Steelhead LNG alleges that ARC Resources and associated LNG project companies used its confidential information to advance a competing LNG project with the Nisga’a Nation. Seeking evidence about commercial negotiations and project decisions, Steelhead served roughly 600 written questions on three people who had dealt with the project, namely the Nation’s president, a technical consultant and former external counsel. The question before the court was whether the answers justified compulsory examinations under Rule 7-5 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, not whether any defendant had misused confidential information.
Justice Basran examined the answers witness by witness. The president had answered the questions put to her even when she lacked first-hand knowledge, although she was expected to inquire about briefing notes and produce available documents subject to privilege. Former counsel’s inability to recall older dealings or retrieve documents no longer within her control did not amount to a refusal. The consultant, however, had attended substantial meetings and appeared on hundreds of project emails. His repeated failures to recall details, together with his refusal to address a factual question about lobbying materials, justified an oral examination.
The court ordered an examination of the consultant on material issues, declined examinations of the other two witnesses and directed each party to bear its own costs. Superficial written answers may make a third party examinable, but the rule requires an assessment of what each person can reasonably answer. This ruling did not determine the merits of Steelhead’s allegations or displace any applicable privilege.