The agreement was published by ISDA to facilitate unilateral reporting for non-commercial transactions involving a local Canadian counterparty. According to the regulations in force in Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec, transactions between non-merchants must be reported as of June 30, 2015. ISDA 2015, a non-multilateral multilateral agreement on commercial reporting, meets the relevant conditions set out in section 25 of the 91-507 derivatives trading reporting rules in these three provinces. An agreement to this effect for merchant-to-merchant transactions, ISDA 2014, was published on 22 September 2014. Both documents are designed to be expanded to include reporting requirements for derivatives transactions that may be issued by other Canadian supervisors. RTDs must allow duly authorised representatives of counterparties to have access to all data relevant to their transactions. The rule assumes that any counterparty accepts this disclosure and applies despite the agreement to the contrary. To comply with either agreement, please contact Karen Cadigan ([email protected]) or Tara Kruse ([email protected]). Nick Sawyer, ISDA London, +44 203 088 3586, [email protected] parties must comply with the agreement by June 16, 2015 to meet the June 30 launch date. Compliance with these agreements can be used in the hierarchy of registrants and in the logic of registrants available in ISDA`s Canadian reporting party statements, originally published on April 4, 2014 and amended on March 20, 2015 to designate a single reporting party. The second concerns the desire to avoid double reporting. IsDA members have developed a set of Canadian trade reporting rules based on the Dodd-Frank reporting hierarchy, using the technology used by institutions for cfTC compliance (ISDA method).
This method assigns responsibility in cases where two traders or two end-users are reporting counterparties. The initial idea was that parties could rely on the delegation of reporting obligations to implement the ISDA methodology (as provided for in the CFTC rules) and thus avoid double reporting. While the TR rule allows for delegation, it does not exempt the delegated party from the responsibility of ensuring an accurate and timely report. This was seen by the merchant community as a lockdown ban for them to rely on delegation, as it would be easier to report than to establish the systems needed to monitor their counterparty`s compliance. The CSA would also prefer a single reporting party, so that amendments have been or will be made to the rules to include the ISDA method of determining the reporting party in the TR rule itself (in Ontario) or to impose the reporting obligation of the party that has agreed by written agreement to assume this responsibility (in Manitoba and Quebec). . . .