i wrote an essay on this topic last year, specifically about the constitutionality of these cases. my prof was a bit of an idiot regarding the topic. he sent us in the wrong direction, with the intent of us concluding they weren't constitutional under the separation of powers (which is the canadian equivalent to 'states rights' - canada is a more centralized state, largely because it was confederated right after the civil war and the people that wrote the constitution took the american civil war as a lesson in what *not* to do. ironic, given that madison's arguments for state rights essentially amount to a divide and conquer strategy. digressed.). however, i was able to rip the reality apart...

this is a type of law called private international law and the existing precedents are self-contained within the courts, not subject to statute (unless overridden by it). the valid constitutional concept is the independence of the judiciary, not the division of powers.

the reason that this case went through is because there was a new precedent set recently on the issue in this case:
http://canlii.ca/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc17/2012scc17.pdf

that means the deduction that hudbay has a connection to canada is the correct explanation, but only relevant to that recent precedent. that precedent (along with the ruling to merely accept this case) should make it easier for these cases to go through.

however, the value of these cases is questionable. how many villagers in the developing world can afford this? to the extent that they can, and the extent that this approach is successful, are companies going to merely write off litigation as a cost of doing business? will they ensure that there aren't survivors?

this behaviour is criminal, and there should be criminal actions against the people involved. rape, murder, torture....these aren't issues of civil liability...

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19516-the-end-of-impunity-indigenous-guatemalans-bring-canadian-mining-company-to-court