Conclusion on summary judgment motions
 For all of these reasons, I have concluded that the plaintiffs’ claim cannot succeed against Chevron Canada. Chevron
Canada’s motion for summary judgment is granted. The plaintiffs’ claim against it is dismissed.
 As a result of my conclusion on this motion, Chevron’s
motion for summary judgment is granted and the plaintiffs’
motion for summary judgment is dismissed.
The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Chevron’s Defence
 The plaintiffs move pursuant to rule 21.01(1)(b) of the
Rules of Civil Procedure46 to strike the defences pleaded by
Chevron in its statement of defence.
 Chevron delivered its statement of defence in October
2015, following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision
confirming the jurisdiction of the Ontario court to hear the
 The plaintiffs submit that Chevron’s entire statement
of defence should be struck because it raises impermissible
defences that have no reasonable prospect of success. They base
their position on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in
Beals v. Saldanha.47 They argue that the Supreme Court stipulated that only three limited and narrowly applied defences
are permissible in an action to recognize and enforce a foreign
 The plaintiffs also submit that none of Chevron’s defences
fall within the permitted defences established in Beals and that
they constitute an attempt by Chevron to relitigate issues that
have been finally determined by the Ecuadorian courts.
 Chevron submits that the Ecuadorian judgment was
fraudulently procured by the plaintiffs. Chevron argues that its
statement of defence sets out the facts it relies upon in support
of its position that the Ecuadorian judgment is incapable of
enforcement under Canadian law because the plaintiffs obtained
it by corrupt and fraudulent acts, including the manipulation of
the judicial process and by bribing and intimidating experts and
judges of the Ecuadorian courts.
46 Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rule 21.01(1)(b).
47 Beals v. Saldanha,  3 S.C.R. 416,  S.C.J. No. 77, 2003 SCC 72.