Mining is one of Canada’s main industries. The country is a significant exporter of minerals and metals, and a global leader in the production of critical minerals such as copper, nickel and cobalt. It is rich in resources and home to many mines producing a diverse array of other minerals and metals, including gold, coal, iron ore concentrates, potash, aluminium, platinum group metals, diamonds, silver, zinc, molybdenum and uranium. Advanced mineral projects for critical minerals, including lithium and graphite, can also be found in Canada. Numerous junior mining companies that explore for minerals worldwide are domiciled in Canada.

Toronto, Ontario is Canada’s business capital and has been referred to as the mining finance capital of the world, with approximately 40% of global publicly listed mining and mineral exploration companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) or TSX Venture Exchange. Canadian stock exchanges facilitate the listing and financing of both junior and senior mining companies, and tax and securities laws offer significant incentives for investment in the mining industry in Canada.

Canada also boasts a large concentration of specialised professionals in the technical, engineering, legal, accounting and management fields that help sustain its robust mining industry.

This practice guide will highlight these features, many of which are unique to the Canadian mining industry.

Canada’s legal system is a combination of common law and civil law. The common law applies in all provinces and territories of Canada, except for Quebec, which is the only province with a civil law code.

As Canada is a federal state, the governmental powers and responsibilities applicable to mining are constitutionally allocated between its federal Parliament and ten provincial legislatures, with certain federal powers shifting to its three northern territories through statutory devolution, as discussed below.

Provincial legislatures have the power to enact laws in relation to provincial public lands, mineral titles and the exploration and extraction of minerals within their provincial jurisdictions. These powers include oversight of the development and operation of mines, conservation of mineral resources, and environmental protection. Provinces may also enact laws impacting the export of minerals and metals outside of the relevant province, subject to federal laws on exports and imports of minerals and metals.

Despite their independent governance, substantive mining regimes are generally consistent across Canadian provinces. However, these rules and regulations tend to be highly complex and are rarely codified in a single provincial statute.

Canada’s federal Parliament has the power to make laws affecting minerals and mining on federal lands, in addition to:

• exports and imports of minerals and metals;
• nuclear energy and minerals related thereto;
• inter-provincial transport of dangerous goods;
• use of explosives;
• navigable waters; and
• perhaps most importantly, protection and conservation of the environment where it intersects federal jurisdiction, which includes Indigenous rights, fisheries and oceans, inter-provincial infrastructure and shared natural resources, migratory birds and at-risk species and habitats.

Canada’s three territories (Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut) are within the federal government’s jurisdiction and are governed by territorial governments created by federal statutes. A statutory devolution process of legislative authority from the federal government to these territorial governments is almost complete, and provides each territory with additional self-governing power. Yukon and the Northwest Territories completed the devolution process in 2003 and 2014, respectively. In Nunavut, administrative responsibility for natural resources and public lands will shift to the territorial government pursuant to the Nunavut Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement signed in January 2024. The transfer of these responsibilities is currently underway and scheduled for completion in 2027, at which point Nunavut will implement its own mining legislation.

Property interests in surface and subsurface minerals are generally severed in Canada, largely as a function of early-settlement disposition procedures for land in what would ultimately become Canada. Generally, all lands were considered to be owned by the Crown until title was granted to settlers or municipalities via Crown (government) grant. A separate fee estate consisting of only surface rights, of both surface rights and mineral rights, or solely of mineral rights could be created by Crown grant of the fee simple estate, with or without reservation by the Crown of the mineral rights. Near the end of the 19th century, the Crown adopted a practice of reserving the minerals from fee simple grants, and modern federal and provincial legislation across Canada now provides that minerals are reserved from Crown land dispositions and that grants of mineral rights be of leasehold estate.

Section 109 of the Constitution Act, 1867 vests ownership of Crown minerals to the provincial Crown of the province where such minerals are situated. As a result, each province and territory’s respective discrete system of mineral tenure and legislation is accompanied by distinct procedures whereby mineral interests may be granted by the Crown and acquired by private legal persons. The Crown remains the largest holder of minerals in Canada (but open to private tenure and development), both as fee simple owner of Crown lands and through mineral reservations from historic Crown grants.

Title to minerals located in Canada’s three territories, the territorial sea, continental shelves and federal lands (national parks, harbours, First Nation reserves) vests in the federal Crown, and is governed as discussed in 1.2 Legal System and Sources of Mining Law.

Crown title to all Crown lands is subject to limitations pursuant to Aboriginal treaty rights, claims for Aboriginal title or other Aboriginal rights, and the provisions of any applicable land claim settlement agreement – in each case as enshrined and protected by the Constitution of Canada.

The federal and provincial governments serve as both grantors of rights and regulators of mining activity within their respective jurisdictions. The federal government, ten provinces and three territories each have their own ministries, agencies or other governmental bodies to oversee the mining sector. Often, multiple agencies will administer separate facets of the mining business.

Mineral rights have a constitutional basis wherein the rights and powers over mineral title and extraction have been apportioned between the federal and provincial governments.

Mineral rights in Canada are property rights and can be broken down into three distinct categories.

The Right of Entry on Crown or Private Lands Containing Crown Minerals

Holders of mineral claims (referred to as a mining claim in certain Canadian jurisdictions) have the right to enter upon, use, occupy and let down such part(s) of the surface rights of the claim as necessary for prospecting and efficient exploration of, and prospective development and operation of, mines, minerals and mining rights therein. In all Canadian jurisdictions, compensation will be owed to existing surface rights owners for such use.

Priority Over Other Miners

Recording or registering a mineral claim gives priority over other miners, so long as the claim remains in good standing. Where disputes arise between prospectors with respect to the recording, registration or priority of claims, inspections of the claims may be requested by a recorder or similar government official, and the recording of challenged claims may be appealed to a quasi-judicial officer or board in the applicable jurisdiction.

