the limited liability principle to Chevron in the circumstances
of this case.
Previous judicial consideration of Chevron Canada’s
 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.
 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.
 In his reasons for decision, D.M. Brown J. concluded as
In my view, when taken as a whole, the evidence filed on these motions
supports a finding that the relationship between Chevron and Chevron
Canada is, to echo the language of Sharpe J. (as he then was) in the
Transamerica case, “that of a typical parent and subsidiary”, not an instance
of a parent corporation exercising complete domination and control over the
subsidiary. Or, to phrase that conclusion in the language of the Court of
Appeal in the Canada Life Assurance case, the evidence demonstrates that
Chevron Canada “looks as though it has its own business, rather than being
completely subservient to and dependent upon its parent”.
Nor do the plaintiffs allege any improper conduct which would support a
piercing of the corporate veil of Chevron Canada. In paragraph 21 of their
Amended Statement of Claim the plaintiffs specifically pleaded:
9 Ont. S.C. decision, at para. 109.
10 Ont. S.C. decision, at paras. 104-106.