"Reflections on Legal Proceedings in Canada against Barrick Gold Regarding the North Mara Gold Mine in Tanzania", May 2025

(...)

Parent company accountability:

The Tanzanian plaintiffs brought their case in Canada on the basis of direct parent company liability...Barrick argued that the case had been brought against the wrong party in the wrong jurisdiction ... because the plaintiffs’ allegations are against the Tanzania Police Force (TPF), which has contractual arrangements with the NMGML ...Barrick’s counsel argued that Canada is the “wrong jurisdiction,” although Barrick is headquartered in Canada, because “Barrick’s small corporate office in Toronto has no connection to or involvement in the management or operation of the North Mara Gold Mine”. In addition to arguing that Canada is the wrong jurisdiction to hear this case, Barrick’s counsel argued that Barrick Gold Corp. has no direct presence in Tanzania...

The Tanzanian plaintiffs’ factum maintains that: “Barrick created, directs, implements, and supervises the security strategy and human rights policy at the North Mara mine, and Barrick’s negligence led to the deaths and injuries to community members. Further, it is alleged that Barrick has retained control over human rights and security policies applicable to North Mara at all material times”...

International human rights law:

Arguments made by Barrick’s counsel ... rely on long-standing corporate law provisions regarding separate legal personality, limited liability, and jurisdiction, that effectively shield parent companies from liability in transnational business and human rights claims of alleged harm caused by foreign subsidiaries. ... These legal shields may protect a parent company no matter how much financial gain it and its shareholders receive from the operations of a subsidiary accused of serious human rights abuses. These legal principles have contributed to a now-widely recognized and persistent gap in access to effective remedy – a human rights principle – for people harmed by foreign subsidiaries of multinational parent companies.

The entrenched problem of parent company impunity has been a central concern for human rights advocates. In 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council endorsed the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs)... Among others, the UNGPs set out the responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights and extends that responsibility to a corporation’s supply chain and “business relationships,” which include subsidiaries in a corporate group and contractors. ...

Barrick Gold Corp. states that its human rights policy is informed by the expectations of the UNGPs... It is difficult to square these statements with the limited liability arguments made by Barrick’s counsel, which rely heavily on corporate law principles of separate legal personality allowing them to claim that the plaintiffs brought their case against the “wrong party.” ...

Canada has not yet passed due diligence legislation that creates a civil cause of action against parent companies for the damages caused by their subsidiaries and business relationships...