This is a ruling on Costs following the previous decision CNOOC Petroleum North America ULC v ITP SA, 2023 ABKB 689 (the “Undertakings Application”). The Undertakings Application arose from an Application by CNOOC Petroleum North America ULC (“CNOOC”) against ITP SA (“ITP”) to compel answers and undertakings following Questioning on an Affidavit of Records. However, prior to the Undertakings Application, the scope of the requested undertaking responses narrowed after further responses were provided by ITP and others were abandoned by CNOOC. Both CNOOC and ITP argued they were substantially successful on the Undertakings Application and therefore entitled to Costs.

Pursuant to Rule 10.29(1), the Court acknowledged the default rule on Costs that a successful party is entitled to Costs, subject to the Court’s general discretion under Rule 10.31. Associate Chief Justice Nixon acknowledged that this decision fit within the Court’s broad discretion to make a Costs award pursuant to Rules 10.31 and 10.33, emphasizing that Trial Judges held considerable discretion in determining reasonable and proper Costs.

The Court determined that there was mixed success for both Parties because almost the same number of undertaking requests were responded to by ITP as the amount that were dropped by CNOOC following the filing of the Undertakings Application and that some of the requested undertakings required the Court to assess solicitor-client and litigation privilege. Nixon A.C.J. acknowledged that Costs is not a simple quantitative assessment and that success for Costs does not mean success on all issues. Given the finding of mixed success, the Court ordered the parties to bear their own Costs.