• About
  • Offices
  • Careers
  • News
  • Students
  • Alumni
  • Payments
  • EN | FR
Background Image
Bennett Jones Logo
  • People
  • Expertise
  • Knowledge
  • Search
  • FR Menu
  • Search Mobile
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
View all
Practices
Corporate Litigation Regulatory Tax View all
Industries
Energy Infrastructure Mining Private Equity & Investment Funds View all
Advisory
Crisis & Risk Management Public Policy
View Client Work
International Experience
Insights News Events Subscribe
Arbitration Angle Artificial Intelligence Insights Business Law Talks Podcast Class Actions: Looking Forward Class Action Quick Takes
Economic Outlook New Energy Economy Series Quarterly Fintech Insights Quarterly M&A Insights Sustainability & the CIO
People
Offices
About
Practices
Industries
Advisory Services
Client Work
Insights
News
Events
Careers
Law Students
Alumni
Payments
Search
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
 
Blog

Supreme Court to Clarify the Liability of Canadian Corporations for Acts of their Foreign Affiliates

December 11, 2014

Written By Alison J. Gray, Justin R. Lambert and David J. Wahl

The Supreme Court of Canada today heard argument in a case that will clarify whether a judgment obtained in a foreign country against a foreign corporate entity can be enforced in Canada against a Canadian affiliate of that foreign entity, even when the Canadian affiliate was not party to the foreign proceedings.

In July 2013 we wrote about Choc v Hudbay Minerals Inc., 2013 ONSC 1414, a decision that seemed to signal an increased willingness by Ontario courts to assume jurisdiction in the case of alleged wrongdoing by a foreign subsidiary of a Canadian corporation in a foreign country.

More recently in January 2014 we wrote about Yaiguaje v Chevron Corp., 2013 ONCA 758, which appeared to reinforce a willingness by Ontario courts to assume jurisdiction over matters not clearly linked to Ontario. Today, the SCC heard Chevron Corporation's appeal of that decision.

In Chevron, the Plaintiffs were 47 indigenous Ecuadorian residents representing 30,000 others who claim they were harmed by environmental pollution from 1972 to 1990 caused by Chevron Corporation and its corporate predecessors.

The Plaintiffs sued Chevron Corporation in Ecuador. On February 14, 2011, the Ecuadorian trial court found Chevron Corporation liable for approximately US$18 billion in damages (the Ecuadorian Judgment). This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Ecuadorian intermediate appellate court and the Ecuadorian Court of Cassation with some modification of the damages award.

The Plaintiffs sued in Ontario on the Ecuadorian Judgment for the purpose of enforcing it in Ontario against both Chevron Corporation and its Canadian subsidiary, Chevron Canada Limited. The motions Judge stayed the Action, but the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned this decision and allowed the Plaintiffs to proceed with enforcement of the Ecuadorian Judgment in Ontario, against the Canadian subsidiary, even though the Canadian subsidiary was not party to the Ecuadorian proceedings or judgment.

The case has been closely watched because of its fascinating facts, the large potential liability faced by Chevron, and because of allegations that the Ecuadorian judgment was fraudulently obtained (which allegations have been playing out in related New York litigation). However, of most interest to Canadian corporations will be the potentially significant impacts on Canadian companies carrying on business abroad through foreign affiliates. The Supreme Court of Canada's pronouncements on the enforcement of a foreign judgment against a Canadian affiliate may require that Canadian corporations change their foreign corporate structures.

We will provide a further update when the Supreme Court of Canada releases its decision.

Please note that this publication presents an overview of notable legal trends and related updates. It is intended for informational purposes and not as a replacement for detailed legal advice. If you need guidance tailored to your specific circumstances, please contact one of the authors to explore how we can help you navigate your legal needs.

For permission to republish this or any other publication, contact Amrita Kochhar at kochhara@bennettjones.com.

Download PDF

Authors

  • Justin R. Lambert Justin R. Lambert, Partner
  • David J. Wahl, FCIArb David J. Wahl, FCIArb, Partner

Related Links

  • Insights
  • Media
  • Subscribe

Recent Posts

Blog

BBHIC 2025: Key Insights From Canada’s Leading Healthcare [...]

May 08, 2025
       

Blog

Upending the Ground Rules: Proposed Major Overhaul [...]

May 08, 2025
       

Blog

Government of Alberta Proposes Significant Changes [...]

May 06, 2025
       

Blog

What Does the SPAC IPO Rebound Mean for Cross-Border Deals?

May 05, 2025
       

Blog

Q&A on Protecting Family Enterprises Through Collaborative Family Law

April 29, 2025
       
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer
About
  • Leadership
  • Diversity
  • Community
  • Innovation
  • Security
Offices
  • Calgary
  • Edmonton
  • Montréal
  • Ottawa
  • Toronto
  • Vancouver
  • New York
Connect
  • Insights
  • News
  • Events
  • Careers
  • Students
  • Alumni
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
© Bennett Jones LLP 2025. All rights reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Use
Logo Bennett Jones