Immunity from liability for Canadian corporate giant Barrick Mining? Will there be no justice for victims of torture, beatings, disappearances, and killings linked to Barrick’s mine in Tanzania?
In April, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a very questionable ruling made by Justice E. M. Morgan in favour of the Canadian corporate giant Barrick Mining. Lawyers for the Tanzanian victims of torture, beatings, disappearances, and killings claim that Justice Morgan made fundamental errors of fact and law that tainted his analysis of the jurisdiction issue.
Below: Background to the lawsuits / Links to key legal documents
Will the Canadian legal establishment shut the door again to legal accountability in Canada for mining violence and human rights violations around that world, a door first opened by the Hudbay Minerals lawsuits, followed by the Tahoe Resources and Nevsun Resources lawsuits?
Lawyers for the Tanzanian victims have applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Barrick Mining Company v. Tanzanian victims of torture, beatings, disappearances, and killings
https://phillipsbarristers.ca/key-cases/human-rights-action-against-barrick-gold/
CFM Lawyers and Phillips Barristers PC are legal counsel for Sophia Matiko John and 42 other Tanzanian plaintiffs in two human rights lawsuits against Barrick Mining Company regarding killings and other abuses at Barrick’s North Mara Mine in a remote region of Tanzania near the Kenyan border.
The lawsuits allege that Barrick, in its role as parent company and overseer of operations at North Mara, is responsible at law for instances of torture, beatings, disappearances, and killings allegedly perpetrated by the Tanzanian Police Force (TPF) while operating as a security provider to the mine.
The Plaintiffs are the victims and family members of victims of violence that has occurred in and around the mine. They are largely subsistence farmers, some of whom seek to supplement their livelihoods by extracting trace amounts of gold from the waste rock created by the mine’s activities.
Barrick has essentially retained the TPF to act as its private security in and around the mine. Barrick’s subsidiary, North Mara Gold Mine Limited (“NMGML”) has entered into an agreement with the TPF to provide security for the mine. Under the current agreement, NMGML pays wages to individual police officers; provides fuel, vehicle repairs, food, and lodging; and transferred legal title for a TPF barracks.
In exchange, the TPF provides a heavily armed security force at North Mara with 142 officers and three liaison officers working in the mine’s security office.
Barrick is heavily involved in the relationship with the TPF: Barrick’s regional General Counsel and Sustainability Team helped negotiate the agreement. Barrick senior executives including the CEO, COO Africa, and Sustainability Executive reviewed the agreement before signing. Top Barrick executives signed the Agreement on behalf of NMGML. Barrick itself has rights under the agreement separate from NMGML’s rights.
Barrick hired a North American company to train the TPF and to conduct human rights assessments at the North Mara mine.
Mine-related violence committed by the TPF against members of the local population has been ongoing for over a decade. A Tanzanian parliamentary inquiry, human rights groups, and local residents have estimated that the number of people shot and killed by security forces at the mine is somewhere between 77 and 100. Some estimates put the number of injuries as high as 304. The majority of these incidents have occurred since Barrick acquired the mine in 2006.
The lawsuit against Barrick sets out allegations of shootings, beatings, kidnappings, and killings. In one alleged incident, William Itama Machera Max, the late husband of plaintiff Dotto William Itama, was shot in the lower back and killed by Mine Police chasing unrelated persons through a residential area while firing live ammunition. In another, the plaintiff Ryoba Elias Kebwe was forcibly taken from a barber shop near the mine, tasered, and brought to the mine site where Mine Police beat him repeatedly with wooden sticks on the feet, knees, back, and buttocks. In multiple other incidents, the Mine Police are alleged to have shot and killed individuals for searching the mine’s waste dumps for trace amounts of gold, often without warning.
Barrick, a Canadian company with its head office in Toronto, retains ultimate control over human rights and security at its mine in North Mara. Barrick operates globally through a series of subsidiaries that are required to follow company-wide policies issued by Barrick, including its Human Rights Policy, and Use of Force Standard.
According to Barrick, its policies “apply to all of Barrick’s operations” including the North Mara mine. Barrick has a Group Sustainability Executive who Barrick states is “one of Barrick’s most senior leaders” and has “day to day Responsibility [and is] ultimately responsible for ensuring that human rights abuses do not happen” at Barrick’s mines. Barrick’s COO Africa has “overall responsibility for overseeing operations” at Barrick’s African mines.
Any material issue regarding human rights at an African mine is escalated to Barrick’s executives.
In light of Barrick’s human rights commitments and its direct involvement in security and human rights at North Mara, the Plaintiffs seek to hold Barrick accountable for acts of violence and rights violations allegedly carried out on its behalf by the TPF as an incident to the mining activities of its subsidiary in Tanzania.
Access to justice requires the lawsuit to be heard in Canada
In 2024, Barrick brought a motion in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice arguing that the lawsuit should be heard in Tanzania, not Canada.
The Plaintiffs argue that the lawsuit must be heard in Canada or it will not be heard at all. There are several reasons for this position.
First, the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is against Barrick, a Canadian company, for its own actions and inactions that led to the harms. Canadian courts are the proper venue to judge the actions of a Canadian corporation.
Second, there is no realistic possibility of justice in Tanzania. The Plaintiffs cannot afford legal counsel, and contingency fees are prohibited in Tanzania. Likewise, there is no realistic possibility of legal aid in Tanzania given the scale, scope and complexity of this claim against an extremely well-resourced transnational company. Current conditions in Tanzania make the already tenuous possibility of legal action in the country even more unlikely and dangerous. In October and November of 2025, a wave of state violence swept Tanzania in the leadup to and aftermath of an election that international observers concluded did not meet democratic standards. A joint statement by the Foreign Ministers of Canada, Norway, and the UK expressed concern over “credible reports of a large number of fatalities and significant injuries as a result of the security response to protests” by the TPF, the same police force accused of wrongdoing in this lawsuit.
