You are here

The implied undertaking applies to judicial and administrative proceedings

The various cases mentioned above illustrate that the implied undertaking applies to information disclosed under document discovery and examination for discovery rules that apply to civil proceedings. The rule applies in both provincial court and Supreme Court proceedings:
 
I can see no reason why the implied undertaking would not apply to parties and their lawyers in both civil and family proceedings in the Provincial Court.
(Svorinic v. Svorinic, 2012 BCSC 826 at para. 59).
 
The implied undertaking also applies to information disclosed by the Crown to accused persons in criminal proceedings; see discussion below including reference to R. v. Basi, 2011 BCSC 314.
 
It has also been held that the implied undertaking applies to information produced under compulsion of statutory disclosure provisions that govern regulatory proceedings. The plaintiff in Antoncic v. Wylie, 2009 CanLII 13626 (Ont. SC) was dismissed from employment for cause from his position as manager of the Employee Relations Unit of the Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. The plaintiff brought a grievance before the Public Service Grievance Board (PSGB), obtained certain information in the course of that proceeding, and eventually received a sum of money upon resolution of that proceeding (para. 2). The plaintiff then commenced a court action for conspiracy and defamation, but the court stayed that new action permanently on the basis that it was commenced entirely on information used in breach of the implied undertaking that applied to the administrative proceedings:
 
Antoncic was the recipient of the information in the grievance arbitration before the PSGB.  The implied undertaking rule prevents him from using that information in his law suit against Wylie and Potter.
The plaintiff’s allegations in the statement of claim of tortious conduct by the defendants are based entirely upon documents and information disclosed to him in the course of the grievance procedure.  He has breached the deemed undertaking rule.
This action is an abuse of the court’s process.  There will be an order that the action be stayed permanently.
 
(Antoncic v. Wylie, 2009 CanLII 13626 at para. 71, 79 and 81 (Ont. SC)).
 
Antoncic v. Wylie, 2009 CanLII 13626 (Ont. SC) was referred to with approval in RM v. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, 2011 BCSC 832 at para. 47.
 
 
 
This book was written by Michael Dew, a Vancouver lawyer who practices civil litigation, including representing claimants in motor vehicle accident claims, persons who have been denied insurance coverage by insurance companies, and persons dealing with builders lien issues.