Where the moving party has met its initial onus under
rule 56.01, and where the responding party is not impecunious,
security for costs will generally be appropriate unless the
responding party can demonstrate that their appeal has a good
chance of success. I agree with the statement of Code J. in
Cigar500.com Inc. v. Ashton Distributors Inc. (2009), 99 O.R.
(3d) 55,  O.J. No. 3680 (S.C.J.), at para. 69, that “the burden in Zeitoun for a Plaintiff who is not ’impecunious’ is a high
one”. If the responding party is not impecunious, the standard is
higher than “‘not devoid of merit’, but is not as high as proving
the claim on a balance of probabilities at trial, or establishing
that there is no triable issue on a summary judgment motion”:
Bruno Appliance and Furniture Inc. v. Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP,  O.J. No. 3096, 2013 ONSC 4501 (S.C.J.), at
 In my view, the Ecuadorian plaintiffs have not demonstrated that their appeal has a good chance of success.3 The
motion judge held that, absent a piercing of the corporate veil,
the shares and assets of Chevron Canada are not available for
execution and seizure to satisfy the Ecuadorian judgment
against Chevron. That conclusion is unlikely to be overturned.
 The separate legal personality of corporations is a funda-
mental principle of corporate law, recognized in Salomon v.
Salomon & Co.,  A.C. 22,  UKHL 1 (H.L.) and
endorsed by Canadian courts many times. The principle applies
equally to groups of companies — such as the Chevron group —
absent a compelling reason to pierce the corporate veil. As the
English Court of Appeal made clear in Adams v. Cape Industries
Plc,  1 All E.R. 929,  B.C.C. 786, at pp. 817,
There is no general principle that all companies in a group of companies are
to be regarded as one. On the contrary, the fundamental principle is that
“each company in a group of companies . . . is a separate legal entity pos-
sessed of separate legal rights and liabilities.”
. . . . .
3 In what follows, I will only consider the appeal in respect of Chevron Canada. CCCC is essentially in the exact same position as Chevron Canada
vis-à-vis Chevron. Accordingly, if the motion judge correctly concluded
that summary judgment should be granted in respect of the appellants’
claim for relief against Chevron Canada, he was also correct in concluding
that there was no basis upon which to add CCCC as a defendant.