The impossibility of bringing a lawsuit of this nature in Tanzania is self-evident. Despite decades of violence related to the North Mara mine, to date there have been no lawsuits brought against Barrick or North Mara Gold Mine Limited in Tanzania related to allegations of police violence at the mine.
On November 26, 2024, Justice E. M. Morgan issued a decision in favour of Barrick, dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claims for lack of jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs appealed the decision on the basis that the motion judge made fundamental errors of fact and law that tainted his analysis of the jurisdiction issue.
The Plaintiffs’ appeal was heard by a three-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal on November 27, 2025.
Press release, April 7, 2026, by lawyers Joe Fiorante and Cory Wanless
Tanzanian Plaintiffs react to Ontario Court of Appeal Ruling that Lawsuit Against Barrick Mining Corporation for Human Rights Abuse in Tanzania Cannot Be Heard in Canada
Today, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Matiko John v Barrick Gold Corporation. The decision prevents the plaintiffs from bringing a lawsuit in Ontario against the Toronto-based Barrick Mining Corporation for human rights abuses allegedly committed on its behalf by security forces at the company’s mine in Tanzania.
“This decision undermines access to justice in Canadian courts. Our courts should be open to victims who seek accountability against a Canadian company like Barrick that is in charge of security and human rights issues at its overseas mine.”
- Joe Fiorante, partner at CFM Lawyers
“The reality is, if this lawsuit is not heard in Ontario, it will not be heard at all.”
- Cory Wanless, Phillips Barristers
The lawsuit against Barrick sets out allegations of killings, shootings, beatings, and kidnappings at the North Mara mine carried out with impunity by the Tanzanian Police Force (TPF). The plaintiffs allege that the TPF operates as private security for the mine. The Court, siding with Barrick, ruled that any claim for these abuses would nonetheless have to be brought in Tanzania.
Mine-related violence committed by the TPF against members of the local population has been ongoing for over a decade. A Tanzanian parliamentary inquiry, human rights groups, and local residents have estimated that the number of people shot and killed by security forces at the mine is somewhere between 77 and 100. Some estimates put the number of injuries as high as 304.
Evidence presented in the Ontario case shows that senior Barrick executives are responsible for and have been directly involved in oversight of security at the mine. A 2022 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Barrick’s subsidiary and the TPF was reviewed and approved by Barrick executives. Under the current agreement, the TPF provides a heavily armed security force at North Mara with 142 officers, and liaison officers working in the mine’s security office, all paid for by Barrick’s subsidiary.
“This decision undermines access to justice in Canadian courts,” said Joe Fiorante, K.C., a partner at CFM Lawyers LLP and co-counsel for the plaintiffs. “Our courts should be open to victims who seek accountability against a Canadian company like Barrick that is in charge of security and human rights issues at its overseas mine.”
The plaintiffs are largely impoverished rural farmers and small-scale miners. They survive on a subsistence livelihood, and do not have the means to pay for counsel in Tanzania. Expert evidence presented to the Court showed that a lack of legal aid funding and a prohibition on contingency fee agreements impose insurmountable barriers to justice for those like the plaintiffs who cannot afford to pay for a lawyer out of pocket.
Current conditions in Tanzania make the already tenuous possibility of legal action in the country even more unlikely and dangerous. In October and November of 2025, a wave of state violence swept Tanzania in the leadup to and aftermath of an election that international observers concluded did not meet democratic standards.
A joint statement by the Foreign Ministers of Canada, Norway, and the UK expressed concern over “credible reports of a large number of fatalities and significant injuries as a result of the security response to protests”.
“Access to justice is not achieved by forcing these plaintiffs to seek help from an extremely underfunded legal aid system in Tanzania to litigate a complex human rights claim against a multinational corporation,” said Cory Wanless, a partner at Phillips Barristers PC and co-counsel for the plaintiffs. “The reality is, if this lawsuit is not heard in Ontario, it will not be heard at all.”
“I am deeply disappointed that I have been prohibited from seeking justice for my son’s death in a Canadian court even though Barrick is a Canadian company. I should be able to sue in Barrick’s home court where I can be represented by experienced human rights lawyers,” said Elizabeth Matiko Irondo, a plaintiff in the case. “I cannot pay for a lawyer in Tanzania, and I can’t believe I have been told to instead ask for representation from a legal aid system with almost no resources.”
The Plaintiffs will seek leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
+++
Key documents
Contacts
Joe Fiorante, CFM Lawyers, JFiorante@cfmlawyers.ca, 604-689-7555
Cory Wanless, Phillips Barristers, cory@phillipsbarristers.ca, 647-886-1914
Precedent setting Hudbay Minerals lawsuits
For 15 years, Rights Action worked closely with Cory Wanless (and his co-counsel Murray Klippenstein) on the landmark Hudbay Minerals lawsuits, that Hudbay was forced to finally settle in 2024. As part of that very difficult legal battle, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the Hudbay lawsuits can and should be heard in Canada.
The Hudbay lawsuits were filed in 2010 by 13 Maya Q’eqchi’ plaintiffs from Guatemala: the widow of a murdered community leader, a young campesino shot and left paralyzed, and 11 women gang-raped during the wholescale burning and destruction of their village.
Now, the Ontario Superior Court and Court of Appeal have seemingly taken a major step in the direction of again providing impunity for Canadian mining companies.
Article
What the Landmark Hudbay Minerals Lawsuits Exposed and Left Unresolved