| Contingencies | n Contingencies Certain conditions may exist as of the date the financial statements are issued that may result in a loss to the Company, but which will only be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. The impact of any resulting loss from such matters affecting these financial statements and noted below may be material. Litigation and Claims In assessing loss contingencies related to legal proceedings that are pending against us or unasserted claims that may result in such proceedings, the Company, with assistance from its legal counsel, evaluates the perceived merits of any legal proceedings or unasserted claims as well as the perceived merits of the amount of relief sought or expected to be sought. Pascua-Lama – Proposed Canadian Securities Class Actions Proposed securities class actions have been commenced against the Company and four of its former senior executives (Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver) in Ontario and Quebec. The proceedings pertain to the Company’s public disclosures concerning the Pascua-Lama Project. In the Ontario litigation, the Plaintiffs have alleged that Barrick made false and misleading statements to the investing public during the period from approximately July 2011 to October 2013 relating to capital cost and schedule estimates for Pascua-Lama, environmental compliance matters in Chile, as well as various accounting and financial reporting matters. The claim for damages is stated to be more than $3 billion. In the Quebec litigation, the Plaintiff has alleged that Barrick made misrepresentations during the period from approximately April 2011 to October 2013 concerning environmental compliance matters in Chile. An unspecified amount of damages is being sought. In both Ontario and Quebec, the Plaintiffs have asserted claims under the secondary market liability provisions of applicable securities legislation (as well as other claims). In order to pursue statutory claims of that nature, “leave to proceed” must be obtained from the Court. In addition, in order to pursue any claims on behalf of a class of shareholders, an order certifying an action as a class proceeding must be obtained from the Court. In March 2020, the Superior Court of Quebec denied the Plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed and for class certification in their entirety. The Plaintiff appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal, which rendered its decision on December 19, 2022. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. It granted leave to proceed as against the Company, Mr. Sokalsky and Mr. Al-Joundi in respect of a statutory secondary market claim pertaining to a statement concerning the water management system in Chile made by the Company in its Management’s Discussion & Analysis for the second quarter of 2012. The Court of Appeal also granted class certification in respect of that claim, authorizing the Plaintiff to represent a class of shareholders who acquired Barrick shares during the period from July 26, 2012 to October 31, 2012. The remainder of the appeal was dismissed. The matter was returned to the Superior Court of Quebec and a case management judge was assigned. On March 20, 2023, the Superior Court issued an Order suspending certain deadlines for three months on consent of the parties. This suspension was subsequently extended until November 15, 2023 and has now expired. In October 2019, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the Plaintiffs leave to proceed as against the Company, Mr. Sokalsky and Mr. Al-Joundi in respect of a claim concerning the same statement in Barrick’s Management’s Discussion & Analysis for the second quarter of 2012 referred to above. The Court dismissed all of the other statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims at issue. The Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. In February 2021, the Court of Appeal allowed the Plaintiffs’ appeal in part. The Court of Appeal set aside the Superior Court’s decision dismissing statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims pertaining to the Company’s capital cost and scheduling estimates as well as to certain accounting and financial reporting issues, and remitted to the Ontario Superior Court the issue of whether leave to proceed should be granted in respect of those claims. The Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court’s decision dismissing statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims pertaining to certain environmental matters in Chile. The Superior Court heard the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to proceed in respect of the cost, scheduling, accounting and financial reporting claims in January 2022. The Court decided the motion in decisions released on March 22 and July 18, 2022. The Court granted leave to proceed as against Barrick, Mr. Regent and Mr. Sokalsky in respect of claims pertaining to capital cost and schedule estimates disclosed by the Company in 2012. All of the remaining cost and scheduling claims, and all of the accounting and financial reporting claims, were dismissed. The Plaintiffs once again filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The hearing of the appeal was held on December 13, 2023. On February 13, 2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Plaintiffs’ appeal in its entirety. The motion for class certification in Ontario has not yet been heard. The Ontario Superior Court has indicated that it does not intend to hear that motion until after the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to proceed has been fully determined. The Company intends to vigorously defend the proposed Canadian securities class actions. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from any of the proposed class actions, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome in either Ontario or Quebec. Pascua-Lama – SMA Regulatory Sanctions In May 2013, Compañía Minera Nevada (“CMN”), Barrick’s Chilean subsidiary that holds the Chilean portion of the Pascua-Lama project (the “Project”), received a resolution (the “Original Resolution”) from Chile’s environmental regulator (the Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente, or “SMA”) that required CMN to complete the water management system in accordance with the Project’s environmental permit before resuming construction activities. The Original Resolution also required CMN to pay an administrative fine of approximately $16 million, which CMN paid in May 2013. In June 2013, a group of local farmers and indigenous communities challenged the Original Resolution. The challenge, which was brought in the Environmental Court of Santiago, claimed that the fine was inadequate and requested more severe sanctions, including the revocation of the Project’s environmental permit. The SMA and CMN, which was joined as a party to this proceeding, defended the Original Resolution. On March 3, 2014, the Santiago Environmental Court annulled the Original Resolution and remanded the matter back to the SMA for further consideration in accordance with its decision (the “Environmental Court Decision”). On December 30, 2014, the Chilean Supreme Court declined to consider CMN’s appeal of the Environmental Court Decision. As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, on April 22, 2015, the SMA reopened the administrative proceeding against CMN in accordance with the Environmental Court Decision. On that same date, CMN was notified that the SMA had initiated a new administrative proceeding for alleged deviations from certain requirements of the Project’s environmental approval. In May 2015, CMN submitted a compliance program to address certain allegations and presented its defense to the remainder of the alleged deviations. The SMA rejected CMN’s proposed compliance program on June 24, 2015 and denied CMN’s administrative appeal of that decision on July 31, 2015. On December 30, 2016, the Environmental Court rejected CMN’s challenge and CMN declined to appeal this decision. On June 8, 2016, the SMA consolidated the two administrative proceedings against CMN into a single proceeding. On January 17, 2018, CMN received the revised resolution (the “Revised Resolution”) from the SMA, which reduced the original administrative fine from approximately $16 million to $11.5 million and ordered the closure of existing surface facilities on the Chilean side of the Project in addition to certain monitoring activities. The Revised Resolution did not revoke the Project’s environmental approval. CMN filed an appeal of the Revised Resolution on February 3, 2018 with the First Environmental Court of Antofagasta (the “Antofagasta Environmental Court”). On October 12, 2018, the Antofagasta Environmental Court issued an administrative ruling ordering review of the SMA sanctions. The Antofagasta Environmental Court rejected four of the five closure orders contained in the Revised Resolution and remanded the related environmental infringements back to the SMA for further consideration. However, it upheld the SMA’s fifth order for the closure of the Chilean side of the Project. Following the issuance of the Revised Resolution, the Company reversed the estimated amount recorded for any additional proposed administrative fines in this matter. In addition, the Company reclassified Pascua-Lama’s proven and probable gold reserves as measured and indicated resources and recorded a pre-tax impairment of $429 million in the fourth quarter of 2017. On March 14, 2019, the Chilean Supreme Court annulled the October 12, 2018 administrative decision of the Antofagasta Environmental Court on procedural grounds and remanded the case back for review by a different panel of judges. The Chilean Supreme Court did not review the merits of the Revised Resolution. On September 17, 2020, the Antofagasta Environmental Court issued a ruling in which it upheld the closure order and sanctions in the Revised Resolution. As part of its ruling, it also ordered the SMA to reevaluate certain environmental infringements, which may result in the imposition of additional fines against CMN. The Company did not appeal, and the Chilean side of the Pascua-Lama project is being transitioned to closure in accordance with that ruling. On July 12, 2022, the Chilean Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the Antofagasta Environmental Court’s decision filed by a group of local farmers who claimed more stringent sanctions were appropriate. As a result, the SMA will determine the appropriate administrative fine to be imposed on CMN with respect to two environmental infringements. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the amount of the additional administrative fine to be imposed by the SMA. Veladero – Operational Incidents and Associated Proceedings Minera Andina del Sol SRL (formerly, Minera Argentina Gold SRL) (“MAS”), the joint venture company that operates the Veladero mine, is the subject of various regulatory proceedings related to operational incidents at the Veladero Valley Leach Facility (“VLF”) occurring in March 2017 (the “March 2017 incident”), September 2016 (the “September 2016 incident”) and September 2015 (the “September 2015 incident”), and involving the San Juan Provincial mining authority, the Argentine federal government, and certain residents of Jachal, Argentina. Regulatory authorities were notified following the occurrence of each of these incidents, and remediation and/or monitoring activities were undertaken as appropriate. Although the September 2015 incident resulted in the release of cyanide-bearing process solution into a nearby waterway, environmental monitoring conducted by MAS and an independent third party has demonstrated that the incident posed no risk to human health at downstream communities. Monitoring and inspection following the September 2016 incident and remediation and inspection following the March 2017 incidents confirmed that those incidents did not result in any long-term environmental impacts. Regulatory Proceedings and Actions San Juan Provincial Regulatory Proceedings On October 9, 2015, the San Juan Provincial mining authority initiated an administrative sanction process against MAS for alleged violations of the Mining Code relating to the September 2015 incident. MAS was formally notified of the imposition of an administrative fine in connection with the incident on March 15, 2016. MAS sought reconsideration of certain aspects of the decision but paid the administrative fine of approximately $10 million (at the then-applicable Argentine peso to U.S. dollar exchange rate) while the request for reconsideration was pending. After the San Juan government rejected MAS’ administrative appeal of this decision, on September 5, 2017, the Company commenced a legal action to continue challenging certain aspects of the decision before the San Juan courts, which is ongoing. MAS is also the subject of a consolidated provincial regulatory proceeding related to the September 2016 incident and the March 2017 incident. MAS received notice of a resolution on December 27, 2017, from the San Juan Provincial mining authority requiring payment of an administrative fine of approximately $5.6 million (calculated at the prevailing exchange rate on December 31, 2017) for both the September 2016 incident and the March 2017 incident. On January 23, 2018, in accordance with local requirements, MAS paid the administrative fine and filed a request for reconsideration and an appeal with the San Juan Provincial mining authority. MAS was notified in March 2018 that the San Juan Provincial mining authority had rejected the request for reconsideration of the administrative fine. The pending appeal will be heard and decided by the Governor of San Juan. Provincial Amparo Action Following the March 2017 incident, an “amparo” protection action (the “Provincial Amparo Action”) was filed against MAS in the Jachal First Instance Court, San Juan Province (the “Jachal Court”) by individuals who claimed to be living in Jachal, San Juan Province, Argentina, seeking the cessation of all activities at the Veladero mine or, alternatively, a suspension of the mine’s leaching process. On March 30, 2017, the Jachal Court rejected the request for an injunction to cease all activities at the Veladero mine, but ordered, among other things, the suspension of the leaching process. The Jachal Court lifted the leaching process suspension in June 2017. The Jachal Court tried to join this proceeding with the Federal Amparo Action (as defined below), triggering a jurisdictional dispute. On December 26, 2019, the Argentine Supreme Court ruled on the jurisdictional dispute in favor of the Federal Court in connection with the Federal Amparo Action described below, meaning that the Jachal Court has retained jurisdiction over the Provincial Amparo Action and the two amparo actions were not effectively joined. The Provincial Amparo Action case file has not yet been remitted to the Jachal Court by the Supreme Court (see “Federal Amparo Action” below). Federal Amparo Action On April 4, 2017, the National Minister of Environment of Argentina filed an amparo protection action in the Federal Court in connection with the March 2017 incident (the “Federal Amparo Action”) seeking an order requiring the cessation and/or suspension of activities at the Veladero mine. MAS submitted extensive information to the Federal Court about the incident, the then-existing administrative and provincial judicial suspensions, the remedial actions taken by the Company and the lifting of the suspension orders described in the Provincial Amparo Action above, and challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Court as well as the standing of the National Minister of Environment and requested that the matter be remanded to the Jachal Court. The Province of San Juan also challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in this matter. On December 26, 2019, the Argentine Supreme Court ruled on the jurisdictional dispute in favor of the Federal Court. The Company was notified on October 1, 2020, that the National Ministry of the Environment had petitioned the Federal Court to resume the proceedings following the Supreme Court’s decision that the Federal Court is competent to hear the case. The Federal Court ordered the resumption of the proceedings on February 19, 2021. On October 12, 2022, MAS received notice of the Federal Amparo Action. MAS submitted its response on October 27, 2022. The matter remains pending before the Federal Court. Civil Action On December 15, 2016, MAS was served notice of a civil action filed before the San Juan Provincial Court by certain persons allegedly living in Jachal, San Juan Province, claiming to be affected by the Veladero mine and, in particular, the VLF. The plaintiffs requested a court order that MAS cease leaching metals with cyanide solutions, mercury and other similar substances at the mine and replace that process with one that is free of hazardous substances, implement a closure and remediation plan for the VLF and surrounding areas, and create a committee to monitor this process. These claims were supplemented by new allegations that the risk of environmental damage had increased as a result of the March 2017 incident. MAS replied to the lawsuit in February 2017 and it also responded to the supplemental claim and intends to continue defending this matter vigorously. Criminal Matters Federal Criminal Matters A federal criminal investigation was initiated by a Buenos Aires federal court (the “Federal Court”) based on the alleged failure of certain current and former federal and provincial government officials and individual directors of MAS to prevent the September 2015 incident (the “Federal Investigation”). On May 5, 2016, the National Supreme Court of Argentina limited the scope of the Federal Investigation to the potential criminal liability of the federal officials, ruling that the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction to investigate the solution release. On April 11, 2018, the federal judge indicted three former federal officials, alleging breach of duty in connection with their actions and omissions related to the failure to maintain adequate environmental controls during 2015 and the case was sent to trial. The proceeding poses no risk of conviction or liability for any of the directors of MAS. Glacier Investigation On October 17, 2016, a separate criminal investigation was initiated by the federal judge overseeing the Federal Investigation based on the alleged failure of federal officials to regulate the Veladero mine under Argentina’s glacier legislation (the “Glacier Investigation”) with regard to the September 2015 incident. On June 16, 2017, MAS submitted a motion to challenge the federal judge’s decision to assign the Glacier Investigation to himself, and to request that it be admitted as a party in order to present evidence supporting MAS. On September 14, 2017, the Federal Court of Appeals ordered the federal judge to consolidate the two investigations and clarified that MAS is not a party to the case and therefore does not have standing to seek the recusal of the federal judge, but nonetheless recognized MAS’ right to continue to participate in the case (without clarifying the scope of those rights). On November 27, 2017, the federal judge indicted four former federal officials, alleging abuse of authority in connection with their actions and omissions related to the enforcement of Argentina’s glacier legislation. The Court of Appeals confirmed the indictments and on August 6, 2018, the case was assigned to a federal trial judge. In total, six former federal officials were indicted under the Federal Investigation and the Glacier Investigation and will face trial. In 2019, one of the former federal officials, who was indicted on separate charges under both investigations, passed away and charges against him were dropped. Due to the Argentine response to Covid-19 and a procedural challenge by one of the former federal officials, the oral arguments originally scheduled for April and May 2020 in this matter have been postponed and have not yet been rescheduled. Veladero – Tax Assessment and Criminal Charges On December 26, 2017, MAS received notice of a tax assessment (the “Tax Assessment”) for 2010 and 2011, amounting to ARS 543 million (approximately $680,000 at the prevailing exchange rate at December 31, 2023), plus interest and fines, for a maximum estimated exposure of approximately $5.5 million. The Tax Assessment primarily claims that certain deductions made by MAS were not properly characterized, including that (i) the interest and foreign exchange on loans borrowed between 2002 and 2006 to fund Veladero’s construction should have been classified as equity contributions, and (ii) fees paid for intercompany services were not for services related to the operation of the Veladero mine. On June 21, 2018, the Argentinean Federal Tax Authority (“AFIP”) confirmed the Tax Assessment, which MAS appealed to the Federal Tax Court on July 31, 2018. A hearing for the appeal has not yet been scheduled. The Company filed Mutual Agreement Procedure applications in Canada on December 21, 2018, and in Argentina on March 29, 2019, pursuant to the Canada-Argentina Income Tax Convention Act (the “Canada-Argentina Tax Treaty”) to escalate resolution of the Tax Assessment to the competent authority (as defined in the Canada-Argentina Tax Treaty) in an effort to seek efficient resolution of the matter. In November 2018, MAS received notice that AFIP filed criminal charges against current and former employees serving on its board of directors when the 2010 and 2011 tax returns were filed (the “Criminal Tax Case”). Hearings for the Criminal Tax Case were held between March 25 and March 27, 2019. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations, which was granted in part and appealed by the prosecution. On June 2, 2021, the trial court issued a decision dismissing the Criminal Tax Case against the directors. AFIP appealed and on September 24, 2021, the Mendoza Federal Court of Appeals partially reversed the trial court’s decision, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to either indict the directors or dismiss the case against them, and ordering additional investigation by the trial court. The Criminal Tax Case was remanded to the trial court in accordance with the decision of the Mendoza Federal Court of Appeals, and the trial court has ordered additional evidence to be prepared by the court-appointed expert. On February 4, 2022, the Argentine Minister of Economy, the competent authority in this matter, issued a decision denying the application of the Canada-Argentina Tax Treaty to the Tax Assessment. MAS appealed this decision on February 18, 2022. Separately, on April 12, 2022, the trial court issued a ruling dismissing the criminal charges against the MAS directors in the Criminal Tax Case. AFIP appealed this ruling to the Court of Appeals. On November 7, 2022, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the charges. AFIP challenged this decision before the Court of Cassation, Argentina’s highest federal criminal court below the National Supreme Court, which granted leave to appeal on December 29, 2022. The Court of Cassation’s decision, which remains pending, will be rendered on the basis of the parties’ written submissions. The Company believes that the Tax Assessment and the Criminal Tax Case are without merit and intends to defend the proceedings vigorously. Perilla Complaint In 2009, Barrick Gold Inc. and Placer Dome Inc. were purportedly served in Ontario with a complaint filed in November 2008 in the Regional Trial Court of Boac (the “Court”), on the Philippine island of Marinduque, on behalf of two named individuals and purportedly on behalf of the approximately 200,000 residents of Marinduque. The complaint alleges injury to the economy and the ecology of Marinduque as a result of the discharge of mine tailings from the Marcopper mine into Calancan Bay, the Boac River, and the Mogpog River. Placer Dome Inc., which was acquired by the Company in 2006, had been a minority indirect shareholder of the Marcopper mine. The plaintiffs are claiming for abatement of a public nuisance allegedly caused by the tailings discharge and for nominal damages for an alleged violation of their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. In June 2010, Barrick Gold Inc. and Placer Dome Inc. filed a motion to have the Court resolve their unresolved motions to dismiss before considering the plaintiffs' motion to admit an amended complaint and also filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to admit on the same basis. By Order dated November 9, 2011, the Court granted a motion to suspend the proceedings filed by the plaintiffs. To date, neither the plaintiffs nor the Company have advised the Court of an intention to resume the proceedings and the matter has been inactive since November 2011. If this matter is reactivated, the Company intends to defend the action vigorously. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome. Writ of Kalikasan In April 2010, the Supreme Court in the Republic of the Philippines adopted new Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (the “Environmental Rules”). The Environmental Rules purport to create a new special civil action or remedy called a “Writ of Kalikasan” available to persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation. The remedies available under this procedure are in the nature of injunctive orders preventing continued harm to the environment and orders for rehabilitation or remediation of the environment. Damages are not an available remedy under this procedure. On February 25, 2011, a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with Prayer for Temporary Environmental Protection Order was filed in the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines by Eliza M. Hernandez, Mamerto M. Lanete and Godofredo L. Manoy against Placer Dome Inc. (“Placer Dome”) and the Company (the “Petition”). The Petition was subsequently transferred to the Court of Appeals. The Petition alleges that Placer Dome violated the Petitioners' constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology as a result of, amongst other things, the discharge of tailings into Calancan Bay, the 1993 Maguila-Guila dam breach, the 1996 Boac river tailings spill and the failure of Marcopper Mining Corporation (“Marcopper”) to properly decommission the Marcopper mine. Placer Dome was a minority indirect shareholder of Marcopper at all relevant times. The Petitioners have pleaded that Barrick is liable for the alleged actions and omissions of Placer Dome and are seeking orders requiring Barrick to environmentally remediate the areas in and around the mine site that are alleged to have sustained environmental impacts. On April 4, 2011, the Company filed its Return Ad Cautelam (or defence pleading) seeking the dismissal of the Petition with prejudice. Barrick also filed extensive affidavit evidence as required by the Environmental Rules. Placer Dome adopted the Company’s defence as its own. All appearances by the Company and Placer Dome in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in this matter have been by way of special and limited appearance, without submitting to the jurisdiction of either Court. The Company filed a motion in March 2011 challenging the constitutionality of the Environmental Rules and the jurisdiction of the Court. On October 18, 2019, the Court of Appeals decided the motion and rejected the Company’s constitutional objections. The Court also held that it has jurisdiction based on a “tentative” determination that the Company was doing business in the Philippines made exclusively on the basis of unproved allegations made by the Petitioners in the Petition. This “tentative” determination expressly does not foreclose the possibility of a contrary finding on the basis of evidence at a later date. In November 2011, the case was suspended to permit the parties to explore the possibility of a settlement. Settlement discussions ended unsuccessfully in early 2014, but the proceedings were not re-activated until March 2019 when the Court of Appeals lifted the order suspending the proceedings. In December 2019, depositions of all of the Company’s witnesses were conducted. Petitioners’ counsel did not appear at these depositions or conduct any cross-examination of the Company’s witnesses. These transcripts now form part of the evidence in the Court record for the merits hearing and the Petitioners have foregone the opportunity to cross-examine the Company’s witnesses. Since the Fall of 2019, the Petitioners have taken numerous steps to attempt to file additional evidence and to seek to expand the case beyond the scope of the matters pleaded in the Petition, including to alleged maintenance and structural integrity issues supposedly associated with Marcopper mine infrastructure. On October 27, 2020, the Province of Marinduque (the “Province”) filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene and a Petition-in-Intervention (the “Intervention Motion”). On January 21, 2021, the Court of Appeals granted the Province’s Intervention Motion and admitted the Province’s Petition-in-Intervention. In the Petition-in-Intervention, the Province seeks to expand the scope of relief sought within the Writ of Kalikasan proceeding to include claims seeking rehabilitation and remediation of alleged maintenance and structural integrity issues supposedly associated with Marcopper mine infrastructure. On June 24, 2021, the Company filed an urgent motion asking the Court of Appeals to clarify whether its granting leave to the Province to intervene in the Petition expands the scope of issues being litigated in the proceeding. This motion is pending and has not yet been decided by the Court. On June 25, 2021, the Company filed a Return Ad Cautelam in response to the Province’s Petition-in-Intervention. On November 2, 2021, the Company filed a Motion to Strike and Reply in respect of the Province’s Petition-in-Intervention. In the Motion to Strike and Reply, the Company seeks to strike those portions of the Petition-in-Intervention that seek to expand the issues or seek novel and additional relief for alleged wrongdoing that is not pleaded in the Petitioners’ Writ of Kalikasan proceeding. This motion is pending and has not yet been decided by the Court. On February 17, 2021, the Province filed a Motion to Implead asking the Court of Appeals to add Marcopper as a respondent. On June 14, 2021, the Court of Appeals denied the Province’s Motion to add Marcopper as a respondent. On July 2, 2021, the Province of Marinduque filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the June 14, 2021 decision. This motion is pending and has not yet been decided by the Court. On December 2, 2020, the trial commenced. It subsequently resumed on January 27, 2021 and again on July 6, 2021. The Petitioners called a total of three witnesses over the three trial dates, in addition to two of the named Petitioners (whose affidavits were accepted into evidence on agreement without the requirement to attend in person). On July 26, 2021, the Petitioners filed their Formal Offer of Evidence, which formally concludes the Petitioners’ evidence portion of the trial. On October 27, 2021, the Company filed its Comments and Opposition to the Petitioners’ Formal Offer of Evidence dated July 26, 2021. The Court has not yet resolved the outstanding issues concerning the Petitioners’ Formal Offer of Evidence. No further trial dates have been set for the Company’s evidence portion of the trial. On June 30, 2022 the Company filed a Motion with the Court seeking court-ordered mediation between the Company and the Province. On October 26, 2022 the Court granted the Motion. This proceeding was suspended in October 2022 to allow for court-annexed mediation to continue. Successive extensions of the suspension were granted at the request of the parties. On January 15, 2024, the Court issued a Resolution granting a “final” extension of the suspension to November 13, 2023, which extension had expired by the time the Court issued its Resolution. The Court also scheduled a hearing date of February 13, 2024 for the parties to provide an update concerning the status of the court-annexed mediation, as well as for the parties to present their arguments regarding the pending motion filed by the Company on June 24, 2021 as described above. The parties jointly requested that the suspension nevertheless be extended for six months. During the Feb |
