It's clear that indigenous engagement is becoming a major risk for Canadian investors operating abroad. Among the examples you just cited, that of mines being suspended over their failure to adequately consult indigenous populations offers a perfect example of this risk. This is an example in which there is a shared responsibility between the Guatemalan state and the company in question to have done adequate consultations.
I don't think this is entirely on the company, but they're obviously partly responsible for this mine's being shut down and for not having done adequate consultation.
The hope with an ombudsperson, which is different from bringing a particular company to court, would be that some of the learnings from ombudsperson investigations could actually lead to more industry-wide changes. The ombudsperson may be called to investigate a particular case, but if he or she finds that there are patterns developing in the problems that Canadian companies are either creating or are subject to internationally, then some of the prescriptions from the ombudsperson wouldn't only apply to the case they were specifically investigating but could be more wide-ranging.
The hope would be that the ombudsperson would understand what a problem is from a particular context, but that their advice and recommendations would have a ripple effect. Their rulings wouldn't be binding—you're not in a court of law—but I think they would have a certain authority to make pronouncements and recommendations that would be heard across the industry.