Yaiguaje et al. v. Chevron Corp. et al., (2014) 315 O.A.C. 109 (CA)

• Judge: MacPherson, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: January 16, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2014), 315 O.A.C. 109 (CA);2014 ONCA 40

Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corp. (2014), 315 O.A.C. 109 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] O.A.C. TBEd. JA.025

Daniel Carlos Lusitande Yaiguaje, Benancio Fredy Chimbo Grefa, Miguel Mario Payaguaje Payaguaje, Teodoro Gonzalo Piaguaje Payaguaje, Simon Lusitande Yaiguaje, Armando Wilmer Piaguaje Payaguaje, Angel Justino Piaguaje Lucitante, Javier Piaguaje Payaguaje, Fermin Piaguaje, Luis Agustin Payaguaje Piaguaje, Emilio Martin Lusitande Yaiguaje, Reinaldo Lusitande Yaiguaje, Maria Victoria Aguinda Salazar, Carlos Greea Huatatoca, Catalina Antonia Aguinda Salazar, Lidia Alexandria Aguinda Aguinda, Clide Ramiro Aguinda Aguinda, Luis Armando Chimbo Yumbo, Beatriz Mercedes Grefa Tanguila, Lucio Enrique Grefa Tanguila, Patricio Wilson Aguinda Aguinda, Patricio Alberto Chimbo Yumbo, Segundo Angel Amanta Milan, Francisco Matias Alvarado Yumbo, Olga Gloria Grefa Cerda, Narcisa Aida Tanguila Naryaez, Bertha Antonia Yumbo Tanguila, Gloria Lucrecia Tanguila Grefa, Francisco Victor Tanguila Grefa, Rosa Teresa Chimbo Tanguila, Maria Clelia Reascos Revelo, Heleodoro Pataron Guaraca, Celia Irene Viveros Cusangua, Lorenzo Jose Alvarado Yumbo, Francisco Alvarado Yumbo, Jose Gabriel Revelo Llore, Luisa Delia Tanguila Narvaez, Jose Miguel Ipiales Chicaiza, Hugo Gerardo Camacho Naranjo, Maria Magdalena Rodriguez Barcenes, Elias Roberto Piyahuaje Payahuaje, Lourdes Beatriz Chimbo Tanguila, Octavio Ismael Cordova Huanca, Maria Hortencia Viveros Cusangua, Guillermo Vincente Payaguaje Lusitande, Alfredo Donaldo Payaguaje Payaguaje and Delfin Leonidas Payaguaje Payaguaje (plaintiffs/respondents/responding parties) v. Chevron Corporation, Chevron Canada Limited and Chevron Canada Finance Limited (defendants/appellants/ moving parties )

(M43289; M43291; C57019; 2014 ONCA 40)

Indexed As: Yaiguaje et al. v. Chevron Corp. et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

MacPherson, J.A.

January 16, 2014.

Summary:

The plaintiffs were indigenous Ecuadorian villagers who asserted that Chevron Corp. had extensively polluted an area of Ecuador. The plaintiffs obtained a judgment in Ecuador against Chevron for $9.51 billion (US) in environmental and health tort claim damages. They sought to enforce the judgment in Canada against Chevron and its Canadian subsidiary, Chevron Canada (the defendants). Without attorning to the court's jurisdiction, the defendants moved for an order setting aside the service ex juris of the claim against them, a declaration that the Ontario court had no jurisdiction to hear the action and an order dismissing or permanently staying the action.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 2527, held that the Ontario courts had jurisdiction to hear the action, but stayed the action on its own initiative under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act on the basis that Chevron lacked assets in the jurisdiction and the plaintiffs had "no hope of success" in piercing the corporate veil of Chevron Canada. The plaintiffs appealed from the order imposing the stay. The defendants cross-appealed from the finding regarding jurisdiction.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 313 O.A.C. 285, allowed the appeal, setting aside the stay, and dismissed the cross-appeals. The defendants were ordered to file statements of defence and to pay costs to the plaintiffs. The defendants moved to stay the court's order pending applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, per MacPherson, J.A., granted the stay.

Practice - Topic 8952

Appeals - Stay of proceedings pending appeal - When appellant entitled to stay - The plaintiffs were indigenous Ecuadorian villagers who asserted that Chevron Corp. had extensively polluted an area of Ecuador - The plaintiffs obtained a judgment in Ecuador against Chevron for $9.51 billion (US) in environmental and health tort claim damages - They sought to enforce the judgment in Canada against Chevron and its Canadian subsidiary, Chevron Canada (the defendants) - Brown, J., held that the Ontario courts had jurisdiction, but stayed the action - The appellate court agreed that the Ontario courts had jurisdiction, but set aside the stay - The defendants applied for a stay pending leave applications to the Supreme Court of Canada - The Ontario Court of Appeal, per MacPherson, J.A., granted the stay - The serious issue and balance of convenience factors favoured the defendants, while the irreparable harm factor favoured the plaintiffs - In the result, the court held that the stay was justified in the interests of justice with the determining factor being the balance of convenience.

Practice - Topic 8958

Appeals - Stay of proceedings pending appeal - Balance of convenience and justice - [See Practice - Topic 8952 ].

Practice - Topic 9090.4

Appeals - Supreme Court of Canada - Leave to appeal - Stay of judgment pending application for - [See Practice - Topic 8952 ].

Cases Noticed:

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 3].

BTR Global Opportunity Trading Ltd. et al. v. RBC Dexia Investor Services Trust (2011), 283 O.A.C. 321; 2011 ONCA 620, refd to. [para. 5].

Van Damme v. Gelber et al. (2013), 307 O.A.C. 81; 115 O.R.(3d) 470; 2013 ONCA 388, refd to. [para. 11].

Circuit World Corp. v. Lesperance et al. (1997), 104 O.A.C. 59; 33 O.R.(3d) 674 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Counsel:

Clarke Hunter, Q.C., and Robert Frank, for the moving party, Chevron Corporation;

Benjamin Zarnett and Peter Kolla, for the moving party, Chevron Canada Limited;

Alan J. Lenczner, Q.C., and Brendan Morrison, for the responding parties.

This motion was heard in Chambers, before MacPherson, J.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on January 16, 2014.