This document discusses corporate accountability for Canadian mining companies operating abroad. It outlines challenges in holding companies accountable when harms occur in other countries, including lack of jurisdiction. Recent court cases like Chevron v. Yaiguje and Araya v. Nevsun have opened doors for Canadian courts to enforce foreign judgments and hear claims of international law violations against Canadian parent and subsidiary companies. If successful, these cases could establish important precedents for pursuing legal strategies to increase corporate accountability.

1. Injustice Abroad: Canadian
Corporate Accountability
Presented by Alison Mazoff, B.A. (Hons), J.D.

2. #OpenForJustice

3. What is Corporate
Accountability?
 A set of enforceable strategies used to influence
corporate behaviour.
 Usually, in the form of pressure exerted by
governmental and social forces.
 This presentation looks at the recent legal strategies
used in Canada to hold Canadian mining
companies operating abroad accountable for
environmental destruction and human rights
violations.

4. What motivates a Corp?

5. How does the Corp get $?
 When they make a profit (have more assets than
liabilities)
 Profit = Assets – Liabilities
 Assets= +$, equipment, etc.
 Liability = - $: expenses

6. How does CA Work
 Through laws or regulations, attaches more liability
to an abusive behaviour than the asset produced by
the abusive behaviour is worth.

7. Challenges with Canadian
CA?
 Canadian laws and Courts generally do not have
jurisdiction over things that happen in other
countries.
 So what can a wronged group do if a Canadian
Corp. abused them in another Country?

8. Sue the company where
the abuse happened
 A Plaintiff can sue an offending company in the
jurisdiction where the offence occurred.
 The problem is that even if the Plaintiff is successful,
the Corp. might not have assets in the Jurisdiction
where the Plaintiff obtained the Judgment.

9. So, what’s the problem?
Judgment
No assets
Register
the
judgment
Assets/Sub
corp in
Canada

10. Chevron v. Yaiguje
The aftermath of mining in Ecuador

11. Ecuadorian Judgment
 The Plaintiffs have been trying to bring Chevron to
justice for over 20 years.
 The Plaintiffs obtained a Judgment in Ecuadorian
Court for $9.1 billion USD.

12. Chevron has Assets
 In the U.S.
 In Canada (Chevron Canada)

13. Judicial History
ONSC
ONCA
SCC

14. Findings
 Ontario Courts have the jurisdiction to decide
whether or not the Judgment can be enforced
whether against the Judgment Debtor, even if they
are not in Canada and against the Canadian
subsidiary of the Corp.
 The Court will consider a company’s, within its
jurisdiction, relationship with a foreign parent in
deciding whether there is authority to enforce a
Judgment against the Parent.

15. Why does this matter?
 It’s a big deal: it opens doors for Canadian Courts to
enforce Judgments of foreign courts if a subsidiary
of a defendant is in its jurisdiction and against
foreign corps. Outside of its jurisdiction.

16. No foreign Judgment
 Over the past few years, several Plaintiffs have tried
to sue those who abused them in a foreign country
in Canadian Courts unsuccessfully.

17. Araya v. Nevsun
 Nevsun is a Canadian mining company that
indirectly owns 60% of a copper, gold and zinc mine
in Western Eritrea known as Bisha mine.

18. Background
 The Mine is owned by Bisha Mine Share Company,
Segen Construction Company (owned by Eritrea’s
ruling party) is a subcontractor of BMSC
 Last year, allegations of human rights abuses and
crimes against humanity surfaced from a Human
Rights Watch report and a later UN report.

19. Claim Against Nevsun
 Damages have not been quantified on the claim.
 This is the first claim in Canada based completely
on violations of international law.
 Nevsun has given 2 responses to the media: 1) that
it was required by the Eritrean government to use
Segen Construction (owned by the ruling party) for
the mine and regrets any forced labour and 2) that
the allegations are unfounded.

20. Nevsun’s Response to Suit
 Nevsun is an indirect Shareholder of Bisha Mine,
the mine is controlled by BMSC.
 Eritrea is not a “Rogue State” and military
conscripts were not used.
 Nevsun was not engaged in a venture with Eritrea.
 BC does not Jurisdiction to hear the case.
 The Plaintiffs and the company have a collective
agreement.

21. Nevsun Response Cont.
 The action should be dismissed as a representative
action.
 Ask for dismissal because the claims are not
justifiable and contrary to the state immunity act.

22. Next for Araya v. Nevsun
 The Preliminary application(s) (estimated time 10-15
days) will be heard on January 4, 2016.

23. Other Test Cases
 Choc v. Hudbay Minerals (2013 ONSC 998)
 Opens door to assert a duty of care of subsidiaries
 Adolfo Agustin Garcia et al v. Tahoe Resources inc.
 Suing over the Corps claims of Corporate Social
Responsibility.

24. #open4Justice
 AI has already launched the Open for Justice
Campaign. They suggest:
 Phoning or lobbying your MP (there is a kit for this)
 Email bhr@amnesty.ca before you go speak to your
MP so that your talking points will be accurate and
up-to-date.
 Support the UN treaty for business and human rights.

25. Thank You!
“In our globalized world we can’t hide behind the idea that
the harm is happening somewhere else and is someone else’s
problem. Canadian companies need to be held to account in
Canadian courts.”
- Alex Neve, Secretary General, Amnesty International
Canada.

26. Resources
 If you would like to find out more about Corporate
Accountability in Canada, please visit:
 Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability
http://cnca-rcrce.ca/
 Mining Watch Canada
http://www.miningwatch.ca/openforjustice/
 Canadian Labour Congress
http://canadianlabour.ca/issues-
research/issues/corporate-accountability
 Amnesty International http://www.amnesty.ca/our-
work/campaigns/open-for-justice