Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 29 MARCH 2016

Garcia V. Tahoe Resources Inc., 2015 BCSC 2045

McCarthy Tétrault
McCarthy Tétrault
Contributor
McCarthy Tétrault

McCarthy Tétrault

Built on a unique model of collaboration, innovation and efficiency, McCarthy Tétrault delivers...

View firm profile
Explore more from McCarthy Tétrault

In this case, the British Columbia Supreme Court declined jurisdiction in a proceeding in which the plaintiffs sought to hold a parent company responsible for the actions of its subsidiary.

CanadaEnergy and Natural Resources

Garcia V. Tahoe Resources Inc., 2015 BCSC 2045

In this case, the British Columbia Supreme Court declined jurisdiction in a proceeding in which the plaintiffs sought to hold a parent company responsible for the actions of its subsidiary.

Seven Guatemalans commenced an action in British Columbia against Tahoe in connection with an alleged shooting that took place at Escobal mine (a gold, silver, lead and zinc mine) in Guatemala. The plaintiffs claim they were shot at close range by security personnel while peacefully protesting outside the mine gates. The mine is owned by a Guatemalan subsidiary of Tahoe. Tahoe itself has its headquarters in Nevada, but is registered in British Columbia.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from