Canada: The Latest Development In Yaiguaje V. Chevron Corporation – The Court Of Appeal For Ontario Refuses To Pierce The Corporate Veil

Last Updated: July 12 2018
Article by Chloe A. Snider


Yaiguaje v Chevron Corporation1 , released on May 23, 2018, is the most recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the “Court”) in that proceeding, which has already been the subject of a number of procedural decisions (including appellate decisions) addressing, for example, jurisdiction and security for costs.2 The latest decision of the Court addresses questions concerning the interpretation of the Execution Act3 and when a court may pierce the corporate veil. The questions were raised in the context of the appellants’ attempts to enforce an Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron Corporation in Ontario (the “Ecuadorian Judgment”).

The appellants argued that the Execution Act permits execution by them on Chevron Canada’s shares and assets to satisfy the Ecuadorian Judgment (Chevron Canada being a seventh-level subsidiary of Chevron Corporation, against whom the Ecuadorian Judgment was made). In the alternative, they argued that the Court should pierce the corporate veil in order to render Chevron Canada’s shares and assets exigible to satisfy the Ecuadorian Judgment. The majority of the Court rejected both arguments. First, the majority found that the Execution Act is a purely procedural statute that did not create new substantive rights against Chevron Canada. Secondly, the majority found that the facts of this case did not meet the requirements of the existing two-part test for piercing the corporate veil, and rejected the appellants’ submission that the Court should expand the circumstances in which the court should pierce the corporate veil.

In a concurring decision, Justice Nordheimer would have developed the two-part test for piercing the corporate veil to allow equity to be a relevant factor in whether the corporate veil should be pierced. However, His Honour found that even on a test based in equity, the corporate veil should not be pierced in this case, given concerns about the underlying Ecuadorian Judgment following findings by United States courts that there was evidence of fraud used to obtain the judgment.


Between 1964 and 1992, a company that would later become part of Chevron Corporation explored and extracted oil in Ecuador. The appellants are indigenous villagers who obtained a 9.5 billion USD judgment against Chevron Corporation in Ecuador in connection with alleged environment harm (the Ecuadorian Judgment). The appellants commenced an action in the United States, where Chevron Corporation was based, in order to recover against Chevron Corporation’s assets there. However, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to enforce the judgment on the grounds that the appellants’ counsel in the Ecuadorian proceedings had engaged in fraudulent conduct.4

Having been unable to enforce the judgment in the United States, the appellants commenced an action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to enforce the Ecuadorian Judgment against Chevron Corporation’s Canadian subsidiary, Chevron Canada.

The Court affirms corporate separateness

The main issues on appeal were (i) whether the Execution Act allows the appellants to enforce the Ecuadorian Judgment on Chevron Canada; and (ii) in the alternative, whether the Court should pierce the corporate veil to allow enforcement against Chevron Canada.

The appellants argued that the Execution Act applied to Chevron Canada’s shares and assets, and sought a declaration that those shares and assets were exigible under the Execution Act. The Court rejected this line of reasoning, emphasizing that the Execution Act was a purely procedural statute, and did not create new substantive rights. Since Chevron Corporation did not have an existing legal right to the assets of Chevron Canada, those assets were not exigible under the Execution Act (as assets belonging to Chevron Corporation).

The majority emphasized principles of corporate separateness and the distinction between a corporation and its shareholders. Relying on BCE Inc. v Debentureholders,5 the majority reiterated that shareholders only have a right to the assets of a corporation if and when it is wound up. While the corporation is ongoing, shareholders have no such right. It followed that if Chevron Corporation had no right to Chevron Canada’s assets, then neither did Chevron Corporation’s creditors.

