Assessing Canada’s Regulatory Response to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002: Lessons for Canadian Policy Makers

Authors

  • Stephen P. Sibold, Q.C.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29173/alr225

Abstract

The article sets out to show that by adopting the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 together with other rules of the United States corporate governance regime, Canadian securities regulators moved away from a Canadian, principles-based approach, and not necessarily for the better. It does so by first discussing the unique characteristics of the Canadian capital markets and providing a thorough background into Canada’s corporate governance regime. It then highlights the main provisions of the Act, describes the ensuing debate in Canada, and critically examines Canada’s corresponding regulatory action — the introduction of four rules and a policy. The article asserts that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was an inappropriate model to take for the regulators and recommends a re-evaluation of the perceived need to harmonize with the United States in the area of corporate governance.

Author Biography

Stephen P. Sibold, Q.C.

B.A., LL.B., Queen’s University, LL.M., University of California, Berkeley. General Counsel, Bennett Jones LLP. The author wishes to thank Professor Eric Talley of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law for his insightful comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Downloads

Issue

Vol 46, No 3

Section

Articles

License

For Editions following and including Volume 61 No. 1, the following applies.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License

For Editions prior to Volume 61 No. 1, the following applies.

Author(s) retain original copyright in the substantive content of the titled work, subject to the following rights that are granted indefinitely:

  1. Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to produce, publish, disseminate, and distribute the titled work in electronic format to online database services, including, but not limited to: LexisNexis, QuickLaw, HeinOnline, and EBSCO;
  2. Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to post the titled work on the Alberta Law Review website and/or related websites.
  3. Author(s) agree that the titled work may be used for educational or instructional purposes and/or in educational or instructional materials. The author(s) acknowledge that the titled work is subject to other such "fair dealing" provisions and applicable legislation.
  4. Author(s) grant a limited license to those accessing the titled work from an electronic database or an Alberta Law Review website to download the titled work onto their computer and to print a copy for their own personal, non-commercial use, subject to proper attribution.

To use the journal's content elsewhere, permission must be obtained from the author(s) and the Alberta Law Review.