You are here

The undertaking is owed to the court, not the disclosing party

The implied undertaking is owed to the court rather than the party that disclosed the information covered by the undertaking:
 
[T]he application could have been brought on short notice, with leave, or perhaps even without notice as the undertaking is owed to the court rather than the opposing party.
(Professional Components Ltd. v. Rigollet, 2010 BCSC 688 at para. 23).
 
Similarly:
 
The undertaking not to use the documents obtained on discovery except in the civil proceedings in which the documents were obtained, is an undertaking to the court… 
(International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 213 v. Hochstein, 2008 BCSC 1009 at para. 35, rev’d 2009 BCCA 355 on other grounds).
 
Similarly:
 
The undertaking is not a contract or a promise to an opposite party, but rather an obligation to the court.   
(McDaniel v. McDaniel, 2008 BCSC 653 at para. 33).
 
However, the disclosing party may relieve the receiving party from the obligations of the undertaking; see discussion below.
 
 
 
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.