CENTRAL SUN MINING INC. V. VECTOR ENGINEERING INC., 2013 ONCA 601
The decision deals with, among other things, the location (for jurisdiction purposes) of negligent misrepresentations which were alleged to have been made in various studies conducted by engineers in connection with the site, design and construction of a gold mine in Costa Rica. The Ontario Court of Appeal determined the tort occurs where the misrepresentation was received and relied upon, which in this case was Ontario. For more discussion on this decision, see "Foreign Affairs: Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction of Canadian Courts in Mining Cases" on page 12.
CHOC V. HUDBAY MINERALS INC., 2013 ONSC 1414
In this case, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declined to strike a pleading which alleged that a Canadian parent company was liable in negligence for failing to prevent alleged human rights abuses for which its foreign subsidiary was implicated. The defendants sought to have the claim struck on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was an improper attempt to "pierce the corporate veil." For more discussion on this case, see "Foreign Affairs: Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction of Canadian Courts in Mining Cases" on page 12.
PEACHLAND (DISTRICT) V. PEACHLAND SELF STORAGE LTD., 2013 BCCA 273
In this decision, the British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA) upheld the lower court's decision that a municipal bylaw was invalid because it frustrated the terms of a Mines Act permit issued by the British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
Peachland Self Storage Ltd. (Self Storage) obtained a permit (Permit) from the province to extract 100,000 cubic metres of material from its aggregate mine located in the District of Peachland (District). After Self Storage applied for the Permit, but before it was obtained, the District had amended its Earthworks Control Bylaw (Bylaw) to impose an annual 200-cubicmetre limit on soil removal from land within the District. The Permit expressly said that "[o]ther legislation may be applicable to the operation, such as bylaws established by Municipalities or regional Districts and [Self Storage] may be required to obtain approvals or permits under that legislation."
It was not possible for Self Storage to operate its aggregate mine in a commercially viable manner within the 200-cubic-metre limit, and so Self Storage challenged the Bylaw as being outside the District's jurisdiction. The BCCA agreed with the lower court that the Bylaw must be characterized as a prohibition on soil removal which was invalid because it was enacted without ministerial approval as required by section 9 of the British Columbia Community Charter (Charter). In considering section 9 of the Charter, the BCCA confirmed that the requirement for ministerial approval was to safegaurd the "Provincial interest", and in particular, "the Provincial interest in extraction industries, which are a key component of British Columbia's economy."
The British Columbia Supreme Court's decision in this matter (indexed as 2012 BCSC 1872), was reported in Mining in the Courts, Vol. III.
YAIGUAJE V. CHEVRON CORPORATION, 2013 ONCA 758
This Ontario Court of Appeal decision suggests that, in the context of enforcing a foreign judgment, Ontario courts may assume jurisdiction over a related corporate entity (in this case the Canadian subsidiary of a US parent company) that has ties to Ontario and an "economically significant relationship" with the related foreign entity over which it has jurisdiction. For more discussion on this case, see "Foreign Affairs: Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction of Canadian Courts in Mining Cases" on page 12.
To view original article, please click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