The Right to a Lease and to Enter Into Production

A mineral claim holder is entitled, and has the exclusive right, to apply for a mining lease over the area of the claim, following the prescribed periods of assessment work. A mining lease grants the right to enter into production from a mineral deposit and, upon production, to take title to the minerals and to process and dispose of them for valuable consideration.

The granting of mineral rights will depend on the location of the minerals. Most mineral rights are granted by statute of the provincial government of jurisdiction.

The provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario and Quebec, along with the three territories, have adopted some form of modified free-entry system, which allows individuals and corporations to obtain mineral rights by recording and/or registering (in the case of Ontario) mineral claims on their own initiative on mineral lands deemed open for recording.

The free-entry system relates only to the limited acquisition of mineral rights or temporary limited tenure by mineral claim. The acquired rights do not necessarily extend to actual permission for the industrial activities of exploration, development or mining, which remain subject to land use, environmental and other principles and laws and regulations. If a mineral claim holder wishes to develop a mineral deposit on the land subject to the claim, they must usually apply for and obtain a mining lease.

Alberta, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have adopted the Crown discretion mining system, under which the provincial government, as owner of the mineral resources, has the discretion to decide whether and on what terms a person may prospect for minerals. Governmental approval of a prospector’s activities generally takes the form of a licence or permit. If a permit holder wishes to develop a mineral deposit, it must usually apply for and obtain a Crown mining lease. Saskatchewan’s system is a hybrid model, adopting features of both the free-entry and Crown discretion mining systems.

Once recorded, mineral claims allow an explorer to claim a demarcated portion of available Crown lands as their exclusive area, solely for exploration for a specified period. Many jurisdictions in Canada have moved away from the physical staking of mineral claims (placement of visible markers on the ground to indicate the claimed area). Instead, mineral claims are acquired by selecting blocks of claims using an online mapping system, known as “map selection” or “map staking”.

Finally, applications to record a mineral claim must be filed with the applicable ministry or agency within the timeframe prescribed by the relevant provincial legislation. The recording is designed to give public notice of the area held by the recorder/claimant.

The holder of a mineral claim generally has the right to transfer or sell an interest in that claim freely without Crown consent (unlike leasehold tenures, which require Crown consent).

Security of rights under a mineral claim is generally maintained through satisfying prescribed work requirements or making payment in lieu thereof. The length of a mineral claim and terms for extension will vary across provinces. In British Columbia, a mineral claim is initially valid for one year, but may be maintained indefinitely on a year-to-year basis by satisfying statutory work requirements or paying a fee. If payment is made in lieu of work, the mineral claim may be extended by a minimum of six months and a maximum of one year from the current expiry date. Crown mining leases are granted for terms ranging from ten to 30 years. Before proceeding to develop a mine, the holder of a mineral claim will generally be required to convert a mineral claim to a mineral lease.

Mineral title can be terminated by the Crown, usually due to failure by the holder to comply with the applicable legislation or the conditions of the mining interest itself (eg, if prescribed work has not been performed, if reports have not been filed within the prescribed time, or if a Crown mining lease is used for some purpose other than mining).

Environmental Regulation

The development of mining projects in Canada is subject to environmental regulation at the federal and provincial levels, and requires, among other things, the completion of environmental impact assessments prior to commencing operations. In certain cases, these assessments must be repeated at subsequent stages of development. The regulatory objective is to determine whether approval for a mining operation should be granted based on the project’s likely environmental impacts. If a mining project receives approval from the relevant environmental authorities, significant obligations will be imposed on the developer for rehabilitation and restoration activities on affected lands following the completion of the project or mine closure.

In Canada, the broad scope of environmental regulation is shared between the federal government and the provinces. While municipal powers are generally limited with respect to the environment, municipalities are getting more involved in environmental regulation, and municipal by-laws and permitting requirements are important aspects to consider prior to and while implementing a mining project.

The federal government has primary jurisdiction over environmental matters of international and inter-provincial concern, as well as over fisheries, navigable waters and matters on federal lands, which includes Indigenous reserve lands and national parks.

All provinces and territories (except Nunavut, pending completion of the devolution process) are primarily responsible for environmental matters within their boundaries, including but not limited to the extraction and processing of natural resources like forestry, mineral resources and fossil fuels, and renewable energy industries like hydroelectricity, wind energy and cogeneration.

Environmental Licensing

Generally, mining regulators in Canada use three principal mechanisms for protecting the environment:

• mandatory environmental assessment before mine construction;
• regulation of the discharge of pollution into the environment; and
• a permits system for activities that may impair the environment.

Environmental assessment

The environmental assessment process generally seeks to determine and predict the environmental impact of proposed mine development initiatives before they are carried out, and generates detailed terms and conditions for mine construction and operation.

Canada’s Impact Assessment Act (IAA) requires the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to conduct an impact assessment when a federal authority provides lands or issues certain permits or approval to a project. An impact assessment must also be conducted if a project otherwise affects matters under federal jurisdiction. The responsible government minister may also order an impact assessment at their discretion.

Impact assessments go beyond the environmental effects of proposed projects to include matters such as:

• changes to the environment or to health, social or economic conditions;
• measures mitigating adverse effects;
• the need for and alternatives to the project;
• a project’s contribution to sustainability;
• the effects on the federal government’s ability to meet its environmental and climate change commitments;
• the impacts on Indigenous rights, communities and cultures; and
• comments received from the public and from provincial or Indigenous governments.

The IAA does not apply to all projects in Canada, but it generally applies to most major mining operations.

In 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that sections of the IAA encroached upon provincial jurisdiction, and were therefore unconstitutional. The IAA was amended in June 2024 to address such encroachment and improve regulatory certainty by focusing on mitigation of impact to Indigenous rights and adverse environmental effects within federal jurisdiction. Notably, the amended IAA definition of “adverse effects within federal jurisdiction” excludes greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but includes pollution to boundary or international waters and other marine pollution.

