That said, an issue does arise in relation to the GST/HST.
The CFA does clearly say that the lawyers were to be paid one-third of any settlement plus GST and disbursements. The motion
judge fixed the fees (which were percentage calculations) inclusive
of HST. He approved the CFA in relation to the tort claim and
accordingly the GST/HST on those fees ought to have been paid to
the lawyers in addition to the fee amount. The GST/HST at the
pro-rated rate of 8 per cent, on fees of $183,333, is $14,666.64.
 Similarly, in our view, although he reduced the fee on the
AB claim to $170,000, the lawyers should have the GST/HST of
 When the lawyers raised this issue with the motion judge
after the release of his reasons and asked that he amend this
finding, the motion judge considered that he was functus at that
point and, accordingly, the issue was left for this court.
 In the result, the judgment is amended in accordance
with these reasons. In all other respects, the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal allowed in part.
Yaiguaje et al. v. Chevron Corporation et al.
[Indexed as: Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corp.]
2017 ONSC 135
Superior Court of Justice, Hainey J. January 20, 2017
Conflict of laws — Foreign judgments — Enforcement — Plaintiffs
obtaining judgment against defendant in Ecuador for damages arising
from environmental pollution — Plaintiffs bringing action in Ontario to
enforce that judgment — Defendant pleading that judgment was fraudulently obtained, that Ecuadorian judge was bribed, that defendant was
denied fairness and natural justice throughout Ecuadorian proceedings
and that Ecuador did not have jurisdiction over defendant — Plaintiffs’
motion to strike those defences dismissed — Defences to claim on its
merits which were raised in Ecuadorian proceedings struck.
Corporations — Piercing corporate veil — Plaintiffs obtaining
judgment against C in Ecuador for damages arising from environmental pollution — C having no assets in Ecuador and refusing to pay
judgment — Plaintiffs bringing action in Ontario against C and its
seventh-level indirect subsidiary CC to enforce Ecuadorian judgment
— Plaintiffs not alleging that CC was party to Ecuadorian action or
that it was involved in activities that led to judgment — CC not being
asset of and having separate legal identity from C — No reason existing to pierce CC’s corporate veil in absence of any allegation of
wrongdoing on CC’s part or that CC was designed or used as instrument of fraud or wrongdoing.