Gold mine accused of sparking wildfire that caused evacuations

A Lynn Lake-area gold mine is being sued over a massive wildfire that burned more than 210,000 acres last spring, causing evacuations as the flames closed in on the community.

Provincial conservation officials alleged in court documents filed last year the wildfire started May 7, 2025, after a controlled burn pile reignited at Alamos Gold Inc., located about 7.5 kilometres northeast of Lynn Lake. The blaze spread to within five kilometres of the small northern community.

A Manitoba government spokesman said Monday the fire remains under investigation.

The wildfire led to the late May 2025 evacuations of Lynn Lake, home to nearly 600 residents and located about 800 kilometres northwest of Winnipeg, and Marcel Colomb First Nation.

Several derelict buildings in Lynn Lake and more than two dozen cabins in Burge Lake Provincial Park were destroyed.

Eight area property owners — a man whose Burge Lake cottage was badly damaged as the wildfire spread, as well as seven people from the Rural Municipality of Lynn Lake who incurred expenses as a result of escaping the fire — are named as plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed on behalf of their insurance company in the Court of King’s Bench earlier this month.

The court filing accuses the Toronto-based gold producer’s MacLellan mine site of causing the wildfire via the controlled burn and argues the company should be held liable for the plaintiffs’ losses.

“Alamos knew or ought to have known that there was a real and foreseeable risk that the burn could escape and cause damage to the surrounding community and neighbouring lands, which would necessitate the evacuation of community members,” the lawsuit claims.

“The burn did escape from Alamos’ control, and as a result, the wildfire spread to the cottage, forced the immediate evacuation of the evacuees and caused the damages.”

The company has disputed it is at fault for the fire in the past.

“Alamos knew or ought to have known that there was a real and foreseeable risk that the burn could escape and cause damage to the surrounding community and neighbouring lands.”

Rebecca Thompson, a spokeswoman for Alamos, said Monday the company just became aware of the litigation and is not prepared to comment. The firm has yet to respond to the claim in court.

She said Alamos officials understand the effects the 2025 wildfires had on community members.

“As a member of the community, we stepped in right away to provide support and resources both during the evacuation and now during the recovery period,” Thompson said, adding the company has since “partnered closely with community leaders on joint emergency planning and responses.”

She also pointed to a donation the company made to the Canadian Red Cross and another donation locally “for community-focused support.”

If the court finds the company shouldn’t be held strictly liable for the wildfire, the lawsuit argues Alamos should instead be found to be negligent.

The court papers argue Alamos owed the plaintiffs a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the controlled burn escaping from the mine site, but breached that duty by failing to monitor and control the burn with “reasonable care, skill and diligence.”

The lawsuit alleges the company was negligent in unsafely starting the burn, failing to properly assess weather and fire risk, failing to put in place proper fire control measures, failing to maintain adequate barriers or firebreaks, failing to monitor it and extinguish it.

Further, the court papers allege, Alamos failed to deploy sufficient personnel and equipment to maintain control of the burn, failed to adequately train and supervise those personnel, failed to report the burn in a timely manner and acted in a manner inconsistent with its duties under provincial wildfire legislation.

In search warrant documents filed in court last year, provincial conservation investigators accused the company of negligence, alleging a contractor for Alamos conducting the controlled burns at the mining site earlier in May did not use water to douse the burn piles.

The company had a permit to burn brush piles between May 1 and May 15, but no burning occurred after May 3.

The lawsuit seeks just under $95,000 combined in special damages for the property owners’ losses as well as unspecified general damages.

The Burge Lake property owner, Paul Grimmer, incurred just over $79,000 in damages to his cottage, as well as damaged personal property and further repair expenses, the filing says.

The evacuees — Trevor and Rosalie Kruzer, Shannon Roberts, Eugene and Ashtyn Shin, and Joanne and Marcel Ladouceur — incurred just under $15,500 in combined evacuation expenses, the court papers say.

Brent Ross, one of the lawyers who filed the lawsuit, said the claim is in the process of being served on Alamos.

erik.pindera@freepress.mb.ca