(the “New York decision”) and prohibited the judgment from
being enforced in the United States. His decision was upheld
by the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit,
and the Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari for a further
 In 2012, the Ecuadorian plaintiffs commenced an action
in Ontario, seeking to enforce the Ecuadorian judgment against
Chevron and Chevron Canada.
 Chevron and Chevron Canada initially disputed whether
Ontario courts had jurisdiction simpliciter to recognize and
enforce the Ecuadorian judgment. This dispute ultimately
reached the Supreme Court, which concluded in a decision
released in September 2015 (the “Chevron decision”) that
Ontario courts had jurisdiction over the enforcement action.
 However, the Supreme Court was clear that the finding of
jurisdiction simply afforded the Ecuadorian plaintiffs the opportunity to seek to enforce the Ecuadorian judgment in Ontario.
Success was not guaranteed — Chevron and Chevron Canada
remained free to argue against enforcement based on their separate corporate personality, and any other applicable defences.
 The matter proceeded to the Ontario Superior Court.
Chevron and Chevron Canada brought motions for summary
judgment to dismiss the Ecuadorian plaintiffs’ claim against
Chevron Canada. The principal basis for the motions was that
Chevron Canada had a separate legal personality from Chevron,
and was therefore not liable for Chevron’s judgment debts.
 The Ecuadorian plaintiffs brought a cross-motion for
summary judgment, seeking a declaration that the assets of
Chevron Canada are exigible to satisfy Chevron’s judgment
debt. They did not allege wrongdoing on the part of Chevron
Canada, but instead submitted that Chevron Canada was an
asset of Chevron available for execution and seizure pursuant
to the Execution Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.24 to satisfy the Ecuadorian judgment. In the alternative, they argued that the court
should pierce the corporate veil between Chevron and Chevron
Canada, based on Chevron's effective control over Chevron
Canada and the injustice that would otherwise result. The
Ecuadorian plaintiffs also brought a motion to add Chevron
Canada Capital Company, a sixth-level subsidiary of Chevron
that owns all the shares of Chevron Canada, as a defendant to
 In reasons dated January 20, 2017 [(2017), 136 O.R. (3d)
261,  O.J. No. 311 (S.C.J.)], the motion judge granted
Chevron and Chevron Canada’s summary judgment motions and
dismissed the Ecuadorian plaintiffs’ cross-motion. In separate