statements that the court will lift the corporate veil “where injustice
would otherwise result”. I am not able to conclude that such statements
are intended to remove the authority of the Salomon principle. I think
they may be more in the nature of a shorthand formulation reflecting the
approach of the courts in the cases discussed above.
Spence J.’s analysis was recently cited with approval by Strathy J., as he
then was, in Fairview Donut and by Horkins J. in Durling.
I therefore conclude that the “group enterprise” or “single business entity”
theory does exist in Canadian law but only as a carefully limited exception
to the well-established proposition set out in Salomon. As Spence J. noted in
MacKenzie Trust, “in particular fact situations where the nature of the legal
issue in dispute makes it appropriate to have regard to the larger business
entity, the court is not precluded by Salomon from doing so.”
 The plaintiffs also rely upon the decision of the Court of
Appeal for Ontario in Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada
(Re),32 in support of their position that the principle of corporate
separateness does not apply to a subsidiary that may be liable to
pay the debt of its parent corporation. In the Christian Brothers
case, the Court of Appeal concluded that “all assets of the CBIC,
whether owned beneficially or on trust for one or more charita-
ble purposes, are exigible and may be used by the liquidator
to pay the claims of the tort victims”.33
 In my view, the plaintiffs have not established that Chevron Canada’s corporate veil should be pierced for the following
 Chevron and Chevron Canada are separate legal entities
with separate rights and obligations. The principle of corporate
separateness has been recognized and respected since the 1896
decision of the House of Lords in Salomon v. Salomon & Co.34
 This principle applies equally to groups of companies such
as Chevron’s group of companies of which Chevron Canada is
a part. The English Court of Appeal made this clear in Adams v.
Cape Industries Plc.,35 as follows:
32 Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada (Re) (2000), 47 O.R. (3d) 674, 
O.J. No. 1117 (C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused  S.C.C.A.
No. 277, reconsideration refused 2002 CarswellOnt 1770 (S.C.C.).
33 Christian Brothers (C.A.), at para. 94.
34 Salomon v. Salomon & Co.,  A.C. 22, [1895-1899] All E.R. Rep. 33
35 Adams v. Cape Industries Plc.,  Ch. 433,  1 All E.R. 929 (Eng.
C.A.), at pp. 532, 536 Ch.