Canada: In Canada, Foreign Workers Seek To Use International Norms As The Standard Of Care In Negligence Claims Against Multinationals Operating Overseas

Non-Canadian workers are increasingly suing their employers in Canadian courts for human rights violations allegedly committed outside Canada by the companies themselves or by other entities in their supply chains. This development seems to be spurred by recent U.S. cases limiting the rights of workers and their representatives from bringing these claims in the United States.  

These claims rest on a theory that international norms such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights form a standard of care that, when violated, constitutes actionable negligence.  These "norms" were previously regarded as nonbinding "soft law," but the Canadian developments could transform them into binding "hard law" enforceable through awards of civil damages.  The practical effects of this trend include a growing effort to use Canada as a forum for redressing alleged human rights violations committed overseas, and an emphatic need for employers to consider developing and implementing effective codes of conduct for their supply chains. 

2014 and 2013: Groundbreaking Decisions

Recent cases illustrate the trend. In 2013, members of an indigenous Mayan community in Guatemala brought three suits in Toronto against Canadian company Hudbay Minerals for alleged abuses committed by security personnel at a nickel mining project.1  The plaintiffs argued that the company violated its duty of care by failing to prevent these harms. 

The alleged duty of care arose from, inter alia, international norms, including the International Finance Corporation Performance Standards and the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, which the company had publicly committed to follow.  Amnesty International, as an intervenor, filed a submission arguing that these international norms, as well as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (the "UN Guiding Principles") and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, formed the applicable duty of care. 

The court, having applied a multi-factor test, recognized that the negligence claim was "novel" and denied a preliminary motion to strike the allegations, finding, among other things, that plaintiffs had properly pled the duty of care.  It noted that the company had made public statements that it had adopted certain "international norms," and, therefore, there was a "proximate" relationship between the plaintiffs and the company.  As the court stated, "these public statements alleged to have been made by the parent company are one factor to be considered ... [that] are indicative of a relationship of proximity," which creates the company's obligation "to be mindful of the plaintiffs' legitimate interests." 

More recently, in June 2014, seven Guatemalan workers filed suit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against Canadian company Tahoe Resources Inc., claiming that the company was negligent in preventing or failing to prevent security personnel at one of the company's Guatemalan mines from using excessive force against them in violation of international norms that the company had expressly adopted.2  These foreign workers argued that the company owed a duty of care based on the fact that it knew that its subsidiary's security personnel failed to adhere to internationally accepted standards on the use of security personnel, including those standards in the UN Guiding Principles and the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, to which the company had publicly committed.  The company's challenge to the jurisdiction of the Canadian court remains under review.

Recent, More Aggressive Claims

In other cases, foreign workers have taken an even more aggressive stance by arguing that international norms apply to companies that have not expressly adopted them. 

In April 2015, survivors and family members of workers who died in a factory collapse in Bangladesh filed suit in Toronto against the Canadian retail company Loblaws, seeking nearly $2 billion in damages.3  The plaintiffs claimed that the company was negligent because it knew of a "significant and specific risk" to workers making garments in the factory for the company's clothing line, but failed to conduct inspections and audits in accordance with its own standards and also international standards set forth in the UN Guiding Principles, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility.  Thus, these plaintiffs are also arguing that a defendant company's duty of care may be founded upon international norms beyond those to which the company had publicly committed. 

In November 2014, three Eritrean refugees filed suit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia alleging that Canadian company Nevsun Resources "aided, abetted, contributed to and became an accomplice to the use of forced labor, crimes against humanity and other human rights abuses" at an Eritrean mine.4  The plaintiffs alleged that the company was negligent because it violated the International Finance Corporation Performance Standards, which the company had publicly represented it would follow.  These foreign workers also appeared to claim that the company owed them a separate duty of care based upon customary international law prohibiting forced labor.  In other words, these plaintiffs claimed that a duty of care arose from not only publicly stated commitments by the company to certain international norms, but also from international law in general. 

Could Canada Become the Next Preferred Forum for Testing International Negligence Liabilities?

To date, only the Hudbay court has squarely acknowledged that a duty of care may exist based upon international norms that the company publicly committed to, and the court did so only in the context of a preliminary motion to strike.  Nonetheless, there appears to be an emerging trend in which plaintiffs view Canadian courts as potentially more hospitable to such negligence claims than are courts in the United States. 

