The plaintiffs also rely upon the decision of Cameron J. in
1454495 Ontario Inc. v. J = Systems Inc.,28 in support of their
position. In that case, shares of a company owned by a judgment-debtor had been pledged to a credit union under a secured
guarantee of the company’s debts. A judgment-creditor sought to
execute against the judgment-debtor’s interest in the shares.
The court concluded that the judgment-debtor’s residual interest
in the shares after the credit union’s prior security interest had
been satisfied could be seized and sold under the Execution Act.
That case does not assist the plaintiffs because it was clear that
the judgment-debtor owned the shares as they were in his name.
Accordingly, he had a legally recognized residual interest in
the shares that could be sold subject to the prior rights of the
credit union. Chevron has no legally recognized interest in
Chevron Canada’s assets unless the corporate veil between the
two companies is pierced.
 A plain reading of the Execution Act makes it clear that it
does not create any substantive rights that override or supplant
the long-established principle of corporate separateness.
 I also agree with Chevron’s submission, at para. 39 of its
reply factum, concerning the effect of the plaintiffs’ contention:
39. If the Plaintiffs’ position regarding the effect of section 18(1) of the
Execution Act is accepted, the assets of Ontario subsidiaries of both domestic
and foreign companies would automatically and always be subject to execution orders to satisfy judgments against their parent companies. In fact,
the debts of individual shareholders could be enforced against the assets of
any Ontario company. This result is not only contrary to law, it would have
startling and stark consequences for Ontario’s businesses and their ability
to attract investment.
 For all of these reasons, I have concluded that the
Execution Act does not make Chevron Canada’s shares and assets
exigible and available for execution and seizure in satisfaction
of the Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron, absent a finding
that Chevron Canada’s corporate veil should be pierced for this
Should Chevron Canada’s corporate veil be pierced?
 Chevron Canada submits that the plaintiffs’ claim
against it is barred by the “bedrock legal principle of corporate
separateness”. Under this principle, Chevron Canada maintains
28 1454495 Ontario Inc. v. J = Systems Inc.,  O.J. No. 486, 17 C.P.C.
(5th) 264 (S.C.J.).