Source: http://www.bhrinlaw.org/key-developments/67-canada
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 13:19:31+00:00

Document:
Choc v. Hudbay Minerals Inc.: Ontario Superior Court has permitted the claims to proceed on the basis that it was not "plain and obvious" that Hudbay did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff (ongoing).
Araya v. Nevsun Resources: Supreme Court of Canada granted Nevsun leave in June and will hear the appeal (2018, ongoing).
Garcia v. Tahoe Resources: British Columbia Court of Appeal has allowed case to go to trial (2017, ongoing).
Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation: Plaintiffs have sought leave to appeal before Supreme Court of Canada (ongoing).
The lawsuits allege that between 2007 and 2009, private security personnel employed by Hudbay at its Fenix nickel mine killed a local community leader, seriously wounded another local resident, and gang-raped eleven women.
Has established a precedent with respect to parent company liability. This was the first case in Canada where foreign claimants alleging to have suffered harm caused by a Canadian company's overseas operations could proceed to trial.
♦ "Defensora", documentary film about resistance against the mining company in Guatemala (info and trailer).
Araya v. Nevsun Resources Ltd.
The claimants maintain that Nevsun expressly or implicitly approved the widespread use of forced labour by its local contractor, Segen Construction Company, at the Bisha mine in Eritrea. The claimants allege that they endured appalling working and living conditions and were subjected to severe punishment for perceived disobedience.
In June 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada decided to hear the appeal and granted Nevsun leave.
In November 2017, the British Columbia Court of Appeal rejected Nevsun’s appeal to dismiss the case on the basis of the forum non conveniens and the act of state doctrines. The court also opted not to dismiss claims based in international human rights law.
In January 2018, Nevsun sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada.
The company was granted leave and the case will be heard in January 2019.
This is the first case in which claims against a Canadian corporation for alleged breaches of customary international law have been allowed to proceed.
Finding of parent company liability would have implications beyond mining sector.
♦ Analysis at Canada Class Action monitor.
♦ Canadian Centre for International Justice coverage.
García v. Tahoe Resources Inc.
The claimants allege that they suffered serious injuries when security personnel employed by Tahoe's subsidiary shot at them during a peaceful demonstration against the company’s Escobal silver mine in Guatemala in April 2013.
In 2015 the case was dismissed on the basis of the forum non conveniens doctrine. The court found that Guatemala was a more appropriate forum to hear the case. The claimants successfully challenged this ruling on appeal in 2017. That same year the Supreme Court of Canada denied Tahoe’s application for leave to appeal.
Finding of parent company liability could have implications beyond mining sector.
♦ Decision allowing an Appeal.
♦ Business & Human Rights Resource Centre coverage.
In 2003, indigenous and settler residents of the Amazon region of Ecuador known as the Oriente filed a lawsuit in Ecuador against Chevron Corporation.
In 2011, an Ecuadorian court found Chevron liable for over US$19 billion in damages. Two years later, the Ecuadorian National Court of Justice upheld the decision, reducing the award to US$9.51 billion. Chevron had no assets in Ecuador.
In 2012, claimants brought a suit in Ontario against parent company Chevron Corporation and its Canadian subsidiary, Chevron Canada.
In 2017, the Ontario Superior Court barred the claimants from piercing the corporate veil in order to use Chevron Canada’s assets to pay the debts of its parent company, Chevron Corporation. However, enforcement proceedings were allowed to advance against Chevron Corporation.
In 2018, the Ontario Superior Court's decision regarding Chevron Canada was upheld on appeal. The claimants have sought leave to appeal this decision before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Claimants allege that they suffered harm, including property damage and adverse health and environmental impacts, as a result of the intentional and reckless mismanagement of crude oil and toxic waste in the Oriente.
At the time of 2013 judgment, Chevron held no assets in Ecuador, making it impossible for the claimants to enforce the damages award they had been granted in that country.
Claimants filed suit to enforce the Ecuadorian judgement in a number of jurisdictions where the company did hold assets, including the Ontario Superior Court whose decision is pending appeal.
♦ "The Enforcement Saga Continues", article by McCarthy Tetrault, in Lexology.
♦ "SCC Decision Highlights Increased Litigation Risk for Canadian Companies for Misdeeds of their Foreign Affiliates", article by McCarthy Tetraul, in mccarthy.ca.
♦ "Court sets aside cash order in Ecuadorians’ appeal of Chevron decision", article by The Canadian Press, in Rd news Now.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.