Seizure of Corporate Shares

Yaiguaje v Chevron Corporation, 2017 ONSC 135 (CanLII)

[26] D.M. Brown J. considered the issue of Chevron Canada’s corporate separateness in the context of his determination of whether there should be a stay of the proceedings pursuant to s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act. Although the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed his decision to stay the proceedings, it did not consider his decision on the corporate separateness issue. Neither the Court of Appeal nor the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that his decision on this issue was incorrect or that he applied the wrong legal principles in determining that Chevron Canada’s corporate veil should not be pierced. Although D.M. Brown J.’s decision on this issue is not binding upon me, I regard it as persuasive authority on the issue. I agree with Chevron Canada’s submission that his findings on this issue are a useful guide on this motion.

[27] After reviewing the evidence adduced on the issue of Chevron Canada’s separate corporate identity (which was almost identical to the evidence before me), D.M. Brown J. concluded that there was “no basis in law or fact” to pierce Chevron Canada’s corporate veil.[9] He also rejected the plaintiffs’ assertion that Chevron Canada’s assets were exigible to satisfy a judgment against its ultimate parent, Chevron.