Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiffs allege that provincial jade mining bans constituted unlawful expropriation of their mineral interests without compensation.

• The claim includes misfeasance in public office by government officials who allegedly acted unlawfully and with knowledge of likely harm.

• Plaintiffs were not consulted during the Province’s agreement with the Tahltan Central Government regarding mining restrictions.

• Specific allegations include discriminatory enforcement of mining bans and delayed permit processing targeting the plaintiffs.

• Defendants argued the amended claim lacked sufficient particulars to support the tort of misfeasance.

• The court allowed the amendment, holding that the pleading met the threshold for advancing the claim at this procedural stage.

Facts and outcome of the case

Cassiar Jade Contracting Inc., the largest jade producer in British Columbia, and Glenpark Enterprises Ltd., a smaller family-run jade exploration business, brought an action against the Province of British Columbia. They alleged that government actions relating to jade mining bans effectively expropriated their mining rights and constituted misfeasance in public office. The bans stemmed from Orders in Council issued in 2020, 2021, 2023, and most recently in 2024, following pressure from the Tahltan Central Government asserting unproven Aboriginal title over the mining region.

The plaintiffs claimed they were excluded from consultations and were misled by the Province’s permitting officers, who encouraged continued operations even as the regulatory framework was shifting. They further alleged that government actors, particularly one referred to as “Public Servant #1,” delayed processing their permits in a way that ensured they would be caught by the ban, while allegedly allowing other companies to continue mining under the guise of “reclamation work.” These actions, they argued, were deliberate, unlawful, and knowingly harmful.

In response, the Province contested the plaintiffs’ application to amend their notice of civil claim, arguing that the proposed amendments failed to adequately plead the essential elements of misfeasance in public office. They claimed the allegations lacked sufficient specificity about which public officers committed the misconduct and how the legal thresholds for the tort were met.

The court granted the plaintiffs’ request to amend their claim. It found that the amended pleadings, when read in context, sufficiently alleged the elements of the tort of misfeasance in public office. It noted that the specific identities of the government actors involved were likely known only to the defendants at this point in the proceedings. The court also emphasized that the goal of pleadings at this stage is to define the scope of discovery and allow the real issues to be determined at trial. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not need to identify each public servant by name at this point, so long as the allegations were clear enough to inform the defendant of the case it had to meet.

While this decision does not determine liability or award damages, it allows the plaintiffs to proceed with an expanded legal claim. A five-week trial is scheduled to begin on June 8, 2026. The plaintiffs were awarded costs for the application, but only “in the cause,” meaning they would recover those costs only if they succeed at trial.