I will try to answer this question in two parts The first is what are the possibilities of seeking the evidence from the ground if it is in some other jurisdiction outside of Canada. The second is the remedy part of it.
In terms of how to get it, there are several practices. One possibility could be that the court could request those documents through the Canadian company because these companies have a contract with the suppliers abroad, and in those contracts, it is quite possible for the Canadian company to stipulate human rights clauses and conditions. That would allow this Canadian company based in Canada, over which the court has jurisdiction, to indirectly get these documents, even if it is happening in Africa, Asia or Latin America—anywhere. That is one possibility.
The second possibility is that we can draw from the experience of national human rights institutions that have done some informal collaboration with peers in other jurisdictions. Let's say that the court would like to corroborate with a national human rights institution elsewhere. Then, they can collaborate together, and through that institution, they can get some evidence and facts from the ground, from the victims in those particular situations.
The third possibility is that there could be bilateral agreements between Canada and that particular country, and those agreements should be used by courts to get that sort of information.
I think that is where this dynamic power becomes quite relevant. If the court does not have those powers, it cannot use those multiple options. Having the power is different from using the powers. I should stress this point, because if you have the powers—let us say a stick—then the collaborative approach works more effectively because companies know that if they do not collaborate and co-operate with the court, the stick can be used, but if the court has no stick, then the collaboration does not really work in many hard cases in which companies are not willing to collaborate.