Business and Human Rights 2025

CANADA Law and Practice Contributed by: Claudia Feldkamp and Chris Pigott, Fasken

• where the corporation has acted as the authorised agent of its controllers (corporate or human); or • where a statute or contract requires it. A plaintiff would need to demonstrate that a par - ent corporation and its subsidiary are not truly operating as separate corporations in theory and in practice. In rare circumstances, courts may consider piercing the corporate veil to prevent manifest unfairness. Parent companies may also be liable where a senior officer of the parent cor - poration, along with the foreign-operating sub - sidiary, is a party to the offence. 4. Enforcement and Litigation 4.1 Enforcement Activities The three main avenues for state-based enforce - ment relating to business and human rights in Canada are through: • Canada’s prohibition against the importation of goods mined, manufactured or produced wholly or in part by forced labour (see 2.2.3 Modern Slavery Legislation ); • the CORE, which has the power to investigate public complaints and to initiate reviews of potential human rights abuses by Canadian companies operating globally ‒ the decision as to whether to initiate a review is guided by criteria established by the CORE, including whether such a review by the CORE is feasi - ble (see 4.3 Grievance Mechanisms ); and • the Supply Chains Act, which includes penal - ties for failing to comply with the reporting obligations under the Supply Chains Act and subjects directors to personal liability (see 2.2.4 Transparency and Reporting Require- ments ).

To date, there has been limited state-based enforcement relating to business and human rights; however, Canadian enforcement initia - tives are expected to continue to develop, par - ticularly in connection with preventing the use of forced labour and child labour in supply chains. 4.2 Case Law Emerging Canadian case law shows the will - ingness of Canadian courts to allow claims by foreign plaintiffs to proceed against Canadian parent companies for human rights abuses con - nected to said companies’ international opera - tions (and, specifically, for harms caused by a foreign subsidiary abroad). Foreign plaintiffs seeking to hold Canadian com - panies responsible for the actions of their foreign subsidiaries have generally proceeded along two paths: • “piercing” the corporate veil to advance claims that the Canadian parent company is responsible for alleged human rights abuses caused by a foreign subsidiary; or • arguing that the Canadian parent owes a duty of care directly to foreign plaintiffs for alleged human rights abuses committed by its foreign subsidiary. Four main cases have been brought against Canadian companies by foreign litigants alleg - ing that the company is directly or indirectly responsible and liable for human rights abuses committed in foreign jurisdictions. To date, no cases have proceeded to trial on the merits, as the case was either dismissed by the court or – more frequently – the parties settled prior pro - ceeding to trial. The four main cases are: • Araya Eritrean et al v Nevsun Resources; • Choc v Hudbay Minerals Inc et al;

CHAMBERS.COM