The plaintiffs also move to strike the defences pleaded by
Chevron in its statement of defence.
 I heard all of these motions together. I will give my reasons
for decision with respect to Chevron Canada’s motion for summary judgment first. The result of this motion will determine
the results of the other two motions for summary judgment.
My reasons for decision with respect to the plaintiffs’ motion to
strike Chevron’s defences will follow my reasons on the summary judgment motions.
 More than a month after the completion of the argument of
these motions, the plaintiffs brought a motion to further amend
their statement of claim to add Chevron Canada Capital Company (“CCCC”) as a defendant to this proceeding. At counsel’s
suggestion, I deferred delivering my ruling on the four earlier
motions until I had heard the plaintiffs’ subsequent motion.
I intend to provide my decision on this motion in a separate ruling to be released following the release of these reasons.
Chevron Canada’s Motion for Summary Judgment
 The plaintiffs are residents of Ecuador who hold a judgment of US$9.5 billion against Chevron (“Ecuadorian judgment”). The Ecuadorian judgment was obtained against
Chevron in February 2011. It was originally in the amount of
approximately US$18 billion. The judgment was upheld by an
Ecuadorian intermediate appellate court in 2012. The National
Court of Justice of Ecuador partially varied the judgment in
November 2013 by reducing it to US$9.5 billion.
 The dispute underlying the Ecuadorian judgment originated in the Oriente region of Ecuador. This oil-rich area
attracted exploitation and extraction activities by oil companies,
including Texaco Inc., from 1964 to 1992. As a result of these
activities, the region suffered extensive environmental pollution
that seriously disrupted the lives of its residents. The 47 plaintiffs in this proceeding represent approximately 30,000 indigenous Ecuadorian villagers who live in the region and who have
been affected by the environmental pollution.
 The plaintiffs commenced proceedings against Texaco in
1993 in New York. That proceeding was eventually dismissed on
the grounds of international comity and forum non conveniens.
This decision was upheld on appeal, in part, because Texaco
agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the Ecuadorian courts.
 The plaintiffs commenced proceedings against Chevron in
Ecuador in 2003. By then, Texaco had merged with Chevron.