Does a party have to sign an implied undertaking of confidentiality to the court not to use the documents or information provided on discovery for purposes of litigation?

British Columbia, Canada

The following excerpt is from Schober v. Tyson Creek Hydro Corporation, 2013 BCSC 2042 (CanLII):

The petitioner submits that the law generally imposes on the parties to civil litigation an implied undertaking of confidentiality to the court not to use the documents or information provided on discovery for any purpose other than the litigation in which it was produced. The principles underlying the rationale for the implied undertaking of confidentiality were set out in Juman v. Doucette, 2008 SCC 8 at paras. 24-26 [Juman]: 24. ... pre-trial discovery is an invasion of a private right to be left alone with your thoughts and papers, however embarrassing, defamatory or scandalous. At least one side in every lawsuit is a reluctant participant. Yet a proper pre-trial discovery is essential to prevent surprise or "litigation by ambush", to encourage settlement once the facts are known, and to narrow issues even where settlement proves unachievable.... 25. The public interest in getting at the truth in a civil action outweighs the examinee's privacy interest, but the latter is nevertheless entitled to a measure of protection. The answers and documents are compelled by statute solely for the purpose of the civil action and the law thus requires that the invasion of privacy should generally be limited to the level of disclosure necessary to satisfy that purpose and that purpose alone. Although the present case involves the issue of self-incrimination of the appellant, that element is not a necessary requirement for protection.... 26. There is a second rationale supporting the existence of an implied undertaking. A litigant who has some assurance that the documents and answers will not be used for a purpose collateral or ulterior to the proceedings in which they are demanded will be encouraged to provide a more complete and candid discovery....

Other Questions

Can a party decline to attend for discovery if there has not been complete discovery of documents by both parties? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a court order that a party provide an affidavit verifying its list of documents when in the absence of any adequate explanation, relevant documents have been omitted from the list? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is there an implied undertaking as to the confidentiality of evidence obtained in the course of discovery in a civil suit? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the current state of the law on an implied undertaking of confidentiality in discovery evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a party before the court be ordered to provide authorizations for the delivery of documents by the US tax authorities? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is there an implied undertaking of confidentiality over documents that are required to be produced by statute or as part of a proceeding? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the scope of the implied undertaking in the context of an implied undertaking? (British Columbia, Canada)
If a party can have challenged a foreign court’s procedural defects in that foreign proceeding, can that party collaterally attack the foreign procedural process before the Canadian court at the enforcement stage? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for producing documents containing confidential and commercially confidential information? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of B.C holding that the Court has jurisdiction to determine whether a person who is not a party to a particular type of tortfeasor has a valid claim? (British Columbia, Canada)

Alexi white

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.