Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 06 OCTOBER 2015

Integrity Provisions And Leases With Federal Governmental Bodies

WeirFoulds LLP
Explore more from WeirFoulds LLP

On July 3, 2015, the Government of Canada introduced a revamped "Integrity Regime" that applies to all real property transactions (including leases)

CanadaReal Estate and Construction
Lisa Borsook
Lisa Borsook
Robert Eisenberg
Robert Eisenberg
Author LinkedIn connections

On July 3, 2015, the Government of Canada introduced a revamped "Integrity Regime" that applies to all real property transactions (including leases)1 between private contractors and the federal departments and agencies identified in Schedules I, I.1, and II of the Financial Administration Act ( http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11/FullText.html).2 This regime applies regardless of the transaction dollar amount.

The Integrity Regime is composed of two pillars: Public Works and Government Services Canada's ("PWGSC") "Ineligibility and Suspension Policy" ( http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/ci-if/politique-policy-eng.html) and the associated "Integrity Provisions" that are to be incorporated into offers to lease and leases with the federal government (http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/biens-property/ci-ic-eng.html) (collectively, the "Regime").

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Ontario’s Mandatory Annual Holdback Release Starts In 2027: What Owners And Contractors Need To Know

Starting in 2027, all Ontario project owners with contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2026, and most owners with contracts dating back to July 1, 2018, must start releasing statutory holdback to their contractors on an annual basis. This requirement is the latest in a series of construction payment reforms under Ontario’s Construction Act. It replaces the traditional model of retaining holdback until substantial performance. Owners and contractors who fail to comply with the notice and payment timelines face exposure to interest claims, payment disputes, and adjudication proceedings.
CanadaReal Estate and Construction
Miller Thomson
Miller Thomson
Article

The Coldcard Exploit: Why Victims May Have Two Routes To Recovery

A five-year-old firmware defect in Coldcard hardware wallets has enabled attackers to systematically drain an estimated $116 million in Bitcoin from over 5,200 victims since July 2026. This unprecedented exploit raises critical questions about manufacturer liability and creates two distinct legal pathways for recovery: blockchain tracing against the perpetrators and potential litigation against Canadian manufacturer Coinkite for product defects that undermined the fundamental security promise of devices mar
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
WeirFoulds LLP
WeirFoulds LLP
Article

Here’s The Drill: Introducing The New CCDC 32 – 2026 Progressive Design-Build Contract

CCDC 32 introduces a progressive design-build framework that allows owners and design-builders to collaboratively develop project scope, budget, and schedule before committing to a final price. Through a two-phase structure with project gates and off-ramp provisions, this standardized contract addresses complex construction projects where requirements cannot be fully defined at the outset. How does this collaborative approach balance flexibility with cost certainty while reshaping traditional roles in const
CanadaReal Estate and Construction
WeirFoulds LLP
WeirFoulds LLP
Article

Who Pays After The Hack? Emerging Paths For Cyber Recovery

Recent court decisions reveal a developing area of cyber insurance subrogation where insurers can potentially recover losses from vendors, financial institutions, and service providers who failed to meet specific cybersecurity obligations. These cases demonstrate that a cybercriminal's involvement does not automatically shield third parties from liability when they breach contractual duties or ignore red flags that contributed to the loss.
United StatesInsurance
WeirFoulds LLP
WeirFoulds LLP