Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The dispute involves whether Teine Energy Ltd. failed to produce records as directed by an arbitration panel, potentially impacting Inter Pipeline Ltd.’s limitations defence.

• The Court established the applicable legal standard for record production in post-arbitration court proceedings, requiring a showing that withheld records may have affected the result of the arbitration.

• Teine withheld the “Boomerang Forecasts,” which the Court found should have been produced in response to a specific Redfern Request, but there was no evidence these records would have changed the arbitration outcome.

• The Court found IPL’s claims about the potential impact of the withheld records to be speculative and unsupported by evidence.

• The decision reinforced the policy of limited judicial intervention in arbitration, with record production only in extraordinary circumstances.

• IPL’s application for production of the records was dismissed, with costs to be addressed at a later hearing.

Background and facts of the case

Teine Energy Ltd. (“Teine”) and Inter Pipeline Ltd. (“IPL”) are parties to litigation following a private arbitration completed in 2024. The arbitration concerned the appropriateness of IPL’s charges to Teine for moving crude oil on the Mid-Saskatchewan Pipeline System (“MS Light”). IPL’s application for leave to appeal and to set aside the arbitration award, and Teine’s application to enforce the award, are scheduled to be heard by the Court on November 13 and 14, 2025. The present application was expedited to preserve these dates.

IPL recently discovered that Teine did not produce certain records—specifically, spreadsheets and correspondence from its marketing advisor, Boomerang Energy (“the Boomerang Forecasts”)—which IPL asserted Teine was directed to produce in the arbitration. IPL argued that, had these records been disclosed, it might have succeeded in its limitations defence. Teine disputed that it was required to produce the records and stated that the records would not have affected the arbitral tribunal’s conclusion on IPL’s limitations defence. IPL sought a court order compelling Teine to produce the disputed records for use in its applications for leave to appeal and to set aside the arbitration award.

Discussion of policy terms and procedural context

The Court noted that private arbitration is generally respected as a matter of public policy, with limited judicial intervention. The norm is that there is no right to record production in applications to enforce or set aside arbitration awards unless the Court orders otherwise. The Court held that record production should only be ordered in extraordinary circumstances.

The Court considered competing standards for record production. IPL argued for a standard based on whether withheld records “may have affected the result of the case,” referencing a British Columbia Labour Relations Board decision. Teine argued for the stricter “practically conclusive” standard from Palmer v The Queen, which applies to the admission of fresh evidence on appeal. The Court adopted the BCLRB standard, concluding that a party seeking production must show good reason to believe the missing records may have affected the result of the case.

Analysis of the production order and withheld records

The Court reviewed the arbitration panel’s production orders, specifically Redfern Requests No. 3 and No. 4. Teine declined to produce the Boomerang Forecasts in response to Redfern Request No. 3, as these were not “monthly transaction documents.” The Court found this interpretation consistent with the plain meaning of the request and the parties’ submissions. However, the Court found that the Boomerang Forecasts fell within the scope of Redfern Request No. 4, which required production of written communications “relating to transportation of Teine crude on the MS Light system that refer to (i) the MS Light as a single shipper system, or (ii) blending on the MS Light.” The Boomerang Forecasts included a column titled “Blending and Equalization Deduction” and were provided monthly by Boomerang to Teine, making them responsive to the order.

Teine advised IPL during the arbitration that no responsive records had been identified, but the Court found that Teine was in possession and control of the Boomerang Forecasts at all relevant times. The Court concluded that Teine improperly withheld records contrary to the arbitral tribunal’s production order arising from Redfern Request No. 4.

Assessment of whether the records could have affected the arbitration

The arbitration concerned, among other things, the method IPL used to calculate compensation for differences in product quality (equalization) on MS Light. The arbitral tribunal concluded that IPL did not use the contractually prescribed equalization formula and that Teine could not have known this until it received record production from IPL during the arbitration. The tribunal rejected IPL’s limitations defence.

IPL argued that the Boomerang Forecasts, if disclosed, could have established that Teine knew or ought to have known about IPL’s calculation methods earlier, potentially affecting the tribunal’s conclusion on the limitations defence. Teine produced an example of a Boomerang Forecast from October 2017 with the MS Light information unredacted and argued that it provided no more information than what was already available from other marketing advisors. The Court found that IPL’s claims about the potential content of the Boomerang Forecasts were speculative and unsupported by evidence. The Court noted that the arbitral tribunal had already considered and rejected the possibility that earlier inquiries by Teine would have led to discovery of IPL’s practices, and there was no evidence that the withheld records would have changed this conclusion.

Ruling and outcome

The Court dismissed IPL’s application for production of the withheld records, finding no reasonable basis to conclude that the records may have affected the arbitral tribunal’s conclusion on IPL’s limitations defence. The judge left the issue of costs to be determined at the hearing on the main applications in November 2025. No specific monetary amount was ordered or awarded in this decision.