Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. v. Arcelormittal Tubular Products Roman S.A. et al., (2013) 561 A.R. 180

• Judge: O'Ferrall, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: October 18, 2013
• Citations: (2013), 561 A.R. 180;2013 ABCA 357

Cdn. Natural Resources v. Arcelormittal Tubular (2013), 561 A.R. 180; 594 W.A.C. 180 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. OC.088

Canadian Natural Resources Limited (respondent/respondent) v. Arcelormittal Tubular Products Roman S.A., formerly known as Mittal Steel Roman S.A. and Mittal Steel North America Inc. (applicants/appellants) and Vass Pipe and Steel Co. Inc., BHD Tubular Limited, and Arcelormittal XYZ Corp. (not parties to the appeal/defendants) and Vass Pipe and Steel Co. Inc., BHD Tubular Limited, Fluor Canada Ltd., Trident Steel Corporation, Tic Canada ULC, PCL Industrial Constructors Inc., and Willbros Canada Holdings ULC (not parties to the appeal/third parties)

(1301-0262-AC)

Canadian Natural Resources Limited (respondent/respondent) v. Arcelormittal Tubular Products Roman S.A., formerly known as Mittal Steel Roman S.A. and Mittal Steel North America Inc. (applicants/appellants) and Arcelormittal S.A., formerly Mittal Steel Company, N.V., Arcelormittal USA Inc., Emco Corporation carrying on business under the firm name and style Westlund, Vass Pipe and Steel Co. Inc. and Arcelormittal XYZ Corp. (not parties to the appeal/defendants) and Emco Corporation carrying on business under the firm name and style Westlund, Vass Pipe and Steel Co. Inc., Fluor Canada Ltd., Trident Steel Corporation, Tic Canada ULC, PCL Industrial Constructors Inc., and Willbros Canada Holdings ULC (not parties to the appeal/third parties)

(1301-0263-AC; 2013 ABCA 357)

Indexed As: Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. v. Arcelormittal Tubular Products Roman S.A. et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

O'Ferrall, J.A.

October 18, 2013.

Summary:

Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (CNRL) obtained pipe (the subject pipe) through various distributors for use in its oil sands production facility, the Horizon Project, including from Arcelormittal Tubular Products Roman S.A. (formerly known as Mittal Steel Roman S.A.) (manufacturer) and Mittal Steel North America Inc. (distributor) (the Mittal defendants). The subject pipe was to be manufactured to the American Society for Testing and Materials A106 Grade B Specification or Standard. CNRL alleged that some of the pipe was defective and had to be removed and replaced. CNRL commenced two actions against the Mittal defendants and other parties in the supply chain, including Emco (pipe supplier) and Vass (pipe distributor) respecting the pipe. The matter was under case management. CNRL applied for an order that questions, records or information regarding "concerns, complaints or issues regarding the quality of all A106 Grade B pipe manufactured by Mittal at its Roman Mill between 1999 - 2006" were relevant and material and should be produced.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported (2013), 558 A.R. 361, declared to be relevant and material any information in the possession or control of any of the defendants relating to defects that went to the quality of other A106 Grade B pipe, or other A106 Grade B pipe that failed in testing, manufactured by Mittal at its Roman Mill, in 2004-2006, as well as actions proposed or taken by Mittal to improve the quality of A106 Grade B pipe at the Roman Mill between 1999-2006. The defendants were also ordered to produce any records previously withheld or redacted which fell within the ambit of what the court declared to be producible. The court directed the defendants to serve a sworn supplementary affidavit of records. The defendants also had to produce at their own expense the witnesses and corporate representatives already examined to answer questions about these matters. The Mittal defendants appealed and applied for a stay on behalf of themselves and their co-defendants of the case management judge's order pending appeal.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per O'Ferrall, J.A., granted the stay, but only until December 5, 2013, the date the defendants' appeal was to be heard, leaving it up to the appeal panel to decide if the stay should be extended. The stay applied to all defendants, even those who were not parties to the appeal.

Practice - Topic 8952

Appeals - Stay of proceedings pending appeal - When appellant entitled to stay - The plaintiff and defendants were involved in a multi-million dollar lawsuit over steel pipe which was alleged to have been defective - The case management judge ordered extensive production - The defendants appealed and applied for a stay pending appeal - The appeal related to the scope of production ordered, the difficulty of complying with it, as well as whether the "similar fact evidence" ordered produced was relevant or admissible - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per O'Ferrall, J.A., granted the stay, but only until December 5, 2013, the date the defendants' appeal was to be heard, leaving it up to the appeal panel to decide if the stay should be extended - The stay applied to all defendants, even those who were not parties to the appeal.

Cases Noticed:

Triple Five Corp. v. United Western Communications Ltd. (1994), 19 Alta. L.R.(3d) 153 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Knox et al. v. Conservative Party of Canada et al. (2007), 404 A.R. 383; 394 W.A.C. 383; 2007 ABCA 143, refd to. [para. 8].

Medical Laboratory Consultants Inc. et al. v. Calgary Health Region, [2006] A.R. Uned. 751; 2006 ABCA 398, refd to. [para. 8].

Cybersurf Corp. v. Mercury Partners & Co. et al. (2004), 357 A.R. 15; 334 W.A.C. 15; 2004 ABCA 265, refd to. [para. 8].

K.N. v. Alberta et al. (1999), 243 A.R. 94; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 366; 1999 ABQB 270, refd to. [para. 8].

Counsel:

S. Carscallen, Q.C., and C.J. Lee, for the applicants;

D.A. McGillivray, Q.C., and P.G. Chiswell, for the respondent;

M.D. Briggs, for the Emco Corporation (not a party to the appeal or application).

This stay application was heard before O'Ferrall, J.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on October 18, 2013.