Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2024

Disclosure of contingent liabilities [abstract]

Contingencies

31. Contingencies

We consider provisions for all of our outstanding and pending legal claims to be adequate. The final outcome with respect to actions outstanding or pending as at December 31, 2024, or with respect to future claims, cannot be predicted with certainty. Significant contingencies not disclosed elsewhere in the notes to our consolidated financial statements are as follows:

Upper Columbia River Basin

Teck American Inc. (TAI) continues studies under the 2006 settlement agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a remedial investigation on the Upper Columbia River in Washington State.

In parallel, the Lake Roosevelt litigation involving Teck Metals Limited (TML) by the State of Washington and the Confederated Tribes of the Coleville Reservation (CCT) in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Washington continues. The case relates to historic discharges of slag and effluent from TML’s Trail metallurgical facility to the Upper Columbia River. TML prevailed against the plaintiffs on citizen suit claims, seeking injunctive relief, statutory penalties and attorney’s fees. In December 2012, on the basis of stipulated facts agreed between TML and the plaintiffs, the Court found in favour of the plaintiffs in phase one of the case, issuing a declaratory judgment that TML is liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for the plaintiffs' response costs, the amounts of which were determined in the second phase of the case. Additional response costs not yet claimed may be recoverable. The third and final phase of the case pertains to the plaintiffs’ claims for natural resource damages.

In 2022, TML filed two motions for summary judgment in respect of the CERCLA natural resource damages claims, which were denied. Based on one of those rulings, in the first quarter of 2023, TML filed a motion seeking a ruling that the plaintiffs’ natural resource damages claims under CERCLA are not fully developed and they should therefore be dismissed. The motion was denied and TML sought motions seeking reconsideration and certification for an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, both of which were denied.

In October 2023, TML filed a motion for partial summary judgment on CCT’s tribal service loss claim. CCT’s tribal services loss claim comprises the bulk of CCT’s outstanding individual claims against TML except for natural resource damages assessment costs. On February 6, 2024, the court granted TML’s motion and dismissed CCT’s claim on the basis that tribal service loss claims are not cognizable as natural resource damages claims under CERCLA. The CCT filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the dismissal or in the alternative certification for an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The trial court denied reconsideration but certified the matter for interlocutory review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit has accepted the interlocutory appeal, and a hearing before the Ninth Circuit Court is scheduled for April 17, 2025.

The previously scheduled February 2024 trial with respect to natural resource damages and assessment costs has been postponed pending the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision on the CCT’s dismissed tribal service loss claim and a new trial date has not yet been scheduled.

Until the studies contemplated by the EPA settlement agreement and additional natural resource damage assessments are completed, it is not possible to estimate the extent and cost, if any, of any additional remediation that may be required by the EPA or restoration that may be demanded by the natural resource trustees or to assess the extent of Teck's potential liability for damages. The EPA studies may conclude, on the basis of risk, cost, technical feasibility or other grounds, that no remediation other than some additional residential soil removal should be undertaken. If other remediation is required, damage to natural resources are proved, and if the CCT’s dismissed tribal service loss claim is revived and subsequently proved, the cost of that remediation and restoration and compensation for natural resource damages may be material.