Canada: Nevsun allowed Eritrean workers’ customary-international-law claims to proceed
In Nevsun Resources Ltd. v Araya, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Nevsun’s appeal from the refusal to strike claims by Eritrean workers. The divided decision allowed customary-international-law claims to proceed at the pleading stage without determining liability.
- Development
- 28 February 2020
- Published
- 29 October 2026
- Sources checked
- 29 October 2026
This newly written historical account concerns the dated record above. It is not a recovered article or document from the former publisher. Later developments are identified separately.
The claims from the Bisha mine
On 28 February 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Nevsun Resources Ltd.’s appeal from a ruling that allowed Eritrean workers’ claims to continue. The workers alleged that they had been subjected to forced labour, slavery, cruel treatment and crimes against humanity while working at the Bisha mine in Eritrea. These were allegations in a civil action, not findings made after a trial. Supreme Court of Canada judgment Case in Brief
Our analysis: The procedural posture limits what the decision establishes. The Court considered whether the claims should be struck before trial, on the record and legal arguments then before it. Dismissing the appeal kept the claims alive; it did not decide that the alleged treatment occurred, that Nevsun was responsible, or that the workers were entitled to damages.
Act of state and customary international law
A majority of the Court concluded that the act of state doctrine was not part of Canadian common law. It also held that the workers’ claims based on customary international law were not plainly bound to fail and could proceed. The justices were divided on the customary-law issues; the Court’s case summary describes the disagreement, but the judicial reasons control the decision. Supreme Court of Canada judgment Court’s case summary
Our analysis: The ruling did not resolve every question about how the pleaded customary norms would apply to a Canadian corporation. At the motion-to-strike stage, the relevant question was whether the claims were legally incapable of succeeding, not whether the workers had proved them. The majority’s conclusion therefore opened a route for argument and evidence in later proceedings without establishing a final corporate liability rule.
A pleading-stage result
The judgment dismissed Nevsun’s appeal against the refusal to strike, leaving the case to continue in the lower court. It was not a damages award or a final determination of liability. The majority’s treatment of act of state and customary international law must also be read alongside the dissents, which disagreed on whether the claims could proceed. Supreme Court of Canada judgment
Our analysis: Nevsun is significant for what it permitted litigants to argue at an early stage, not for a finding that the pleaded abuses were proved. The divided reasons also caution against describing the decision as a single, comprehensive endorsement of all customary-international-law claims against corporations. Further proceedings would have been needed to determine the factual and legal merits.