The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled against Tanzanian families and survivors seeking justice for security-related violence at Barrick’s North Mara gold mine. In a serious blow to corporate accountability in Canada, the decision – handed down on Tuesday 7 April – closes the door on the Ontario courts. But the lawyers for the plaintiffs have swiftly announced they will take the fight to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In the judgment for Matiko John v. Barrick Gold Corporation, the court ruled that the 29 claimants should not pursue their case in Ontario but should instead seek justice in Tanzania, which it deemed the more appropriate forum. The substance of their claims – alleged killings, shootings, beatings and torture – was never examined. The court did not reach the stage to decide whether Barrick bore any responsibility. It was tasked only to decide in which jurisdiction that question should be answered. Its reply was clear: not here.

CFM Lawyers and Phillips Barristers PC will now place the question of accountability for Canadian multinationals extracting resources abroad before the country’s highest court. Whether the Supreme Court accepts the case, and what it decides, will shape corporate accountability law in Canada for years to come...

... The result creates a profound accountability gap, one that works systematically in favour of Canadian companies and against the communities harmed by their overseas operations. Canadian when it suits, beyond the reach of Canadian courts when it does not...

Against a backdrop of escalating state violence during the 2025 elections, and a brutal crackdown on dissent, the Ontario court concluded that Tanzania, not Canada, is the appropriate place for these claims to be heard. It accepted evidence from the defence that the Tanzanian judiciary is independent and competent.

This is despite the reality that impoverished rural farmers and small-scale miners cannot afford lawyers and are at an extreme disadvantage against a well-funded company. Contingency fees are prohibited in Tanzania and legal aid is severely underfunded...

The barriers are not only financial. The Tanzanian government owns 16% of the mine. In communities living in its shadow, that matters: challenging the mine’s operations means challenging the state. No one has ever successfully brought a case of this kind against the mine in Tanzania...

This week’s decision sits uneasily with legal developments elsewhere. Amnesty International Canada, as a third-party intervenor in the appeal, argued that in cases where people experience human rights abuses connected to Canadian companies’ operations overseas, Canadian courts should apply jurisdiction and forum rules in line with the right to an effective remedy – a right recognised in international law. The court did not accept that argument...