This Application arose in complex litigation concerning a 2015 pipeline failure. Sunstone Projects Ltd. and Wood Group Canada, Inc. (collectively, “Wood Group”) brought an Application to remove CNOOC Petroleum North America ULC’s (“CNOOC”) corporate representative, Mr. Sean Noe (“Mr. Noe”). Wood Group also applied for directions governing how any CNOOC corporate representative must inform themselves for questioning moving forward. Additionally, Wood Group sought a further correcting Affidavit concerning CNOOC’s evidence about the existence of a pipeline integrity management system (“PIMS”).

Associate Chief Justice Nixon emphasized that discovery must be interpreted through the lens of Rules 1.2 and 5.1, which aim to ensure Actions are decided on their merits, that relevant and material evidence is available for Trial, and that disclosure proceeds efficiently and proportionately, without unnecessary cost or delay.

In assessing the request to substitute Mr. Noe pursuant to Rule 5.4(6), the Court adopted the framework in H2 Canmore Apartments LP v Cormode & Dickson Construction Edmonton Ltd., 2024 ABKB 424, and reaffirmed that replacing a corporate representative constitutes an extraordinary remedy. Associate Chief Justice Nixon held that inefficiency or frustration in questioning is not, on its own, sufficient to justify judicial intervention, particularly where Wood Group proposed no alternative corporate representative and Mr. Noe remained available and capable of fulfilling the role.

The Court refused Wood Group’s request for a further correcting Affidavit pursuant to Rule 5.27. The Court found that CNOOC had acknowledged its errors, sworn a correcting Affidavit confirming that its investigation remained ongoing, and provided sufficient sworn evidence to permit meaningful cross-examination.

Although substitution was denied, the Court exercised its authority pursuant to Rule 5.4(4) to issue targeted directions to preserve the integrity of discovery. Nixon A.C.J. required Mr. Noe to inform himself of how undertaking responses were prepared, who participated in that process, what documents were reviewed, and what inquiries were made. Associate Chief Justice Nixon also ordered Wood Group to provide advanced notice of the undertakings it intended to pursue at questioning. The Court further reaffirmed CNOOC’s continuing disclosure obligations pursuant to Rule 5.10 and directed CNOOC to disclose forthwith any newly discovered relevant and material information arising from its ongoing investigation.

In the result, the Court allowed the Wood Group’s Application in part, granting limited relief by issuing procedural directions and reaffirming ongoing disclosure obligations.