Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:17:19.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya et al. (S.C.C.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 August 2020

Russell Hopkins
Russell Hopkins*
Affiliation:
Russell Hopkins is a barrister in independent practice at Bright Line Law at Serle Court in London.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a judgment delivered on February 28, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada held (by majority, 7–2) that Canadian common law does not contain an all-encompassing doctrine of non-justiciability based on foreign acts of state; and (by a narrower majority, 5–4) that alleged breaches of customary international law (CIL) arguably provide a novel cause of action in tort. The court held that claims against a Canadian mining corporation related to alleged violations at a mine in Eritrea could proceed to trial.

Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 59 , Issue 5 , October 2020 , pp. 747 - 810
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ENDNOTES

1 Government Of Canada, Doing Business the Canadian Way: A Strategy to Advance Corporate Social Responsibility in Canada's Extractive Sector Abroad (2013), https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/Enhanced_CS_Strategy_ENG.pdf.

2 Nevsun had also challenged jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds but this was rejected by Abrioux J at first instance and by the Court of Appeal, and not pursued before the Supreme Court.

3 Nevsun Resources Ltd v. Araya, [2020] S.C.C. 5 (Can.) [hereinafter Nevsun] ¶ 28.

4 Id. ¶ 44.

5 Belhaj and another v. Straw and others [2017] UKSC 3.

6 Nevsun, supra note 3, ¶ 45.

7 Id. ¶ 47.

8 Id. ¶ 275.

9 Id. ¶¶ 272–73.

10 Id. ¶¶ 296, 305.

11 Id. ¶ 301.

12 Id. ¶ 306.

13 Id. ¶ 310.

14 Id. ¶ 69.

15 Id. ¶ 71–72.

16 Id. ¶ 95, 90.

17 Id. ¶¶ 105–107.

18 Id. ¶¶ 117–118.

19 Id. ¶ 122.

20 Id. ¶ 124.

21 Id. ¶ 125–126.

22 Id. ¶ 129.

23 Id. ¶ 127.

24 Id. ¶ 191.

25 Id. ¶¶ 148, 169, 171.

26 Id. ¶¶ 210–211.

27 Id. ¶ 261. A similar paradox has been said to arise in England in relation to questions of jurisdiction following Altimo Holdings v. Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd. [2011] UKPC 7. See Okpabi & Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd. [2018] EWCA Civ 191, per Simon LJ at ¶ 32 and the Chancellor at ¶ 182.

28 Nevsun, supra note 3, ¶ 176.

29 Id. ¶ 259.

30 Id. ¶¶ 112, 185(f), 194(3), 199, 211.

31 See e.g., Prosecutor v. Al Jadeed SAL & Karma al Khayat, STL-14-05, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Personal Jurisdiction in Contempt Proceedings (Special Trib. Leb. Oct. 2, 2014) ¶ 67.