abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

24 Jan 2017

Drew Hasselback, Financial Post (Canada)

Chevron case is textbook application of Canadian corporate law

... Judge Glenn Hainey of the Ontario Superior Court granted summary judgment dismissing the case against Chevron’s Canadian subsidiary, Chevron Canada.  And he did so based on a bedrock principle of Canadian law called corporate separateness...Judge Hainey’s ruling doesn’t end the matter entirely.  Although he dismissed the case against the oil company’s Canadian subsidiary, the Ontario action against the U.S. parent company continues...The plaintiffs plan to fight on...The plaintiffs had some successes in Friday’s ruling...[T]hey got the judge to toss out some of the defences parent company Chevron Corp. hoped to use in an eventual enforcement trial...The judge rejected the plaintiffs’ request that he bar the oil company from arguing that the Ecuadorian trial judgment was the product of fraud.  In a separate legal proceeding, a U.S. federal judge found that the Ecuador trial judgment was the product of fraud, bribery, forgery, intimidation and collusion.  Those same allegations are bound to surface if and when the enforcement case makes it to trial in Ontario.