BC Court Upholds Inmet Judgement Against Homestake Canada

On November 14, 2003, the BC Court of Appeal upheld Inmet Mining Corp.’s $88.2 million judgment against Homestake Canada Inc. and increased the award by allowing Inmet’s cross-appeal for interest. The total recovery, including costs, is $115 million.

The action began after Homestake’s December 1997 repudiation of its agreement to purchase Inmet’s Troilus gold mine in Northern Quebec for $178 million alleging material adverse non-disclosures by Inmet. Inmet commenced an action seeking specific performance of the agreement in February 1997. Justice Deborah Satanove of the BC Supreme Court, allowed Inmet’s claim and awarded $88.2 million in damages in lieu of specific performance, representing the difference between the contract price and the mine’s value as at the date of trial. In June 2003, Justice Risa Levine of the Court of Appeal issued reasons, concurred by Justices Anne Rowles and Kenneth Smith, upholding the trial judge’s finding that Inmet had not breached its contractual disclosure obligations and allowing Inmet’s cross-appeal by awarding court order interest.

Inmet was represented by Nathanson, Schachter & Thompson in Vancouver, with a team that included Irwin Nathanson, QC, Stephen Schachter, QC, and Murray Clemens, QC. At trial, Homestake was represented by Rod Hayley and Lisa Peters of Lawson Lundell in Vancouver. On appeal, Homestake was represented by William Berardino, QC, and Pamela Cyr of Berardino & Harris in Vancouver; and by Kent Thomson and Luis Sarabia of Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP in Toronto.