The new IAA also adds flexibility for the federal and provincial governments to use co-operative assessment processes for clean growth projects, and to enhance environmental protections.

In 2025, the federal government passed the Building Canada Act, which introduces a streamlined process to review projects deemed to be of national interest, potentially including those subject to the IAA. Designated projects that are listed as projects of national interest can be made exempt from certain IAA processes, and certain federal approvals are automatically granted, if all necessary requirements are met.

Regulation of the discharge of pollution

Much environmental regulation in Canada consists of prohibitions against the discharge of pollutants into the environment, except where authorised in advance. For example, the British Columbia Environmental Management Act forbids the introduction of waste into the environment so as to cause pollution (unless valid permits and approvals are obtained).

Other environmental regulations focus on the impact of projects on the broader environment, including wildlife and their habitats.

Environmental protection and permits

In mining, environmental standards are commonly prescribed in relation to air emissions, waste, water, noise and mine closure plans. Regulatory authorisation for discharges of effluents or emissions into the environment from a mine usually takes the form of permits tied to commitments to meet pre-established standards or guidelines tailored to the particular project.

Proponents are required to provide financial security against mine closure plans towards reclamation of the mine site as a condition of permit approval. This security safeguards communities from lasting environmental damage if a proponent becomes insolvent or prematurely abandons their project.

Each province has its own environmental permitting regime, often overlapping under multiple statutes and ministries. Permits are required for the discharge of waste, the building and storage of mine tailings and the use of water, among other activities. Mining operations may also require certain federal permits or approvals under various federal statutes, including:

• the Fisheries Act;
• the IAA;
• the Canadian Environmental Protection Act;
• the Canadian Navigable Waters Act;
• the Explosives Act;
• the Migratory Birds Convention Act; or
• the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

While Indigenous communities and governments do not have statutory authority over the environment, mining projects frequently intersect with the statutory and constitutional rights of Indigenous people. As such, the participation of Indigenous groups in the regulatory review process is fairly standard, and affected groups are given an opportunity to make submissions to statutory decision-makers in such cases.

Cultivated lands, park lands, railway lands, public roadways, environmentally sensitive lands (eg, game reserves and bird sanctuaries), heritage lands, airport lands, town sites and other such developed areas are typically not open for mining activity, nor are lands for which a claim, mining exploration licence, mining concession or mining lease has already been granted.

Government officials responsible for administering statutes governing the disposition of minerals on Crown lands have the discretionary power to designate lands as withdrawn or not open for mining activity.

Community relations are a critical part of the approval and ongoing operation of mining projects in Canada and can be an essential requirement for governmental regulators in the consideration and approval of such projects. For Indigenous communities that may be affected by a mining project, proactive community relations – both before and after a project is developed – can be a key factor in the regulatory approval of a project.

Under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Crown has a duty to “uphold the Honour of the Crown” to consult and, where appropriate, to accommodate Indigenous peoples where a government action or decision (such as granting an authorisation) may potentially adversely impact their established or asserted Aboriginal or treaty rights. Accommodation can take the form of project conditions to minimise or avoid potential adverse effects on the rights of Indigenous peoples. Most natural resource-related projects, including mining projects, will trigger the duty to consult.

British Columbia and Yukon court decisions indicate that consultation may be required as early as at the mineral claims registration stage. In response, British Columbia developed the Mineral Claims Consultation Framework, which provides for Crown consultation with Indigenous peoples as part of the mineral claim application process. Yukon is developing a similar framework, which has not yet been introduced.

While the consultation process is the Crown’s responsibility (both federal and provincial, within their respective jurisdictions), the Crown can delegate some or all of the procedural aspects of consultation to project proponents. In such cases, proponents must work closely with the Crown to carry out their consultation obligations. The objective of the consultation process is to provide a fair and transparent forum for the issues and concerns of Indigenous peoples to be heard and considered in light of the proposed project’s potential or actual impacts on their traditional lands, their rights and the environment. Where appropriate, the process should address such concerns through accommodation or other mitigation measures.

The obligations imposed by the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate vary according to the particular circumstances, and not every project requires the same degree of consultation or accommodation. A single Crown decision can affect many separate Indigenous groups with overlapping claims or interests. It is imperative that all relevant Indigenous groups are correctly identified and consulted, that proper consultation and accommodation records are kept, and that consultation with the affected Indigenous community is meaningful. Failure to follow these steps can result in:

• delays or challenges to grants of licences, permits and approvals;
• community protests;
• investor relations problems; and
• litigation seeking injunctions or the overturning of authorisations.

Indigenous groups are the most notable specially protected community in Canada. Indigenous law in Canada is based on constitutionally protected inherent and treaty rights, referred to in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 as Aboriginal and treaty rights. The Canadian Constitution recognises and affirms the rights of Aboriginal peoples of Canada (eg, Inuit, Métis, First Nations), and both the federal and provincial governments are obliged to “act honourably” when dealing with Aboriginal peoples in light of this constitutional protection. Aboriginal rights legally flow from historic Indigenous occupation and traditional use of land, historic and modern treaties, negotiated claim settlements and court-affirmed rights.

Aboriginal Rights, Aboriginal Title, Treaty Rights and Traditional Land Use Rights

Aboriginal rights in Canada are based upon and include customs, activities and traditions that have been exercised historically by Aboriginal peoples, including the right to hunt, trap, fish and gather on the land in question, and the protection of related economic, sacred, cultural and archaeological lands, sites, and flora and fauna.

Aboriginal title is a form of Aboriginal right that includes the right to the land itself derived from exclusive and unsurrendered occupation and use of land from prior to contact, and encompasses the right to exclusive benefit from and use and occupation of the land for a variety of purposes (not just traditional or cultural uses). Aboriginal title holders have the right to determine how land is used and the right to benefit from those uses. This is the highest order of Aboriginal land rights.

