Posts Tagged Chevron Corp v Yaiguaje (
Chevron /Ecuador: Ontario Court of Appeal emphasises third parties in piercing the corporate veil issues.
In Chevron Corp v Yaiguaje, the Canadian Supreme Court as I reported at the time confirmed the country’s flexible approach to the jurisdictional stage of recognition and enforcement actions. Following that ruling both parties files for summary judgment, evidently advocating a different outcome.
The Ontario Court of Appeal have now held in 2018 ONCA 472 Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation that there are stringent requirements for piercing the corporate veil (i.e. by execution on Chevron Canada’s shares and assets to satisfy the Ecuadorian judgment) and that these are not met in casu.
Of particular note is Hourigan JA’s argument at 61 that ‘the appellants’ proposed interpretation of the [Canadian Corporation’s] Act would also have a significant policy impact on how corporations carry on business in Canada. Corporations have stakeholders. Creditors, shareholders, and employees, among others, rely on the corporate separateness doctrine that is long-established in our jurisprudence and that is a deliberate policy choice made in the [Act]. Those stakeholders have a reasonable expectation that when they do business with a Canadian corporation, they need only consider the liabilities of that corporation and not the liabilities of some related corporation.’ (emphasis added by me, GAVC)
Blake, Cassels and Graydon have further review here. Note that the issue is one of a specific technical nature: it only relates to veil piercing once the recognition and enforcement of a foreign ruling is sought.
(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 8.
2018 ONCA 472, Amazon, assets, Canada, Chevron, Chevron Corp v Yaiguaje (, Chevron Ecuador, Chevron Texaco, Corporate social responsibility, Corporate veil, CSR, Ecuador, Enforcement, Forum non conveniens, https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2018/2018onca472/2018onca472.html?resultIndex=9, Jurisdiction, Kiobel, Recognition and enforcement, Rule of law
Chevron /Ecuador: Canadian Supreme Court confirms flexible gatekeeping for recognition and enforcement.
In Chevron Corp v Yaiguaje, the Canadian Supreme Court confirmed the country’s flexible approach to the jurisdictional stage of recognition and enforcement actions. I have reported on the case’s overall background before. More detail on the case is provided here by Border Ladner Gervais, as do McMillan (adding a critical note) here, and I am happy to refer – suffice to say on this blog that an accommodating approach to the very willingness of courts to entertain a recognition and enforcement action is not as such unusual to my knowledge. It is very much a case of comity to at least not blankly refuse to hear the case for enforcing a judgment issued by a foreign court.
Much more challenging will be the merits of the case, for one imagines the usual arguments against will certainly exercise the Canadian courts.
Finally, even if Chevron assets in Canada were not to suffice to meet the considerable award (in particular if the courts further down the line were to keep the mother company out of the action), any success in Canadian courts, however small, no doubt will serve applicants’ case for recognition in other jurisdictions.
2015 SCC 42, Amazon, assets, Canada, Chevron, Chevron Corp v Yaiguaje (, Chevron Ecuador, Chevron Texaco, Corporate social responsibility, Corporate veil, CSR, Ecuador, Enforcement, Forum non conveniens, http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2015/2015scc42/2015scc42.html, Jurisdiction, Kiobel, Recognition and enforcement, Rule of law, Supreme Court Canada
- Belgian constitutional court’s ruling on vulture funds fails properly to answer arguments on the basis of EU law. 21/08/2018
- Anchor defendants in follow-up competition law cases. The High Court in Vattenfall et al v Prysmian et al. 17/08/2018
- Smith v Meade. Horizontal direct effect under the spotlight yet again. 16/08/2018
- Yukos v Merinson: A Brussels I jurisdictional bonanza. Particularly the issue of ‘after the issue has arisen’ for protected categories. 13/08/2018
- Docherty: Asbestos litigation and the application ratione temporis of Rome II. 10/08/2018
Also of noteMy Tweets