INTER PIPELINE LTD v TEINE ENERGY LTD

Inter Pipeline Ltd. (“IPL”) brought an Application under Rule 14.48(b) for an Order staying the ongoing proceedings in the Court of King’s Bench, pending its Appeal from an interlocutory Decision refusing to compel Teine Energy Ltd. (“Teine”) to produce additional documents. The underlying proceedings arose from IPL’s Originating Application for leave to Appeal an arbitration award, scheduled to be heard on November 13-14, 2025 (the “Leave Application”). In preparation for the Leave Application, IPL sought a production of documents it characterized as critical. Justice Feasby dismissed the production request (the “Production Decision”), and IPL appealed, with the Appeal set for November 10, 2025.

IPL sought to adjourn the Leave Application until the Appeal of the Production Decision could be heard. Justice Ho refused the adjournment (the “Adjournment Decision”), and IPL did not Appeal that ruling. Instead, IPL sought a Stay of the Leave Application pending resolution of the Appeal of the Production Decision (the “Stay Application”).

IPL argued that Rule 14.48 granted the Court jurisdiction to stay proceedings pending appeal, even where those proceedings did not flow from the specific decision under appeal. IPL submitted that Rule 14.48(b), permits a single Appeal Judge to halt underlying proceedings, notwithstanding the absence of an Appeal from the Decision allowing those proceedings to continue.

Teine opposed the Stay Application, asserting that Rule 14.48 only allows the Court to stay the consequences of the decision actually under appeal. Since IPL did not Appeal the Adjournment Decision, Teine argued that the Stay Application constituted a collateral attack, and that IPL could not obtain a Stay without first seeking leave to Appeal the Adjournment Decision.

Justice Hawkes accepted Teine’s position and found that the Stay Application to be an impermissible collateral attack on the Adjournment Decision. Hawkes J.A. affirmed that Rule 14.48 authorizes a stay only of the effects of the decision under appeal. As the Appeal from the Production Decision concerned an interlocutory ruling with “nothing to stay,” Justice Hawkes determined that Rule 14.48 could not be used to halt unrelated proceedings.

The Court rejected IPL’s reliance on Denis v Sauvageau, 2022 ABCA 166, noting the proceedings stayed in that case flowed directly from the Order being appealed, unlike the Leave Application, which did not arise from the Production Decision. Justice Hawkes also held that Dow Chemical Canada ULC v Nova Chemicals Corporation, 2023 ABCA 262, similarly did not support IPL’s argument, as the stay in that case was granted under Rules 14.37 and 14.75, not Rule 14.48. Justice Hawkes emphasized that Rule 14.48 does not confer jurisdiction to interfere with proceedings governed by a judge whose decision had not been appealed.

The Court further held that even if jurisdiction existed, a stay would not have been warranted. Hawkes J.A. reiterated that the Court of King’s Bench controls its own process and that appellate intervention in scheduling matters should only occur in exceptional circumstances. The Court noted that the Adjournment Decision was the result of Justice Ho exercising his discretion after hearing from both parties. Moreover, Teine had confirmed that if the Appeal of the Production Decision remained largely undecided by the conclusion of oral argument in the Leave Application, it would consent to pausing those proceedings and would not argue that IPL was barred from advancing any issues at a later date.

Considering Teine’s assurances and the deference owed to case management decisions of Trial Judges, Justice Hawkes concluded that no basis existed for intervention. Accordingly, the Stay Application was dismissed.