By Terrance S. Carter, Nancy E. Claridge and Sean S. Carter

Global Affairs Canada Releases Guidance on Sanction Compliance

In November 2025, Global Affairs Canada published new sanctions-compliance guidance on its website (the “Guidance”). Presented across several webpages, the Guidance outlines key information on Canada’s sanctions regime, recommendations for implementing compliance programs, due-diligence red flags, and sector-specific advice for various industries, including academia, finance, real estate, and, most relevant to charities and not-for-profits (NFPs), the humanitarian sector.

Canadian sanctions – Essential information

Canada’s sanctions regime forms a central part of its foreign policy, aimed at promoting international peace and security, combating corruption, and upholding human rights. Sanctions apply to all Canadians – whether in Canada or abroad – as well as to anyone within Canada, and they restrict or prohibit a wide range of activities involving foreign states, individuals, and entities. Canada imposes both autonomous sanctions under the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA) and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (JVCFOA), and multilateral sanctions under the United Nations Act (UN Act), each supported by detailed regulations that set out specific prohibitions, listed persons, and exceptions. Canadian sanctions information is available through consolidated and country-based summaries published by Global Affairs Canada. However, these tools have no legal force, and all country-specific, individual, entity, and thematic designations, such as those relating to terrorism and extremist settler violence, must ultimately be confirmed by consulting the underlying regulations themselves.

Measures can include dealings prohibitions (barring Canadians from directly or indirectly engaging in transactions involving a designated person or their property) and asset freezes, financial restrictions, export and import bans, arms embargoes, and limits on technical assistance. Because violations are criminal offences, organizations must conduct careful due diligence – screening parties, assessing indirect dealings, understanding sector-specific prohibitions, and verifying whether permits or certificates are required. For charities and not-for-profits, the stakes are significant: sanctions can affect international programming, partnerships, financial transactions, and procurement. Given the complexity and the serious penalties involved, reviewing the relevant regulations and seeking legal advice where needed remains essential to compliance.

Canadian sanctions – Compliance program implementation

Canadian sanctions are a mandatory legal framework with contraventions constituting criminal offences that must be reported to the RCMP. Because sanctions laws, regulations, and “listed persons” are constantly evolving, Global Affairs Canada stresses the importance of a structured sanctions compliance program rather than ad hoc checks. The Guidance highlights common weaknesses – such as lack of awareness, failing to monitor updates, misinterpreting the regime, and inadequate due diligence – and recommends a risk-based compliance program built around senior management commitment (“ensuring the sanctions compliance program receives adequate resources and becomes fully integrated into the entity’s daily operations”), risk assessment, internal controls and record-keeping, ongoing testing and auditing of its program, and tailored staff training depending on the risks and circumstances which the organization faces in its operations.

Robust due diligence is central: organizations should regularly screen clients, partners, supply chain partners, and transactions against Canadian and UN lists, understand country- and sector-specific prohibitions, and document decisions and legal advice. Case studies illustrate how a compliant approach should work in practice for payments, exports, and services, emphasizing documentation and legal consultation where there is uncertainty. Global Affairs Canada’s materials are expressly informational and not legal advice, and the Guidance states that legal counsel be retained for any questions. For charities and not-for-profits, the key message is that sanctions risk needs to be actively managed through deliberate governance, policies, and due diligence rather than treated as a niche or one-off issue.

Due diligence – Red flags

The Guidance highlights a wide range of indicators that may signal attempts to evade Canadian sanctions, emphasizing that unusual ownership changes, opaque corporate structures, or links – direct or indirect – to designated individuals are key warning signs. Transactions involving dual-use or high-risk goods, vague or evasive information regarding the end-use of goods, or customers whose business profiles do not align with the products sought should prompt heightened scrutiny. Geographic and logistical anomalies – such as mismatched IP addresses, routing goods through known trans-shipment hubs, or last-minute changes to shipping routes – can also suggest diversion risks. Financial red flags include unconventional payment methods, unexplained use of third-country banks or cryptocurrency, invoice splitting, overpaying for goods, or the involvement of entities in jurisdictions with weak controls. The overall message is that sanctions circumvention often manifests through patterns of inconsistency, opacity, or unusual behaviour across business structure, goods, financing, or logistics. When any such indicators arise, organizations should pause, investigate further, and obtain legal advice before proceeding.

Canadian sanctions guidance — Humanitarian sector

Global Affairs Canada’s Guidance emphasizes that while Canadian sanctions are not intended to obstruct the delivery of humanitarian aid, charities and NPOs must still navigate significant compliance risks when operating in sanctioned environments. Organizations are expected to maintain a sanctions compliance program, conduct ongoing due diligence, and screen all intermediaries – such as local partners, suppliers, consultants, and logistics services providers – for both direct and indirect links to listed individuals or entities. Indirect dealings are a particular concern, as sanctions prohibitions under SEMA and the JVCFOA can apply even when a transaction is routed through non-Canadian third parties. Humanitarian exceptions do exist but vary by regulation, and some activities may only be carried out by specified agencies or require reliance on a specific permit (such as the current Syria permit) or an individual permit application. Because sanctions evolve frequently, organizations must monitor updates, watch for red flags indicating possible circumvention, and seek legal advice when uncertain.

The overarching message of the Guidance is that effective humanitarian work in sanctioned jurisdictions requires structured governance, informed risk assessment, and careful partner screening to avoid inadvertently engaging in prohibited dealings. Charities and NFPs should consult legal counsel when dealing with these issues to ensure they can deliver aid and support to those in need while keeping their activities strictly legal.

Special Rapporteur is Seeking Input on Key AML/ATF Definitions

The United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner has released a call for input on the definitions of “terrorism”, “terrorist organization” and “violent extremism”. The international community, for many decades, has been unsuccessful in defining the term “terrorism” and negotiations regarding the United Nations draft comprehensive convention against international terrorism have been stalled. Human rights bodies as well as the Special Rapporteur have often found vague and overbroad definitions of the term in instruments of regional organizations, national laws and in normative practice and technical activities of the United Nations. The Special Rapporteur is seeking input to create a report aimed at identifying a best practice international definition of terrorism that would be consistent with international law. The report would also consider whether an agreed definition of “terrorist organization” is needed, and whether “violent extremism” and “extremism” are capable of adequate legal definition consistent with human rights law, and how (or if) those concepts should be used.

The call for input outlines the questions and comments sought for the creation of the report. Questions include, among others, what physical conduct elements should define terrorism, what risks to human rights are presented by definitions of terrorism, violent extremism and extremism, how the definition should address “state terrorism” and so on. Input on the topic can be submitted until December 1, 2025.

Charities and NFPs engaged internationally should consider the impact of the use of these terms. This call for input presents an opportunity for the sector to provide input into the development of international standards and ensure consensus to help mitigate potential sources of human rights violations and abuse. Charities and NFPs may want to consider submitting their comments and input before the deadline.

​Read the November 2025 Charity & NFP Law Update