Canada: Ontario Court Of Appeal Sets Aside Security For Costs Order In Yaiguaje v. Chevron Case

Last Updated: November 6 2017
Article by Jack Coop

In a decision released on October 31, 2017, a three judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a September 21, 2017 decision by the Court of Appeal motions judge that required the Ecuadorian plaintiffs in this case to post $942,951 as security for costs as a condition of proceeding with their appeals to the Court of Appeal.

In a LinkedIn blog posted in early October, I queried whether such a significant security for costs award would spell the end of this enforcement action in Canada against Chevron. Apparently not.

As with all decisions in the continuing Yaiguaje v. Chevron saga, the current one is important to environmental lawyers, particularly given the recent growth of interest by governments in encouraging corporate social responsibility by companies operating extractive industries on foreign soil1.


The appellants are residents of Ecuador who hold an Ecuadorian judgment of US$9.5 billion against Chevron Corporation obtained in 2011, relating to pollution of the Ecuadorian rainforest by Chevron's predecessor, Texaco. The plaintiffs attempted to enforce their judgment in the U.S., but were unsuccessful. As a result, they began this enforcement action in Ontario, against both Chevron Corporation and Chevron Canada Limited (collectively, "Chevron").

In 2013, on motion by Chevron challenging the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Justice to recognize and enforce the Ecuadorian judgment, and in the alternative seeking a stay of the action, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice stayed the action2. This decision was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Without prejudging the merits of the action, the Supreme Court ruled that jurisdiction to commence the action existed, and it should not be stayed3.

Chevron filed statements of defence in the main action, and in 2016 brought a motion for summary judgment, asking the Ontario Superior Court to terminate the action as against Chevron Canada Limited on the basis of that corporation's separate corporate personality from its parent, Chevron Corporation. In a decision released January 20, 2017, Hainey J. granted the motion and terminated the action against Chevron Canada4. We reported on the Hainey J. decision here.

The plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal. In the appeal proceeding, Chevron brought a motion before a single judge of the Court of Appeal for an order for security for costs for the entire proceedings, including the appeal. In a decision released September 21, 2017, Epstein J. granted the motion and required the Ecuadorian plaintiffs to post $942,951 as security for costs5. In essence, the judge accepted that the requirements of Ontario's security for costs rules had been met6, the plaintiffs being ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction, and further that the plaintiffs failed to establish that they were impecunious or that their appeal had a good chance of success. My partner, Blair Bowen, reported on the Epstein J. decision here.


In a unanimous decision, the OCA ruled that it would be unjust to require the plaintiffs to post security for costs, and set aside that order7.

The Court noted that8:

In an appeal, rule 61.06(1)(b) authorizes this court to make such an order for security for costs of the proceeding and the appeal "as is just" where an order for costs could be made under r. 56.01.

The Court stressed that the rule is "permissive", and that,

Even where the requirements of the rule have been met, a motion judge has discretion to refuse to make the order: Pickard v. London Police Services Board, 2010 ONCA 643, 268 O.A.C. 153, at para. 17.

[19] In determining whether an order should be made for security for costs, the "overarching principle to be applied to all the circumstances is the justness of the order sought": Pickard, at para. 17 and Ravenda Homes Ltd. v. 1372708 Ontario Inc., 2017 ONCA 556, at para. 49.

Despite the deference usually afforded a motions judge, the Court concluded that the judge "erred in principle" in determining the justness of the order sought, in awarding security for costs10.

Although the courts have attempted to articulate the factors to be considered in determining the "justness" of security for costs orders11, the court directed that12:

It is neither helpful nor just to compose a static list of factors to be used in all cases in determining the justness of a security for costs order. There is no utility in imposing rigid criteria on top of the criteria already provided for in the Rules. The correct approach is for the court to consider the justness of the order holistically, examining all the circumstances of the case and guided by the overriding interests of justice to determine whether it is just that the order be made.

The Court then stated that "we conclude that the unique factual circumstances of this case compel the conclusion that the interests of justice require that no order for security for costs be made." The particular circumstances noted by the Court included13:

