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.
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
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
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
The British Columbia Supreme Court's decision in this matter
(indexed as 2012 BCSC 1872), was reported in Mining in the
Courts, Vol. III.
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.
Canada is a constitutional monarchy, a parliamentary democracy and a federation comprised of ten provinces and three territories. Canada's judiciary is independent of the legislative and executive branches of Government.
The Government of Alberta recently announced a number of policy changes that will impact the Alberta Electricity Market, composed of its generators, transmitters, distributors, retailers, electricity consumers and wholesale electricity market.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).