(S.C.J.), stating, at para. 31, that “[t]he Execution Act is a procedural statute. It does not create new rights — it only provides a
process for the enforcement of otherwise existing rights.” I find it
unlikely that this court will reach a different conclusion on the
proper interpretation of the Act, having recently upheld Conway
J.’s decision in its entirety: (2016), 136 O.R. (3d) 39,  O.J.
No. 6686, 2016 ONCA 981, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused
 S.C.C.A. No. 74, and  S.C.C.A. No. 75.
 The Ecuadorian plaintiffs submit that they nonetheless
fall within the ambit of the Act as they enjoy a beneficial interest
in Chevron Canada’s assets and shares. At the motion, they
relied on Sistem Muhendislik Insaat Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim
Sirketi v. Kyrgyz Republic,  O.J. No. 1815, 2014 ONSC
2407 (S.C.J.), where Thorburn J., in their view, came to a different conclusion than Belokon on roughly the same facts. However,
her decision was reversed by this court, on the basis that the
republic was not properly served in accordance with the State
Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18: (2015), 126 O.R. (3d) 545,
 O.J. No. 3235, 2015 ONCA 447, leave to appeal to S.C.C.
refused  S.C.C.A. 354.
 Regardless, I do not read Thorburn J. as finding that the
Act creates rights in property where there were none before.
Rather, her finding that the Kyrgyz Republic enjoyed a benefi-
cial interest in shares issued by “Kyrgyzaltryn” (a wholly owned
subsidiary of the republic) turned on several factors not present
in this appeal (set out at paras. 53-61):
(a) the republic provided all the consideration for the issuance
of the shares;
(b) the relevant agreement referred to the “Kyrgyz side”, which
was defined to include the republic;
(c) various different parties stated at different times that the
republic was the owner of the shares; and
(d) special laws were enacted to confirm the republic’s interest
in the shares and control of their use.
 I also disagree with the Ecuadorian plaintiffs’ submission
that, since the dividends flowing between Chevron Canada and
Chevron can be seized under the Execution Act, the assets that
generate those dividends should also be seizable. I do not see the
existence of dividends as detracting from the conclusion that
Chevron has no exigible interest in Chevron Canada. I concur
with the motion judge and Brown J. that [at para. 103] “the
distribution of profits from sub to parent via dividends is