Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 22 FEBRUARY 2016

Canadian Natural Resources Limited v ShawCor Ltd

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Contributor
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

With over 750 lawyers, intellectual property agents and other professionals, BLG services...

View firm profile
Explore more from Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Dunn Hiebert was engaged by CNRL to provide inspection services in relation to the pipeline and Dunn Hiebert was to inspect and examine the coating and approved it on several occasions.

CanadaEnergy and Natural Resources

In a recent decision of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Canadian Natural Resources Limited v ShawCor Ltd, 2016 ABQB 21, the Court confirmed that the Alberta Rules of Court could be used in to "read-in" evidence of a consultant's employee against an oil and gas company. This case is an important reminder to industry to ensure that consultants are chosen with care and their activities monitored closely, because their evidence could become "some of the information" of the company in later court proceedings.

Background Facts

Canadian Natural Resources Limited ("CNRL") brought an action against ShawCor Ltd., and Shaw Pipe Protection Ltd. ("ShawCor"), IMV Projects Inc. ("IMV"), Flint Field Services Ltd. and Transline Ltd. ("Flint") alleging that the defendants negligently provided a pipe coating and insulation system related to a 32 km underground pipeline owned by CNRL. ShawCor third partied Dunn Hiebert & Associates ("Dunn Hiebert") and Ram River Pipeline

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from