gift giving, hospitality and human rights violations. It is increasingly common to have annual \u2018health checks\u2019 of compliance policies and training procedures to ensure up-to-date compliance with Canadian legislation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the biggest challenges corporate entities face when investigating bribery and corruption issues?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>A significant challenge facing Canadian authorities is the proliferation of electronic data and the effect this has had on the time and expense of investigations. The government must accept that this challenge will continue to intensify, and adequate resources will need to be allocated for appropriate electronic evidence platforms.<\/p>\n<p>Another challenge Canada faces when investigating and prosecuting cases of bribery and corruption of foreign officials stems from the difficulty of collecting evidence. Canada relies on Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) as the legal basis for seeking and providing information relating to foreign bribery. Currently, Canada maintains 35 bilateral MLATs and is engaged in negotiating new or revised treaties.<\/p>\n<p>Because most foreign bribery cases require evidence from foreign jurisdictions, delays in foreign bribery investigations impact Canadian prosecutions. In Canada, there are time limits imposed as to when a decision must be reached, beginning from the time of the charge to the actual or anticipated end of trial. For CFPOA offences, the presumptive ceiling is 30 months. However, to address these time constraints, in practice, enforcement agencies, such as the RCMP, have indicated that it would only lay charges once they have completed their investigation, which would include the obtaining of evidence under MLATs.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the biggest challenges enforcement agencies\/regulators face when investigating and prosecuting cases of bribery and corruption in your jurisdiction? How have they sought to tackle these challenges?  What do you consider will be their areas of focus\/priority in the next 12-18 months?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Two serious challenges faced by Canadian businesses conducting internal investigations are:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Defining the scope and scale of an investigation. Careful planning is necessary at the outset to ensure the investigation is proportionate and effective in isolating the relevant conduct, and the relevant universe of documents. In our experience businesses in crisis will sometimes apply parameters that are too broad in scope, which can be a costly and distracting exercise.<\/li>\n<li>Electronic document preservation, management, and review. As the proliferation of electronic data expands, this aspect of an investigation has become crucial and requires the effective use of technology. Handling documents in an investigation now requires consideration of a number of overlapping regulated issues including data privacy and security of evidence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How have enforcement agencies\/regulators in your jurisdiction sought to address the challenges presented by the significant increase of electronic data in either investigations or prosecutions into bribery and corruption offences?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In 2022, the Canadian General Standards Board updated their guidance on electronic records as documentary evidence, which would also apply to prosecutions in bribery and corruption offences. With respect to the litigation process more broadly, the guidance document advises that organizations should maintain well-managed electronic records systems, such that organizations can find, preserve, and collect records in a quick and cost-effective manner. Accordingly, electronic records management systems should be put in place by organizations long before they may be needed. In addition, the use of technology-assisted review and other automated tools to efficiently collect records that are relevant should be employed to keep cost to a minimum.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What do you consider will be the most significant bribery and corruption-related challenges posed to businesses in your jurisdiction over the next 18 months?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Perhaps the most significant challenge that businesses in this particular area will face in the coming months is whether a business should self-report if there are suspicions of potential wrongdoing. This challenge arises largely because of the lack of transparency and clarity in the remediation agreement regime which leads to uncertainty as to whether and under what circumstances a business would be offered an opportunity to negotiate a remediation agreement with Canada.<\/p>\n<p>However, as noted in the OECD Phase 4 Report, currently, the PPSC does not consider it necessary to issue further guidance regarding the remediation agreement regime. Other investigatory and enforcement bodies, such as the RCMP, do not have the authority to issue any such guidance which is the mandate of the PPSC.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How would you improve the legal framework and process for preventing, investigating and prosecuting cases of bribery and corruption?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Canada has been criticized for its relatively weak anti-corruption enforcement efforts to date. Contrary to enforcement in the US, Canada has focused only limited resources on bribery, corporate fraud and white collar matters, resulting in few prosecutions to date. Ideally, Canada would send a stronger message when it comes to anti-corruption by devoting more resources to the investigation and prosecution of bribery and corruption.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">7295<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/142420","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}