  1. Public interest litigation. The appellants are seeking to enforce a judgment in which they have no direct economic interest – this is public interest litigation.
  2. Impecuniosity v. severe impact to livelihood. While the appellants led no direct evidence of impecuniosity before the motions judge, "it would be highly impractical to obtain this evidence from the representative plaintiffs, let alone the 30,000 people who would indirectly benefit from the enforcement of the judgment". Moreover, accepting the facts underlying the Ecuadorian judgment as true, "there can be no doubt that the environmental devastation to the appellants' lands has severely hampered their ability to earn a livelihood".
  3. Defendants' need for security for costs. With annual gross revenues in the billions of dollars, Chevron does not require protection for cost awards.
  4. Third party funding. In this case, the appellants should not be required to establish that they have no third party funding in order to successfully resist a motion in an appeal for security for costs, particularly where their counsel is operating under a contingency arrangement and where there is evidence Chevron has sued some of their former third party funders, and caused them to withdraw financial support.
  5. Merit. It cannot be said, at this stage, that this is a case that is wholly devoid of merit. Even the motion judge acknowledged that it might be possible to establish that Chevron Canada's shares are exigible under the Execution Act.
  6. Allow evolution in the law. Although the "legal arguments of the appellants are innovative and untested, especially with regard to piercing the corporate veil...this does not foreclose the possibility that one or more of them may eventually prevail." In order to encourage evolution of the common law, particularly in our appeal court and at the Supreme Court, it would not be just to thwart such "potential advancements...for procedural or tactical reasons".
  7. Motion was an attempt to end the litigation. Although Chevron is entitled to "employ all available means to resist enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment", it appeared to the Court that the motion for security for costs was nothing "more than a measure intended to bring an end to the litigation".


The Court of Appeal's decision will be extremely heartening to environmentalists, and environmental justice critics who would like to see improved corporate social responsibility by companies operating extractive industries on foreign soil. However, from a legal perspective, it may be of considerable concern to civil litigators, as well as environmental litigators who defend alleged public interest claims.

The Court takes the unprecedented step of effectively converting a security for costs motion in which the moving parties presumptively met the technical requirements of the security for costs rules, into a motion for a "protective costs order". Certainly, many of the factors examined by the Court are factors considered by the courts when determining whether to make a protective costs order: e.g. public interest litigation, plaintiffs are impecunious, third party funding is not available, the claim is prima facie meritorious14.

And in principle, there is no reason why the Court should not be able to consider these factors in determining what is "just" on a security for costs motion, given the consequences of awarding security for costs may be the same for an environmental group as failing to obtain a protective costs order – the end of the action.

However, the Court does not apply those protective cost order factors in the same way as they are normally applied on a protective costs motion. For example, it does not place on the appellants the onus of establishing that special circumstances exist to warrant this extraordinary exercise of its powers to displace the normal costs rule, and relieve the plaintiffs of costs. The Court does not require actual proof of impecuniosity, proof that third party is not available, and proof that the claim is prima facie meritorious.

Instead of proof of impecuniosity, the Court only requires proof of impact to livelihood – a much lower bar. Instead of proof of no third party funding, the Court only requires proof of a contingency fee arrangement or that some third party funders dropped out – again, a much lower bar. Instead of proof of prima facie merit, the Court only requires proof of "possible" merit – again, a much lower bar – in fact a bar so low that it could be met in most any case.

Moreover, the Court's desire to permit a possible "evolution in the law", undermines the very purpose of having a summary judgment rule. Why attempt to encourage the early and cost effective disposition of litigation where there is "no genuine issue for trial" - as determined by Hainey J. in this case - when appeals of such determinations will be effectively encouraged by the court's willingness to vacate an otherwise meritorious security for costs order simply because the court wants to look at the "innovative and untested" arguments of the appellant?

One cannot help but be sympathetic to the 30,000 Ecuadorians who have been environmentally devastated in this case and who may benefit from being able to make such "innovative and untested" arguments in the Ontario Court of Appeal. Terminating this action early through the award of a prohibitive security for costs order naturally raises judicial concerns about the plight of these people, and who will assume corporate social responsibility for their devastation.

On the other hand, from a legal perspective, one must ask whether the Court's decision creates a much more lenient set of factors for successfully opposing a security for costs motion. Has the Court effectively set such a low bar as to be at odds with the approach taken by courts on other security for costs and protective costs motions?

Also, one must ask whether the Court's decision will have the unintended effect of encouraging meritless civil litigation by environmental interest groups. Without the normal rules of costs being applied, such litigation may be given a free pass, and waste valuable court resources.


1 See, for example, Global Affairs Canada's "Enhanced Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy to Strengthen Canada's Extractive Sector Abroad", at:

2 See:

3 See: The Supreme Court decision provides a useful background on the history of this case.

4 See:

5 See: Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation, 2017 ONCA 741,

6 Rules 56.01 and 61.06.

7 Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation, 2017 ONCA 827, see:

8 Ibid., para. 17.

9 Ibid., paras. 18 and 19.

10 Ibid., paras. 21-26.

11 The courts have identified such factors as the merits of the claim, delay in bringing the motion, the impact of actionable conduct by the defendants on the available assets of the plaintiffs, access to justice concerns, and the public importance of the litigation. See ibid., para. 24.

12 Ibid., para. 25.

13 Ibid., para. 26.

14 See, for example: British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371, and Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Commissioner of Customs and Revenue and Minister of National Revenue, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 38. In Ontario, also see: Lockridge v. Director, Ministry of the Environment, 2012 ONSC 2316, at paras. 137-177.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Jack Coop
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions