[3] The case concerned human rights violations allegedly committed against workers at an Eritrean mine majority-owned by Nevsun Resources, a Canadian firm.

[9] Researchers have documented a significant number of human rights violations associated with the operations of Canadian-domiciled mining firms abroad.

[12] Before the Supreme Court's decision in Nevsun, Canadian firms had been described as operating with "effective impunity" with respect to human rights abuses abroad.

[13] The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade of the House of Commons noted such concerns in a June 2005 report.

[20] Subsequent domestic efforts including Bill C-300, which would have created a mechanism to revoke federal funding from companies whose conduct did not conform to human rights and environmental best practices, were defeated.

The Ombudsperson is empowered to investigate alleged human rights violations involving Canadian firms operating outside Canada.

In November 2014, they brought a class action against Nevsun in the Supreme Court of British Columbia claiming damages in tort and for breach of customary international law.

[3][32][33] The action was the first Canadian lawsuit alleging violations of customary international law to reach the trial stage.

[3][36] The workers alleged that they had been engaged by sub-contractors of the mine's operating company under a policy of military conscription in Eritrea known as the National Service Program.

[51] Nevsun appealed only on the act of state doctrine and customary international law issues, and not the forum non conveniens point.

In a passage quoted by several commentators,[2][3] Justice Abella began her opinion as follows:This appeal involves the application of modern international human rights law, the phoenix that rose from the ashes of World War II and declared global war on human rights abuses.

It is not “plain and obvious”[a] to me that the Eritrean workers’ claims against Nevsun based on breaches of customary international law cannot succeed.

Justices Brown and Rowe dissented only on the customary international law issue,[58] arguing that corporations cannot be held liable in a civil suit for alleged breaches of international legal norms[3] and that the appropriate remedies for breaches of such norms should be provided for by statute, not the common law.

[59] While they generally agreed with the analysis of Justices Brown and Rowe with respect to the customary international law issue, they would have held that the act of state doctrine did bar the plaintiffs' claims.

[60] They noted that "[the majority] cites no cases where a corporation has been held civilly liable for breaches of customary international law anywhere in the world, and we do not know of any.

"[61] William S. Dodge, a professor at UC Davis School of Law, noted that Nevsun represents part of a "trend" in which countries around the world, including the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, have opened the door to holding corporations liable in their domestic courts for violations of international law.