Alberta Court Of Queen's Bench Clarifies Rules For Amending Undertaking Responses

Summary

In November 2021, the Honourable Madam Justice E. Sidnell released a procedural decision regarding amending a party's undertaking responses in the case of Signalta Resources Limited v. Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2021 ABQB 867. The decision relates to an attempt by the defendant, Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL), to clarify or replace five of its undertaking responses (UTRs) several days before trial. The five UTRs in question were given by its former corporate representative several years earlier. The plaintiff had prepared to read-in the defendant's UTRs at trial pursuant to the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010 (the Rules).

The trial judge refused to allow CNRL's amended UTRs to be read-in at trial and held that CNRL's failure to provide an affidavit, setting out the corrections to CNRL's evidence in accordance with Rule 5.27 of the Rules, created prejudice that could only be overcome by rejecting the amended UTRs.