Treaty rights are those rights that an Aboriginal group enjoys as a result of having entered into a treaty (a unique legal instrument) setting out such rights with the Crown. Large parts of Canada are subject to treaties, while other parts are not (notably, large portions of British Columbia). The applicable treaty will determine which specific rights have been granted and are held.

Aboriginal rights may be established without surrender by treaty; the relevant practices may or may not be sufficient to support Aboriginal title and may be subject to, but protected by, treaty terms. Nevertheless, Aboriginal rights are recognised and protected, and will trigger the Crown’s duty to consult (and potentially accommodate) where they may be adversely affected by a Crown decision or action.

Justifiable Infringement of Aboriginal Rights

The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that certain Crown objectives can, in principle, justify the infringement of Aboriginal title or treaty or other Aboriginal rights, such as:

• development of agriculture;
• forestry;
• mining;
• hydroelectric power;
• general economic development;
• protection of the environment or endangered species;
• building of infrastructure; and
• settlement of foreign populations to support these objectives.

In order to justify an impairment or infringement of Aboriginal or treaty rights, the Crown must demonstrate a compelling and substantial governmental objective, and demonstrate that its actions are consistent with the fiduciary duty it owes to the Indigenous groups, including appropriate consultation (or attempts to consult) as a precursor to justification of the infringement. Proof that infringement is consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary duties to Indigenous peoples involves a three-part test:

• rational connection – the infringement must be necessary to achieve the Crown’s objective;
• minimal impairment – the Crown must go no further than necessary to achieve its objective; and
• proportionality of impact – the benefits expected to flow from the objective must not be outweighed by the adverse effects on the Aboriginal interest.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that provincial governments, when acting within their jurisdiction, may seek to justify an infringement of Aboriginal rights, including Aboriginal title.

The federal government, the Province of British Columbia and the Northwest Territories have attempted to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) via statute. However, the Supreme Court of British Columbia held that British Columbia’s UNDRIP statute did not implement UNDRIP into British Columbia law, nor create justiciable issues. Under the federal legislation approving the adoption of UNDRIP, Canada developed an action plan to achieve UNDRIP objectives in 2023, in consultation and co-operation with Indigenous peoples.

Impact Benefits Agreements

It has become common, through consultation processes, for proponents of resource projects to enter into impact-benefit, participation or other mutual benefit agreements with Indigenous peoples. Such agreements are often necessary to ensure that projects proceed with greater certainty while the legitimate concerns of affected Indigenous groups are addressed.

Depending upon the nature and strength of the proven or asserted Aboriginal right, benefits negotiated in these agreements can include revenue or income participation, employment opportunities, education and training initiatives, or contracting and business opportunities for affected Indigenous communities, as well as capacity-building initiatives and plans to mitigate the environmental impacts of the project. Some modern treaties contain terms requiring the negotiation of such agreements as a matter of law.

It is common, and in many cases expected, that mining projects will enter into some form of agreement with communities in proximity to and affected by such project. In some cases, community benefit and similar agreements are mandated by law – particularly in northern Canada, relating to modern land claims agreements such as the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.

ESG factors are used by investors to evaluate the sustainability of investments and corporate practices. There are currently no ESG-specific legislative regimes in Canada for the mining sector. However, there are emerging securities disclosure regimes, securities exchange commentary and industry guidance that relate to ESG factors, any of which may:

• carry the force of law;
• be as influential to proponents as direct legislation; and
• foreshadow the future of Canada’s ESG regulatory framework.

Securities Disclosure Regimes

In Canada, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) is primarily responsible for developing a harmonised approach to securities regulation across the country by working with provincial and territorial securities regulators to design policies and regulations to achieve that goal. A primary guidance tool of the CSA is the publication of national instruments. CSA-issued guidance is typically adopted by provincial and territorial regulators, ensuring some consistency to securities regulation across Canada. Despite the growing prominence of ESG in Canadian investment, the CSA has not yet developed comprehensive ESG guidance, although it has provided substantive guidance on certain environmental and governance matters that are typically viewed as being within the ESG rubric.

In 2021, the CSA published National Instrument 51-107, Climate-related Disclosure Requirements (NI 51-107) for public comment. The CSA has articulated that it will consider the impact of international developments prior to finalising NI 51-107, including certain United States Securities and Exchange Commission and IFRS International Sustainability Standards Board climate disclosure rules proposals, which were ultimately adopted in 2024.

Also in 2021, the Ontario Capital Markets Modernization Taskforce issued 74 recommendations to the Ontario government. Recommendation 41 outlines enhanced disclosure requirements for material ESG information, which would apply to all non-investment fund reporting issuers. These enhanced disclosure requirements would include the disclosure of:

• material governance, strategy and risk management information; and
• certain GHG emissions on a comply-or-explain basis.

The Canadian Sustainability Standards Board has issued sustainability standards regarding sustainability-related financial information and climate-related disclosure requirements.

Industry Standards

The Mining Association of Canada’s Towards Sustainable Mining (TSM) standard helps mining companies evaluate and manage environmental and social responsibilities, and addresses certain ESG matters. The TSM evaluates, independently validates and publicly reports on eight aspects of social and environmental performance against 30 distinct performance indicators. Although becoming a member of the Mining Association of Canada is voluntary for project proponents, all members are required to undergo site-level assessments for evaluation under the TSM standard.

Canada has one of the most highly regulated mining industries in the world, so evidence of illegal mining is limited to non-existent.

Generation Mining Limited – Marathon Palladium Project

Generation Mining Limited’s “Marathon Project” in Ontario was approved after long-term relationship agreements were reached with several First Nations. While none of the agreements were legally required, Generation tailored its environmental commitments for the Marathon Project with input from the relevant First Nation and Métis communities. The Marathon Project was approved by the government of Canada despite findings during a Joint Review Panel’s environmental assessment that the project was likely to cause an adverse cumulative effect on critical caribou habitat. The government of Canada’s approval contains 269 legally binding conditions to protect the environment throughout the life of the project, many of which were advanced by Generation in consultation with the Indigenous groups most likely to be adversely affected by the project.

