The dispute arose from a pipeline failure, following which CNOOC Petroleum North America ULC (CNOOC) filed a Statement of Claim against the Wood Group (Wood) and ITP SA, alleging defects in the pipeline’s design and construction. During Questioning, Wood either refused certain Undertakings or provided responses that CNOOC considered inadequate. As a result, CNOOC applied to compel Wood to respond to certain Undertakings or provide detailed responses. CNOOC argued that some responses were insufficient, while Wood contended that its responses were adequate and that some Undertakings were irrelevant or overly broad.

Nixon A.C.J. outlined the disclosure principles under Part 5 of the Rules. Rule 5.1 emphasizes the importance of obtaining evidence to resolve issues, narrow disputes, encourage early disclosure, and prevent unnecessary delays or costs. Nixon A.C.J. explained that, under Rule 5.2, disclosure requires the exchange of relevant and material information that significantly aids to determine the issues raised in the pleadings. Additionally, Nixon A.C.J. noted that Questioning is restricted to relevant and material matters under Rule 5.25, with exceptions for privilege, irrelevance, or undue burden.

Citing Brookdale International v Crescent Point Energy, 2023 ABKB 120, the Court stated that facts that assist with case understanding are discoverable, whereas evidence about how the case will be proven is not. The scope of Questioning is guided by the pleadings, the nature of the claim, and legal principles, with the Court balancing the need for disclosure against overly broad of unreasonable requests.

After reviewing the Undertaking requests, Nixon A.C.J. ordered Wood to provide supplemental responses for five Undertakings, while concluding that Wood responses or refusals to the remaining Undertakings were appropriate.