In 2022, [1] and again in 2024, [2] Indigenous Kuria from villages surrounding North Mara Gold Mine in Tanzania filed cases in Canada against Barrick Gold Corporation [3] (Barrick) for alleged “acts of extreme violence committed by Mine Police in the service of Barrick in and around the North Mara Mine.” [4] The 29 plaintiffs include victims and their family members who allege that police, paid under Memorandums of Understanding with the mine to provide additional security to the mine area, caused deaths and injuries to local Kuria peoples.
Between October 15-17, 2024, hearings were held in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto in response to Barrick’s plea to have the two filed cases “dismissed or permanently stayed on the basis that this Court lacks jurisdiction or, alternatively, on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens.”[5]
On November 26, 2024, the two cases were dismissed. Justice E.M. Morgan found that the “Court lacks jurisdiction to determine the matters at issue.”[6] Noting further that “[i]f the Court had jurisdiction, the actions would be permanently stayed on the basis of forum non conveniens.”[7] The substance of the claims brought by the plaintiffs was not considered in the October 2024 hearings. Legal counsel for the plaintiffs has appealed this ruling.
MiningWatch Canada attended the hearings in Toronto and has prepared a report “Reflections on Legal Proceedings in Canada against Barrick Gold Regarding the North Mara Gold Mine in Tanzania.” In this report we:
- Expand on the legal context for the cases brought against Barrick in Canada
- Reflect on the use of national police and military as security by Canadian multinational mining companies
- Consider the issue of parent company accountability
- Discuss legal arguments made by counsel for Barrick in the context of international human rights law
- Reflect on the role of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights
- Provide excepts from: the Plaintiff’s Factum; Barrick’s Factums; affidavits from Grant Beringer, Johann Sebastiaan Bock, Apolinary Lyambiko; cross examination of Johann Sebastiaan Bock; and Justice E.M. Morgan’s ruling
[1] Statement of Claim Sophia Matiko John v. Barrick Gold Corporation. 23 November 2022. https://www.barrickontrial.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/22_11_23_Statement-of-Claim-North-Mara.pdf
[2] Statement of Claim Ester Nyangi Petro v. Barrick Gold Corporation. 5 February 2024. https://www.barrickontrial.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/24-02-05_Statement-of-Claim_North-Mara.pdf
[3] Barrick has held a majority share, through subsidiaries, in the North Mara Gold Mine since 2006. In September 2019, Barrick Gold purchased the shares of minority shareholders in its subsidiary, Acacia Mining, in a $1.2bn buy-out. Barrick now has an 84% indirect ownership in the North Mara Gold Mine. The Government of Tanzania owns the remaining 16%.
[4] Statement of Claim Sophia Matiko John v. Barrick Gold Corporation. 23 November 2022. https://www.barrickontrial.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/22_11_23_Statement-of-Claim-North-Mara.pdf
[5] Matiko John v. Barrick Gold Corporation, 2024 ONSC 6240 COURT FILE NOs.: CV-22-00-690649-0000 CV-24-00-714148-000 DATE: 20241126. https://www.barrickontrial.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2024-MatikoJohnAll_V_Barrick-Gold_ONSC.pdf
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.