Update 06 05 2021 See for comparative purposes Begum v Maran here. That case most definitely advances the duty of care under English law beyond the discussions in earlier case-law which Das v George Wetson, Loblaws et al had the benefit of discussing. Equally notably, the UK Supreme Court had not yet held in either Vedanta or Okpabi when the Ontario CA held. In light of Begum v Maran, many of the arguments against duty of care under Bangladeshi law may have to be revisited.
Thank you Bennet Jones for flagging, just before Christmas, Das v George Weston, Loblaws et al, 2017 ONSC 4129 in which the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed the earlier decision to dismiss a claim by a proposed class in Ontario on behalf of individuals injured in the collapse of the Rana Plaza building in Dhaka, Bangladesh in 2013 and their families.
The case evokes a wide range of comparative law issues, including of course jurisdiction (not disputed here), duty of care (much disputed), applicable law (held to be Bangladeshi law as locus delicti commissi (as it would be eg in Australia, different from the EU), but with further discussion of the laws of England (Cape in particular) and India pro inspiratio [in particular M.C. Mehta v India, advancing the English rule of Rylands v Fletcher, in which the Supreme Court of India found that social costs of conducting hazardous activities should be borne by the profit-maker and not by the community].
The Court here discusses and part distinguishes ia Vedanta, Okpabi and Unilever, as Bennet Jones note: ‘Justice Feldman distinguished the English cases in that: (i) Loblaws had little control over the factories; (ii) Loblaws was not in the same business as the factories; (iii) Loblaws did not have superior knowledge or expertise about issues of structural safety; and (iv) Loblaws did not undertake to audit Rana Plaza for structural safety.’
I imagine the last word on what ‘control’ means in global value chains may not have been said.