Sunstone Projects Ltd. and Wood Group Canada, Inc. (collectively, the “Wood Group”) and ITP SA (“ITP”), applied to compel CNOOC Petroleum North America ULC (“CNOOC”) to answer undertakings related to causation, negligence, and evidence disclosure in a pipeline failure dispute. CNOOC contended that the undertaking requests were unduly onerous, irrelevant, or unfounded, asserting it had already satisfied its disclosure obligations. Wood Group and ITP argued that the requested undertakings were relevant and necessary to narrow the issues and prepare their defences.

Associate Chief Justice Nixon outlined the disclosure principles under Part 5 of the Rules, emphasizing that the purpose of Rule 5.1 is to ensure evidence is available for Trial, narrowing of issues, promotion of early and efficient disclosure, and unnecessary delays or costs are avoided. Nixon A.C.J. noted that these principles stemmed from the foundational notion that lawsuits should be decided on their merits. Accordingly, all relevant and material records must be produced, and all relevant and material questions answered, whether favourable or not.

Nixon A.C.J. reviewed Rule 5.2, explaining that relevance and materiality extend to information that could reasonably assist in determining issues in the pleadings, or lead to disclosure of such evidence. The Court noted that the pleadings and the context and nature of the claim guide this analysis, and Rule 5.25 outlines which questions must be answered. Nixon A.C.J. distinguished between discoverable facts, which define the case to be met, and discoverable evidence, which reveals how the case will be proven. The Court also clarified that broad, compendious questions addressing entire paragraphs of pleadings need not be answered, but specific factual questions about individual allegations must be.

Associate Chief Justice Nixon ordered that all but two undertakings in the Wood Group’s Application be answered. CNOOC objected to Undertaking 26, which sought confirmation of a new custodial email review, custodian identities, and search terms used, arguing it constituted an unduly onerous fishing expedition. Wood Group contended it was a targeted inquiry due to gaps in prior disclosure, but Nixon A.C.J. found no evidence of missing relevant materials and upheld CNOOC’s refusal, while emphasizing that Rule 5.10 requires ongoing disclosure of relevant information.

Undertaking 707 sought information on how the project was to be funded after a certain date, based on information suggesting that no additional funding existed. CNOOC argued the request rested on a faulty premise, noting the cited documents included only a draft supplemental funding request explaining expected cost overruns. The Court agreed, finding the inquiry based on an inaccurate assumption and ruling that Undertaking 707 need not be answered.

Regarding ITP’s Application, Associate Chief Justice Nixon ordered that all but three of the undertakings be answered. Undertaking 771, which asked CNOOC to review its records for any indication of ITP’s training deficiencies, was contested. ITP argued it was necessary for the negligence claim, but CNOOC refused, citing irrelevance, expert evidence suitability, and protection of legal strategy. The Court agreed, ruling CNOOC need not respond as the request exceeded factual discovery and intruded on litigation strategy.

For Undertaking 779, a five-part question regarding pipeline operations in Muskeg, Nixon A.C.J. ordered that three components, which asked about how the Muskeg statements indicated safe operation, whether employees relied on them, and whether CNOOC received confirming information, did not need to be answered. CNOOC argued that the questions improperly sought legal strategy, and the Court agreed, finding them inappropriate, overly broad, and beyond a request for factual information.

Lastly, Undertaking 786 asked CNOOC to review records and advise whether it had any information suggesting that ITP’s stress analyses of pipe-in-pipe components were incorrect, incomplete, or inaccurate, and to identify related records. ITP argued that the inquiry was necessary to understand the case it had to meet, while CNOOC contended it effectively sought an expert opinion, which was improper, not material, and irrelevant. The Court determined that CNOOC was justified in refusing to answer due to the use of the term “suggests” which required an opinion, going beyond factual information. Consequently, CNOOC was not required to answer Undertaking 786.