It’s now been more than a year since the Chevron Shakedown came to a rather ignominious end in a New York federal court for attorney Steven Donziger and his Ecuadorean co-conspirators. (If this is the first you’re hearing of this story, you can browse our years-long coverage of it here.) Having ghostwritten a bogus judgment in Ecuador against the energy company for a $19B payday, Donziger not only came out on the losing end of a RICO trial but was ordered to pay nearly a million dollars in court costs. That didn’t mean that the aspiring fraudsters were giving up entirely, though.

Having been thoroughly defeated in the court battles in the United States, Donziger and company took their fight to Canada. They hoped to be able to convince a Canadian court to enforce the fraudulent Ecuadorean judgment against Chevron’s subsidiary in the Great White North, despite the fact that Chevron Canada Limited has no ties to the original project in Ecuador. After losing in the first round up there as well, the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the claim this week, refusing to enable the ongoing fraud. (Globe and Mail)

The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a lower Canadian court’s determination that an Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron Corporation, already found by U.S. courts to have been obtained through fraud and corruption, cannot be enforced against Chevron Canada Limited, an indirect subsidiary. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment dismissing all claims against Chevron Canada Limited holding that it is a separate entity from Chevron Corporation and its assets are protected from seizure by those seeking to enforce the corrupt Ecuadorian judgment. The court rejected the Ecuadorian plaintiffs’ arguments as contrary to fundamental principles of Canadian corporate law.

The Court of Appeal stated: “What is really driving the appellants’ appearance in our courts is their inability to enforce their judgment in the United States,” where it is has already been found to be the product of “a massive fraud” that involved both corruption and coercion of judges. The Court of Appeal continued: “What we are really being invited to do is to assist the appellants in doing an end-run around the United States court order by breaking with well-established jurisprudence and creating an exception to the principle of corporate separateness.”