Taseko Mines – Prosperity Project

In 2010, Taseko Mines’ “Prosperity Project” in British Columbia was denied regulatory approval after an adverse environmental assessment flagged issues with the draining of Teẑtan Biny (Fish Lake) and associated impacts to local First Nations communities, who strongly opposed the project. Taseko later proposed a “New Prosperity Project”, which attempted to address regulator concerns and did not involve the draining of Fish Lake. Taseko attempted to reach agreements with local First Nations and to seek remedies through the courts, but the Tsilqhot’in Nation remained opposed to the project, and the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear Taseko’s 2020 regulatory appeal in connection with the project. Taseko Mines, Tsilqhot’in Nation and the Province of British Columbia reached an agreement concerning the New Prosperity Project in June 2025.

Newmont Mining and Imperial Metals – Red Chris Mine Expansion

Newmont Mining and Imperial Metals are seeking an expansion of their existing Red Chris Mine in British Columbia. Mine operations are guided by an Impact Benefit and Co-Management Agreement with the Tahltan Nation, which includes the Nation in management decisions, provides employment opportunities for its members and allocates royalty payments. The project is under consideration by the Major Projects Office for inclusion as a project of national interest under the federal Building Canada Act, which may lead to accelerated project approvals.

National and provincial (regional) governments in Canada and abroad have introduced climate change legislation that affects the mining industry, in addition to international treaties. Climate change standards are generally becoming more stringent and are expected to increase compliance costs.

Climate change itself may also impose risks on mining industry operations due to increases in extreme weather events, rising sea levels, the melting of Arctic permafrost and other natural phenomena. Major Canadian mining companies consider these potentially significant effects on their operations.

Canada has a two-tiered approach to climate change regulation: federal and provincial. As detailed below, federal regulations prevail in cases where provincial regimes do not meet the minimum standards.

Federal Regulation

The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act implements the federal carbon pollution pricing (fee) scheme aimed at reducing GHG emissions, and in 2021 the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of this legislation. The federal scheme was comprised of two key parts:

• a fuel charge administered by the Canada Revenue Agency; and
• an output-based pricing system, whereby facilities pay a carbon price for emissions exceeding a maximum threshold.

However, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was amended in 2025 with a stated intention to refocus pollution pricing towards industry and away from a consumer carbon price. To do so, the fuel charge has been set to zero as of March 2025.

Federal climate change legislation affecting the mining industry also includes the Regulations Respecting Reduction in the Release of Methane and Certain Volatile Organic Compounds, which came into force in January 2023, and the overlapping environmental protection regimes discussed in 2. Impact of Environmental Protection and Community Relations on Mining Projects.

Provincial and Territorial Regulation

Each province and territory has its own supplementary climate change regime and is free to choose whether to implement a carbon pollution price or a cap-and-trade system, provided such system meets the minimum federal pricing and emissions reduction targets. Where a provincial system does not meet these minimums, the federal pricing system will apply as a backstop to ensure national compliance with the regulatory regime.

While fuel charge rates are currently set at zero, the federal fuel charge system applies in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nunavut and Yukon. The federal output-based pricing system applies in Yukon, Manitoba, Nunavut and Prince Edward Island.

Many sustainable development and corporate social responsibility initiatives affect the mining industry in Canada, including:

• the International Council on Mining and Metals – a collection of mining and metals organisations working to improve sustainability and requiring its members to meet certain principles of sustainable development;
• the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative – a partnership of governments, international organisations, companies, non-governmental organisations, investors, and business and industrial organisations aiming to improve transparency in transactions between governments and companies in the extractive industries;
• the World Gold Council’s Conflict-Free Gold Standard – a common approach by which gold producers can assess and provide assurance that gold has been extracted in a manner that avoids benefitting armed conflict or human rights abusers;
• the Consolidated Mining Standard Initiative – a proposed initiative to combine four mining standards, including the Mining Association of Canada, into one global standard that promotes continual improvement of ESG practices across metal and mineral value chains, which entered its public consultation phase in 2024; and
• the Towards Sustainable Mining standard, discussed in 2.7 ESG Guidelines and Regulations.

The federal government released “The Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy” on 9 December 2022, containing a list of 31 critical minerals that are deemed to be:

• essential to Canada’s economic security and its supply if threatened;
• required for Canada’s transition to a low-carbon economy; or
• a sustainable source of highly strategic critical minerals for Canada’s partners and allies.

In June 2024, this list was updated to add three more minerals: high-purity iron, phosphorous and silicon metal, for a total of 34 critical minerals.

The Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy addresses the following five core objectives:

• supporting economic growth, competitiveness and job creation;
• promoting climate action and environmental protection;
• advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples;
• fostering diverse and inclusive workforces and communities; and
• enhancing global security and partnerships with allies.

Corporations that carry on exploration and mining activities in Canada are subject to the general income tax rules that apply to all corporations operating in the country. Income tax is imposed at the federal level under the Income Tax Act (Canada), and at the provincial and territorial level each province and territory has its own income tax statute. The current Canadian federal corporate tax rate is 15%, and provincial/territorial tax rates range from 8% to 16%.

A non-resident corporation carrying on business in Canada is subject to Canadian income tax at the same tax rate as is applicable to Canadian resident corporations, in addition to a 25% “branch tax” on profits that are not reinvested in Canada. The branch tax is intended to approximate withholding tax on dividends; where the dividend withholding tax rate is reduced under an applicable tax treaty, the branch tax is generally correspondingly reduced. In addition, a non-resident is subject to income tax in Canada on the disposition of “taxable Canadian property”, which includes any interest in real or resource properties situated in Canada, and certain shares and partnership or trust interests that derive their value from such properties.

Canada levies a 25% withholding tax on certain payments to non-residents, including dividends, certain interest payments, rents and royalties. The rate of Canadian withholding tax may be reduced if the non-resident recipient is eligible to claim the benefits of one of Canada’s tax treaties.

Each province and territory also levies separate mining taxes or royalties on mining activities; the rates and basis of calculation vary depending upon the jurisdiction and the type of mineral. In many provinces and territories, the mining tax is computed by reference to mining profits, whereas certain provinces impose royalties that vary according to the specific mineral.

As in other sectors, a corporation engaged in exploration and mining activities is entitled to deduct expenses incurred for the purpose of earning income. A corporation may also deduct certain capital expenditures, including tax depreciation on tangible capital assets (capital cost allowance, or CCA). Canadian tax regimes applicable to exploration and mining recognise the capital-intensive nature of the mining industry. To ensure the international competitiveness of Canada’s resource industry, these regimes provide incentives designed to encourage investment, including the following.

• Mining taxes and royalties paid to a province or territory for income from a mineral resource are fully deductible when computing income for income tax purposes.
• The depreciation of tangible assets for income tax purposes is allowed under the CCA system, under which the capital cost of a depreciable asset is included in a particular asset class, for which a maximum annual depreciation rate is prescribed.
• Certain other resource or mining expenses may also be deducted on a current or declining-balance basis. These expenses are added to cumulative resource pools classified as Canadian exploration expenses (CEE) and Canadian development expenses (CDE).
1. CEE include expenses that are incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of determining the existence, location, extent or quality of a mineral resource in Canada. Generally, CEE may be deducted at a rate of 100%, up to the taxpayer’s income for the year. Any unclaimed CEE may be carried forward indefinitely. CEE deductibility for certain expenses has been restricted in the most recent federal budget.
2. CDE include expenses that are not CEE and are incurred for the purpose of bringing a new mine in Canada into production (ie, pre-production mine development expenses). CDE may be deducted at a rate of 30% on a declining-balance basis. Unclaimed CDE may be carried forward indefinitely. An enhanced deduction is also available for certain CDE incurred after 20 November 2018 and before 2028 (Accelerated CDE). Accelerated CDE incurred from 2024 through 2027 qualify for an additional deduction of 7.5%.
• Certain corporations carrying out exploration and mining activities in Canada can issue flow-through shares, pursuant to which the tax deductions attributable to certain expenditures incurred (such as CDE and CEE) are renounced by the corporation to the flow-through shareholders, such that the shareholders (and not the corporation) may deduct the renounced expenditures in computing their income. An additional 15% federal Mineral Exploration Tax Credit (METC) is available with respect to certain flow-through mining expenditures (generally referred to as “grassroots exploration” expenses). Many provinces offer parallel credits as high as 30% in some circumstances.
• The Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit (CMETC) is a 30% federal tax credit for eligible flow-through mining expenditures renounced under eligible flow-through share agreements entered into between 7 April 2022 and 31 March 2027. Among other requirements, eligible expenditures must be exploration expenses that primarily target deposits containing mostly (more than 50%) certain critical minerals. Eligible expenditures are not permitted to benefit from both the CMETC and the METC.
• A refundable 30% investment tax credit – the “Clean Technology Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit” – was introduced for 2024, and made available for corporations that acquired certain new clean technology manufacturing property used primarily to produce specified critical minerals.
• Contributions made to a qualifying environmental trust used to fund future reclamation are deductible in the year in which they are made (as opposed to reclamation expenses, which are generally recognised for income tax purposes at the time the reclamation is carried out).

Canada does not offer tax stabilisation agreements to non-resident investors in the mining industry.

A mining project may be disposed of by way of a sale of the mining assets or of the relevant entity in which the mining project is held. The disposition of capital property in Canada generally results in a capital gain (or loss), with one-half of any capital gain being included in income. The disposition of mining assets may result in income (in the case of resource property), recapture (in the case of depreciable property) and capital gains on capital property.

Non-residents are subject to tax in Canada on the disposition of “taxable Canadian property”, which includes:

• real property and resource property situated in Canada;
• property used by the taxpayer in certain businesses carried on in Canada; and
• certain shares and partnership or trust interests that derive their value from real property or resource properties situated in Canada.

The sale of mining projects may trigger the federally imposed goods and services tax/harmonised sales tax (GST/HST) or provincially imposed sales taxes in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec. Exemptions may apply, depending on the nature of the mining project being sold, and GST/HST and Quebec sales tax can often be fully recovered.

Most provinces impose land transfer taxes on transfers of real property. The rates of land transfer tax vary by province, and transfers of resource properties are often exempt from this tax.

Canada consistently ranks highly in world mining surveys for investment attractiveness. The Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2024 ranked Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador in the top ten most attractive regions in the world for investment.

Canada attracts considerable investment in the mining industry due to its favourable combination of:

• rich geology;
• stable legal and political system;
• high concentration of specialised professionals that service the mining industry;
• mining-specific and pro-investment tax incentives; and
• securities regulators and stock exchanges that are friendly to the mining industry.

In general, investment in a Canadian mining enterprise may require pre-closing approval under the Investment Canada Act (ICA), under which the federal government reviews foreign acquisitions of control of Canadian businesses above certain monetary thresholds. The review threshold ultimately depends on the transacting parties and whether a trade agreement exists between the non-Canadian party’s country and Canada (eg, the United States, European Union member states, the United Kingdom and Mexico). As of December 2025, the monetary thresholds are as follows:

• CAD2.079 billion in enterprise value for trade agreement investors that are not state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and non-trade agreement investors that are not SOEs where the Canadian business is, immediately prior to the investment, controlled by a trade agreement investor;
• CAD1.386 billion in enterprise value for World Trade Organization (WTO) investors that are not SOEs and non-WTO investors that are not SOEs where the Canadian business is, immediately prior to the investment, controlled by a WTO investor;
• CAD551 million in asset value for WTO SOEs and non-WTO investors that are SOEs where the Canadian business is, immediately prior to the investment, controlled by a WTO investor; and
• CAD5 million and CAD50 million in asset value for a non-WTO investor for direct and indirect investments, respectively.

The ICA currently requires post-closing notification of all other foreign acquisitions of control (within the meaning of the ICA) of Canadian businesses and of certain new foreign investment. However, there is no provincial or territorial mining legislation that restricts the ownership or development of mineral rights based on citizenship.

Where an investment is subject to a pre-closing review under the ICA, the foreign investor must demonstrate that the investment is of “net benefit” to Canada. This requires investors to provide legally binding financial and other undertakings to the federal government regarding their intended operation of the Canadian business.

In addition, the ICA national security regime allows the federal government to review any level of investment in or related to a Canadian business by foreign companies where it believes the investment may be “injurious to national security”.

Foreign mining companies are generally free to hold mineral rights directly or through Canadian subsidiaries. However, the federal government does limit non-resident ownership of uranium mines to 49% at the first stage of production. Exemptions may be granted in cases where it can be demonstrated that the project remains under Canadian control, or where Canadian partners cannot be found. There are no restrictions on uranium exploration by foreign persons or companies.

Recent Developments

In October 2022, the Canadian government issued its Policy Regarding Foreign Investments from State-Owned Enterprises in Critical Minerals under the ICA (Critical Minerals Policy), under which investments by SOEs and foreign-influenced private investors in Canada’s critical minerals sectors at any stage of the critical minerals value chain are subject to special rules, including that the direct or indirect participation of such foreign SOE or foreign-influenced private investor will support a finding that there are reasonable grounds to believe the investment could be injurious to Canada’s national security.

SOEs include:

• enterprises that are directly or indirectly owned or controlled by a foreign government; and
• enterprises that are “influenced directly or indirectly” by a foreign government.

Foreign-influenced investors are private investors closely tied to, subject to influence from or who could be compelled to comply with extrajudicial direction from foreign governments, particularly non-likeminded governments such as China (Hong Kong), Russia, North Korea and Iran.

In 2022, pursuant to the Critical Minerals Policy, the federal government ordered the divestiture by certain Chinese entities of their investments in Canadian companies with critical mineral projects. In March 2023, the government clarified its position to not force existing, legacy Chinese investors to divest shares in three major Canadian mining companies, suggesting it would not “start looking backwards at investments”.

On 11 January 2024, TSX-listed Solaris Resources Inc. (Solaris) announced that it had entered into a subscription agreement (Proposed Zijin Transaction) for an approximately CAD130 million private placement of common shares of Solaris by an affiliate of China-based Zijin Mining Group Co., Ltd. (Zijin). Upon closing of the private placement, Zijin would have owned approximately 15% of the Solaris shares, along with other rights. A national security review of the Proposed Zijin Transaction was initiated following a voluntary notification under the ICA. Four months later, with no decision rendered for the national security review, on 21 May 2024 Solaris announced that the Proposed Zijin Transaction was voluntarily terminated. In late 2024, Solaris exited Canada for Switzerland.

In May 2024, Pan American Silver Corp. (PAAS) announced an agreement to sell 100% of its interest in Peru’s La Arena gold mine for USD300 million to Jinteng (Singapore) Mining (Jinteng), a subsidiary of Zijin. In response to a voluntary notification, in June 2024 the ICA Minister advised that he “may” order a formal national security review under the ICA. Jinteng filed a judicial review application in the Federal Court of Canada, arguing that the ICA Minister lacked jurisdiction. The ICA Minister agreed to a settlement, whereby the proposed transaction was approved subject to a joint undertaking from PAAS and Zijin to enter into an offtake agreement securing 60% of the future copper concentrate supply from the La Arena II project upon commencement of commercial production.

In July 2025, the Canadian government announced that, regardless of the nationality of the non-Canadian investor, proposed acquisitions of “important Canadian mining companies engaged in significant critical minerals operations” that are subject to a net benefit review will only be approved “in the most exceptional circumstances”. Anglo American PLC’s proposed CAD20 billion acquisition of Canada’s Teck Resources Ltd. is currently undergoing a net benefit review pursuant to this policy.

Amendments to the ICA are expected to become effective in the summer of 2026. In part, the amendments will create a mandatory, suspensory pre-closing notification regime for prescribed investments in certain sensitive sectors, including critical minerals. The amendments will also broaden government discretion to order pre-closing net benefit to Canada reviews for proposed acquisitions of control of Canadian businesses, unless the investor is from a trade agreement country.

The developments discussed in this section portend significant scrutiny on proposed acquisitions and investments in Canadian mining companies by Chinese, Russian, North Korean and Iranian investors and other state-owned or influenced entities, including non-Chinese companies with material Chinese shareholders.

In November 2024, the federal government released its annual report covering foreign investment reviews under the ICA from April 2023 through March 2024. The report confirmed that foreign investment continues to trend toward pre-COVID-19 levels. It also noted a decrease in the number of extended national security reviews, down from the peak number of reviews seen in the 2022–2023 fiscal year.

Canada is a party to several multilateral free trade agreements and investment agreements, which give foreign investors (including Canadian mining companies) the right to file a claim for damages against the government of the host country for expropriation or unfair or discriminatory treatment of their investments and investors. The Canadian government’s Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement Model confirms that Canada intends to continue providing international dispute resolution protections to foreign investors.

To date, Canadian investors in the mining and oil and gas industries have been relatively more aggressive in asserting arbitration rights to safeguard their offshore interests, with the majority of their complaints targeting Latin America. Investors must now submit claims under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

The Canadian mining sector is subject to Canadian economic sanctions legislation as well as foreign anti-corruption legislation, including the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act, which requires Canadian mining companies to implement mandatory reporting standards and report annually on payments to all levels of government, domestically and internationally.

In Canada, the traditional sources of financing for exploration-stage projects have been capital raises through equity markets (eg, private placements or public offerings) and option/joint venture transactions – eg, a junior company that owns a project grants an option to a more senior company for it to earn a controlling interest in the project in exchange for exploration expenditures (or cash payments). In option/joint venture transactions, the junior company is not required to fund the initial stages of the project and is “carried” until the senior company earns its majority interest, following which the parties form a joint venture and fund the project pro rata.

As a project evolves into the development phase, debt financing becomes more accessible (eg, bond or convertible debt offerings, or bank facilities). Once a production decision is made based on a feasibility study, project financing is the most common source of financing for mine construction, with the assets of the project being offered as security. Such project financing may be supplemented by offtake agreements, where the producer will sell all or a percentage of future production from a specific facility to an end user.

Other less traditional finance methods, such as royalties and metal streaming, are used in financing all stages of a project, even well before the construction of a mine. Stream financings are where a company agrees to sell a certain percentage of one or more of the metals/minerals produced from a mining operation to a streaming company, at a fixed price that may be lower than the prevailing market rate, in exchange for an upfront payment. This enables a company to wholly or partially monetise a specific metal/mineral prior to physically extracting it.

Domestic and international securities markets play an especially crucial role in the financing of mining projects in Canada. Junior companies rely on raising capital through Canadian equity markets (and, in some cases, other markets, such as the United States, Australia and London), especially at the early stages of a project. The amount of investment a junior company can attract depends on commodity prices, world economic health, the state of global mining cycles and competition from other industries for this risk capital.

The types of security available over mining-related assets in Canada differ depending on the stage of development and the location of the project.

For exploration-stage projects of Crown minerals, a lender or financer can obtain minimal security due to the nature of the mineral tenure that is granted early in a project in most provinces or territories. The type of security that can be granted will depend on the statute creating the interest and the related registry. Some statutes deem mineral claims to be a form of personal property, while others deem them to be an interest in land equivalent to a lease.

Regardless of the interest, land title statutes and personal property security legislation typically do not apply to Crown minerals, and security must be registered in accordance with the mining statute. Most provincial mineral statutes and registries will, however, allow notices to be filed on mineral claims, giving notice of the security granted over such mineral claims. Many of these statutes do not provide a priority regime and are merely a notice to third parties regarding a potential encumbrance or interest, and the priority is governed by common law.

As a project advances, most companies will upgrade their mineral claims to a more secure type of tenure, typically a mining lease (or equivalent). In most jurisdictions, mining leases are considered an interest in land and, therefore, mortgages and other encumbrances can be filed on title, which could provide priorities and enforcement rights to lenders or other financers, depending on the jurisdiction and nature of the mining tenure.

When the project has advanced to the stage of mine construction, the security for project financing is generally provided at the project level, by the project entity that owns the project and the minerals.

Exploration and Investment

Investor interest in the Canadian mining sector has been bolstered in recent years by:

• higher commodity prices, particularly for precious and energy-related minerals and metals;
• global demand for green energy-related minerals and metals; and
• traditional investment diversification during times of economic uncertainty.

Precious metals (mainly gold) continued to be Canada’s leading commodities in 2024, but to a lesser extent as more funding is being directed toward critical minerals projects, including those hosting rare earth elements. Exploration spending for uranium has also climbed significantly in recent years, and this trend is expected to continue. In 2025, the government of Canada announced a CAD2 billion “critical minerals sovereign fund” to be applied towards project investments, loan guarantees and offtakes.

In 2024, Canada’s exploration spending remained similar to the previous year, and long-term forecasts suggest more growth for both junior and senior mining companies as demand strengthens for precious metals and clean energy transition minerals.

Reconciliation With Indigenous Peoples

Recognition of Aboriginal title over private lands

In August 2025, the British Columbia Supreme Court found that the Cowichan tribes hold Aboriginal title over roughly 800 acres in the City of Richmond, British Columbia, including over private lands used for residential, commercial and industrial purposes (Cowichan Tribes v Canada (AG)). The Court determined that fee simple title, commonly known as private land, can overlap with Aboriginal title. While certain government-held parcels were deemed to be defective and invalid, fee simple titles held by third parties remained intact for the time being. The Court noted that, if the First Nations sought to defeat the fee simple ownership that overlapped with their Aboriginal title claim, they would need to apply to the courts again. However, it is uncertain how both interests can coexist in practice, since both convey exclusive rights to use and occupy land. The Court also ruled that provisions in British Columbia’s Land Title Act that provide for indefeasibility of title and protection against recovery do not apply to Aboriginal title. This substantially weakens a key legal provision for the security of private property in the province.

In April 2024, British Columbia and the Haida Nation signed the Haida Title Lands Agreement, recognising Aboriginal title over the Haida Gwaii archipelago, including privately owned lands. This was the first agreement to expressly recognise Aboriginal title over private property. Canada signed a similar agreement with the Haida Nation in December 2024.

Indigenous ownership in projects

Indigenous ownership in resource-based projects is increasing throughout Canada. This trend provides Indigenous communities with independent and self-governing authority over resources overlapping their traditional territories and concurrently increases certainty for projects within such communities. Governments are also facilitating Indigenous equity in projects. Such participation is seen as a form of economic reconciliation, allowing Indigenous communities to benefit directly from resource development on their territories.

Direct Indigenous involvement in project approvals and land use planning

Indigenous communities in British Columbia are increasingly participating in joint decision-making processes through agreements established following the Province’s UNDRIP implementation legislation. For example, British Columbia and the Tahltan Central Government have entered into consent-based agreements for the assessment of proposed mining projects, including the Eskay Creek Revitalization Project (2022) and the Red Chris Porphyry Copper-Gold Mine (2023). In 2025, British Columbia initiated joint land-use planning processes with five First Nations in the northwest corner of the province. These plans are being co-developed by the participating First Nations and the Province through consensus-based processes, with First Nation approval required for implementation.