You are here

Notice of hearing for relief from implied undertaking

In terms of who should be given notice of an application for an order permitting collateral use, in Juman v. Doucette, 2008 SCC 8 the Supreme Court of Canada said the following:
While the issue of notice will be for the chambers judge to decide on the facts of any particular case, I do not think that in general the police are entitled to notice of such an application. Nor are the media. The only parties with a direct interest, other than the applicant, are the deponent and the other parties to the litigation.
(Juman v. Doucette, 2008 SCC 8 at para. 52).
In Bodnar v. The Cash Store Inc., 2010 BCSC 660 it was held that only the disclosing party and the receiving party were necessary parties to the application to vary the implied undertaking and that other “interested” parties need not be given notice: 
The only parties with an interest in the implied undertaking in this case are the parties who produced the documents at issue and the court itself.  This is because the undertaking is an undertaking to the court, based on policies that serve to promote full discovery by the parties to the action. The party that produced the documents on  discovery, the court, and the party seeking leave are the interested parties. These are the parties present on this application.
(Bodnar v. The Cash Store Inc., 2010 BCSC 660 at para. 50).
However, in other cases it has been held that interested parties are entitled to notice. In Petitioner No. 1 v. A Lawyer, 2011 BCSC 921 a lawyer swore affidavits and gave examination for discovery evidence in a proceeding i.e. the lawyer was a witness for the plaintiff in that proceeding. Opposing counsel in that proceeding determined that there was a substantial question as to the honesty or trustworthiness of the lawyer and considered it appropriate that the matter be referred to the Law Society for investigation, and applied to the court for relief from the implied undertaking so they could report the matter to the Law Society. The court held that the plaintiff in the proceeding in which the lawyer was a witness should be given notice of the application for relief from the implied undertaking: 
I am satisfied that in this case the plaintiff is entitled not only to notice of both the petition and the hearing of the petition but also, if it so elects:
  1. to appear before the Court and make submissions concerning the relief sought; and
  2. if it deems appropriate, to file evidence in support of those submissions
before any such relief should be granted.
(Petitioner No. 1 v. A Lawyer, 2011 BCSC 921 at para. 20).
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.