This view is consistent with recent U.S. developments.  Since the 1980s, foreign plaintiffs had sought redress in U.S. courts under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ACTA) against multinational corporations accused of engaging in or condoning human rights atrocities in foreign jurisdictions.  In 2013, however, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the jurisdictional scope of ATCA in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013).   In Kiobel, the Court held that ATCA may not be used to bring claims in U.S. courts against multinational companies for employment practices in foreign jurisdictions since ATCA is a strictly jurisdictional statute that does not provide a private right of action.  Given the decision in Kiobel, plaintiffs with extra-territorial claims against multinational companies may be inclined to focus their efforts in Canadian courts as opposed to U.S. courts.  Indeed, the plaintiffs suing Tahoe Resources, Inc. could have arguably brought suit in Nevada since the company is headquartered there, but they chose to bring suit in British Columbia instead based on the company's registration there.5

Global Developments Indicate a Move to Make International Norms Binding Law

These developments in Canada take on added importance as the global community focuses attention on the accountability of multinationals for their supply chains, and adopts as binding law some of the international norms the plaintiffs in the above cases relied upon.  For example, the UN Human Rights Council's Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group (OEIWG) has been negotiating a multi-lateral treaty that makes the UN Guiding Principles binding law.6  An ever-increasing number of countries have been adopting "national action plans" to implement the UN Guiding Principles, which include introducing and adopting legislation that binds those countries' companies to certain of those UN Guiding Principles.  Most recently, in August 2015, Sweden published its national action plan to implement these principles, which inter alia, explores how the Swedish state should carry out its "obligation to provide effective remedies when a company has committed human rights abuses."7  Plaintiffs will likely point to these global developments to transform "soft law" into "hard law" in support of their efforts to impose international norms such as the UN Guiding Principles as a standard of care for multinationals operating overseas.   

Practical Considerations

These Canadian cases indicate that multinational employers should anticipate the possibility of lawsuits in Canada not only for standards they expressly adopt but also for international norms, such as the UN Guiding Principles.  At the same time, these developments emphasize the importance of proper supply chain management.  While there are no easy answers or one-size-fits-all models, the following suggestions for developing and implementing supplier codes of conduct may help employers avoid such claims and act as good corporate citizens.     

  • First, when developing a code of conduct, begin with identifying the company's values and goals as a corporate citizen. Although these issues are necessarily specific to the company's identity and culture, companies can and should inform their plans by researching the various objectives, codes and initiatives in their industry, among their competitors and, of course, with any upstream customers or business partners to ensure compliance with applicable requirements.
  • Second, undertake efforts to understand and identify the supply chain.  Doing so is critical to assessing risks and opportunities, as different countries and suppliers present different risks and challenges.  This exercise is no easy task, and companies should understand that their supply chain may change and that they may need to utilize outside resources to assist.
  • Third, once some risks and challenges are identified, determine the scope of the company's efforts and identify internal and external resources that are necessary and appropriate to address them.  It is fundamental that appropriate stakeholders within the organization are committed to the project and that stakeholders from different regions of the world, and serving different functions—including compliance, legal, communications and operations personnel—be involved.  No company can address every human rights issue or every supplier that arguably falls within its supply chain.  A supply chain management strategy should be manageable and capable of execution.  One that focuses on certain company and industry risks, or a certain cause that resonates with the company's culture, is generally advisable.
  • Fourth, develop or refine tools to implement the strategy.  For example, once a supplier code of conduct is put in place, supplier contracts may be developed (or amended, as needed) to require that the suppliers adhere to the standards articulated in the code of conduct, agree to audits and inspections, and face contract termination should the suppliers violate those standards. 


Striking the appropriate balance between appropriate due diligence and potentially exposing the employer to liability such as those facing companies in the Canadian courts described above is a complex, culture-specific and risk-specific exercise.  These issues can only be handled effectively if the company dedicates itself to building or refining its own human rights infrastructure to identify and address these issues.


See Choc v. Hudbay Minerals, Inc., Order 2013 ONSC 1414, cv-10-1411159 (Superior Court of Justice – Ontario, July 22, 2013).

See Garcia v. Tahoe Resources, Inc., Notice of Claim S 144746 (Supreme Court of British Columbia, June 18, 2014).

See Das v. Loblaws, Inc., Notice of Claim cv-15-526628 (Superior Court of Justice – Ontario, Apr. 22, 2015).

See Arraya v. Nevsun Resources, Ltd., Notice of Claim S 148932 (Supreme Court of British Columbia, Nov. 20, 2014).

5  Nonetheless, in April 2015, one day after the suit against Loblaws was filed, certain Rana Plaza plaintiffs also sued additional retailers in the District of Columbia for negligence claims similar to those leveled against Loblaws. These plaintiffs also argued that the UN Guiding Principles, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, and the ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility set the standard for the duty of care owed to the plaintiffs. However, this case was short-lived because, in July 2015, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action. The circumstances that led to this dismissal are currently unclear.

6  United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Thirty-second session, Report of the Open-ended inter-governmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights (July 10, 2015).

7  Government Offices of Sweden, Action Plan for Business and Human Rights (Aug. 2015).

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

John Kloosterman
Trent M. Sutton
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
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).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions