Yukon and PwC wrangle over Eagle Mine

North of 60 Mining News - 
A.J. Roan, Mining News | Last updated May 01, 2025

A safety berm completed at Eagle Gold Mine in late 2024 as part of court-ordered site stabilization.

Yukon Department of Energy, Mines and Resources 
A settling pond holds treated runoff at Eagle Mine during environmental management activities in February.

Government of Yukon 
A safety berm completed at Eagle Gold Mine in late 2024 as part of court-ordered site stabilization.


Legislature may charge Victoria Gold receiver with contempt over not testifying on cleanup, testing limits of legislative authority.

Months after the collapse at Eagle Gold Mine triggered one of Yukon's most significant mining crises, tensions have escalated between the Yukon Legislative Assembly and PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc., the court-appointed receiver overseeing the mine's clean-up, as lawmakers demand testimony on the cleanup efforts while PwC maintains that only a court order can mandate its appearance.

On June 24, 2024, the Eagle Gold Mine suffered a multi-bench failure of its heap leach pad, resulting in cyanide-saturated ore cascading down the hillside and forcing an immediate shutdown of operations.

In the days that followed, the mine's previous owner and operator, Victoria Gold Corp., the Yukon government, and the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun worked to contain contaminated water, assess damage, and launch investigations into the cause and impacts of the collapse.

Over the following weeks, government officials, First Nations, and the public closely monitored the situation as efforts to stabilize the site, protect downstream waterways, and assess the environmental impacts continued.

However, concerns about long-term contamination, the safety of local water sources, and the broader consequences for the region's mining sector steadily grew, prompting increased regulatory oversight and political scrutiny of the mine's management and future.

Additionally, worries deepened regarding the pace of remediation, the transparency of communication from the site, and the ballooning costs associated with ongoing environmental management.

Questions emerged not only about the stability of the mine's critical infrastructure but also about the long-term financial liabilities tied to the cleanup, further straining trust between Victoria Gold, the Yukon government, and affected First Nations.

By August, roughly two months after the incident, mounting financial pressures and operational challenges led the Yukon government to seek and obtain a court-ordered receivership over Victoria Gold.

Though initially opposed and prepared to contest the forced seizure of its company and assets, Victoria Gold relented following the resignation of its board of directors.

This opened the way for PricewaterhouseCoopers to be appointed as the court-authorized receiver, tasked with managing the Eagle Mine's remediation efforts and overseeing the company's remaining obligations under the supervision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

With PwC assuming court-ordered control of Eagle, attention refocused on stabilizing the site and managing the environmental risks left in the wake of the collapse.

However, as the scale, cost, and complexity of the cleanup efforts became clearer, scrutiny from lawmakers and First Nations intensified, setting the stage for a growing political dispute over stewardship and transparency of the site's long-term recovery.
Rising tensions

The growing tension surrounding the Eagle Mine cleanup came to a head in April, when members of the Yukon Legislative Assembly moved to formally summon representatives of PwC to answer questions regarding the management and progress of the site's remediation efforts.

However, what began as concerns over costs, transparency, and the pace of recovery soon escalated into a broader dispute over accountability and the competing authorities of the receiver, the courts, and the legislature.

In late March, PwC sought and received court approval to significantly increase its borrowing limit from the Yukon government to continue funding remediation activities.

Around the same time, concerns among Yukon lawmakers intensified over the lack of direct public oversight of PwC's management of taxpayer-funded remediation efforts, as the firm remained answerable only to the court and not to the legislature or the public.

Seeking greater transparency, Scott Kent – the Official Opposition Yukon Party's critic for Energy, Mines and Resources – introduced a motion at the end of March calling for senior PwC executives to appear before the Committee of the Whole to answer questions about the Eagle Mine remediation.

A few days later, on April 7, Yukon Energy, Mines and Resources Minister John Streicker formally sent a letter inviting PwC to voluntarily appear during the spring sitting of the legislature, emphasizing that the assembly had an "enduring responsibility to oversee public expenditures and environmental stewardship."

PwC declined the invitation in an April 11 letter, stating that as a court-appointed receiver operating under the exclusive supervision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, it could not legally testify without explicit court authorization.

"PwC is not authorized to attend or provide testimony before the Yukon Legislative Assembly without leave of the Court," the firm wrote in its response.

Despite a private briefing from PwC executives to members of all three political parties, lawmakers remained dissatisfied with the lack of sworn, public testimony.

As a result, on April 16, the Yukon Legislative Assembly unanimously passed Motion 1261, ordering PwC representatives to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

The motion sought sworn testimony from senior officials regarding the status of the cleanup, the management of funds, and the challenges faced at the site.

Government of Yukon

A safety berm completed at Eagle Gold Mine in late 2024 as part of court-ordered site stabilization.
Motion of contempt

Even after the passage of Motion 1261, PwC held its position, insisting that court permission was required before participating in any legislative proceedings.

The firm's refusal triggered heated debate within the assembly over whether to pursue a formal finding of contempt, setting up a potential constitutional confrontation between the legislature's traditional privileges and the judicial oversight of the receivership process.

"We have heard many stories and concerns about the receivership process, wasteful spending on the site, concerns around water treatment, procurements, leaking water storage ponds, human resource practices, and the list goes on and on," said Scott Kent during the assembly debate, summarizing frustrations that had built among lawmakers and the public alike.

Although the legislature had moved decisively, the dispute over PwC's refusal to testify soon shifted from the political arena toward the courts.

In the days following the motion, PwC filed an application with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice seeking direction on whether it was obligated to comply with the Yukon Legislative Assembly's order to appear.

At the same time, Yukon lawmakers prepared a contempt motion against PwC, accusing the firm of defying the authority and privileges of the assembly – a rare and potentially precedent-setting escalation for the territory.

Speaker Jeremy Harper, citing parliamentary procedure, ruled that the firm's refusal could constitute an affront to the dignity and authority of the assembly, thereby clearing the way for a contempt finding if lawmakers chose to proceed.

In supporting correspondence, legal counsel for the speaker emphasized that the assembly's contempt power "may be invoked to address any conduct that is an affront to its dignity and authority," and that the courts could not interfere with how the legislature exercised its privileges.

As of late April, the contempt debate inside the assembly was adjourned, with lawmakers choosing to wait for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to issue a ruling on PwC's application.

In the meantime, PricewaterhouseCoopers reiterated that it would abide by any direction the court provided, stating it would appear before the assembly only if authorized to do so by the court.

The outcome of this legal proceeding carries significant implications for the territory, potentially setting a precedent for how far a legislature's authority extends over court-appointed receivers operating under federal jurisdiction.

Until the court renders its decision, both the legislature's pursuit of contempt proceedings and PwC's obligations to testify remain suspended – prolonging the uncertainty surrounding the Eagle Mine's long-term remediation and public accountability.