that the Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron cannot be
visited upon it.
 According to the plaintiffs, the following principles which
apply to the application of the principle of corporate separate-
ness demonstrate that the principle should not apply to shield
Chevron Canada’s assets from being available to satisfy the
Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron:
(a) Corporate separateness will not be applied where it would
result in an injustice or to default on a legal obligation.
(b) Corporate separateness will not be applied between a parent and a subsidiary where “there exists a sufficient degree
of relationship between the different legal entities” or where
there is “an economically significant relationship” such that
the “true commercial and practical nature” of the relationship “is of one enterprise”.
(c) Corporate separateness will not be applied to the issue
 At para. 71 of their responding factum, the plaintiffs
submit that these three principles apply to Chevron and Chev-
ron Canada for the following reasons:
(a) To declare that the shares and assets of Chevron Canada
are so separate by virtue only of its incorporation as a 100
per cent subsidiary, so as to make them unavailable to satisfy
the legitimate judgment debt of Chevron, would be an
injustice to the 30,000 indigenous people whose way of life
has been ruined by Chevron’s polluting activities. Such a
declaration would undermine the legal obligation they
fought for more than 20 years to achieve in both Ecuador
and Ontario. It would undermine the whole process of reci-
procity and comity.
(b) As the facts amply demonstrate, Chevron has total effective
control over Chevron Canada and immerses itself intimately
in the affairs of Chevron Canada. None of Chevron Canada’s
major projects was accomplished without approval from
Chevron for each step from initiation of exploration to drilling, to operation to transportation.
(c) Ownership is not a corporate separateness issue. Incorporation prevents a plaintiff from joining in an action, as a
defendant, the uninvolved, innocent parent of a contract
breaking or tortfeasing subsidiary. Corporate separateness
has always been an issue answering the question: who is