The appellants also argued that the Court should pierce the corporate veil “when the interests of justice demand it”.6 In that regard, both the majority and concurring reasons focused on Justice Wilson’s remarks in Kosmopoulos v Constitution Insurance Co.:7

The law on when a court may disregard this principle by “lifting the corporate veil” and regarding the company as mere “agent” or “puppet” of its controlling shareholder or parent corporation follows no consistent principle. The best that can be said is that the “separate entities” principle is not enforced when it would yield a result “too flagrantly opposed to justice, convenience or the interests of the Revenue.”8

The majority read Justice Wilson’s remarks as reflecting an older view of corporate law that had since been eclipsed by the decision of Justice Sharpe in Transamerica Life Insurance Co. of Canada v Canada Life Assurance Co. 9 In that case, the Court held that, in order to lift the corporate veil because a subsidiary corporation is a mere façade that protects its parent corporation, the plaintiff must establish both that (i) the parent corporation had complete control of the subsidiary; and (ii) that the subsidiary was incorporated for a fraudulent or improper purpose.10

The appellants submitted that Chevron Corporation had an indirect beneficial interest in Chevron Canada because it had full ownership of shares through cascading intermediary subsidiaries. However, since the appellants did not attempt to argue, and would have failed in arguing, that Chevron Canada was incorporated for fraudulent purposes, the majority decision affirmed the motion judge’s decision refusing to pierce the corporate veil and upholding the corporate separateness between Chevron Canada and Chevron Corporation. The majority relied on Sun Indalex Finance v United Steelworkers11 for the proposition that there was no standalone just and equitable exception to the principle of corporate separateness and concluded that the law must “evolve on a principled basis and in a manner that brings certainty and clarity, not in a way that sows confusion and is devoid of principle.”12

By contrast, Justice Nordheimer would have placed greater emphasis on Justice Wilson’s statement in applying the test for piercing the corporate veil. He explained that Justice Wilson. “had ‘no doubt’ that the [corporate] veil could be lifted to do justice”,13 for example, where a judgment creditor would suffer injustice if the court did not step in.

Justice Nordheimer explained that the court’s power to pierce the corporate veil stemmed from its equitable jurisdiction. In his opinion, equity must ameliorate the harshness of positive law in order to harmonize law with the needs and requirements of evolving social structures and relationships. Barring any explicit prohibition in the case law or statutes, the court should have the power “to pierce the corporate veil in those extraordinary situations where liability has been established but the judgment creditor is nevertheless left without any remedy because of the judgment debtor’s internal corporate structure.”14

Ultimately, however, Justice Nordheimer concurred with the majority in concluding that the Court should not pierce the corporate veil in this case, as the equities of the case were not clear. Of particular concern was the finding of the United States courts that the Ecuadorian Judgment was the result of a fraud. Therefore, the Court was unanimous in the result, dismissing the appeal, and holding that the appellants were not entitled to enforce the Ecuadorian Judgment as against the assets of Chevron Canada.


This recent decision from the Court affirms the principle of corporate separateness and the Transamerica two-part test for piercing the corporate veil, even in the context of enforcing a foreign judgment.  The practical result of this decision is that it will remain difficult to enforce both foreign and domestic judgments against any entity other than the underlying judgment debtor, unless the two part test for piercing the corporate veil can be met. While the concurring judgment by Justice Nordheimer may someday provide a springboard for expanding the role of equity in the test for lifting the corporate veil, this is not yet certain. It may also be that the Supreme Court of Canada will have the chance, if it so chooses, to weigh in on whether these corporate law principles should develop in the ways sought by the appellants.

This article was co-authored by Honghu Wang, a summer student based in Dentons’ Toronto office.


1 2018 ONCA 472 [Chevron 2018].

2 Chevron Corp v Yaiguaje, 2015 SCC 42; Yaiguaje v Chevron Corporation, 2017 ONCA 741.

3 RSO, 1990, c E24.

4 Chevron Corp. v Donziger, 974 FSupp2d 362 (SDNY 2014), aff’d 833 F3d 74 (2d Cir 2016), leave to appeal to Supreme Court of the United States refused 137 SCt 2268.

5 2008 SCC 69.

6 Chevron 2018, supra note 1 at para 64.

7 [1987] 1 SCR 2.

8 Ibid at p 10.

9 (1996), 28 OR (3d) 423 (Gen Div), aff’d (1997) 74 ACWS (3d) 207 (Ont CA) [Transamerica].

10 Chevron 2018, supra note 1 at para 66.

11 2013 SCC 6.

12 Chevron 2018, supra note 1 at para 83.

13 Ibid at para 98.

14 Chevron 2018, supra note 1 at para 115.

About Dentons

Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm. A top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways. Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business challenge. Now the world's largest law firm, Dentons' global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local, national and global needs of private and public clients of any size in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions