You are here

Post judgment discovery

In Procon Mining and Tunnelling Ltd. v. McNeil, 2010 BCSC 1184 the court said that “[t]here is a legitimate question whether the implied undertaking does apply to post-judgment discovery” (para. 17), but expressly declined to decide the issue because the parties expressly agreed to treat the information obtained on post-judgment discovery in conformity with implied undertaking principles.
 
The principles underlying the implied undertaking rule (encouraging full and frank disclosure, providing some level of privacy) seem to apply equally to post-judgment discovery (designed to allow the creditor to obtain information relevant to execution on the judgment) as they do to pre-judgment discovery and it seems that the implied undertaking should apply. Certainly the nature of the information in issue in many cases (e.g. banking and financial information) is no less sensitive than would often be the case in pre-judgment discovery.
 
 
 
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.