Wirth Ltd. v. Acadia Pipe & Supply Corp. et al., (1991) 113 A.R. 298 (QB)

• Judge: Lutz, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 11, 1991
• Citations: (1991), 113 A.R. 298 (QB);1991 CanLII 5837 (AB QB);113 AR 298;79 Alta LR (2d) 345;[1991] AJ No 342 (QL);50 CPC (2d) 273

Wirth Ltd. v. Acadia Pipe & Supply (1991), 113 A.R. 298 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Wirth Limited (plaintiff) v. Acadia Pipe & Supply Corp., APS Metals Corp., David A. Sim and Jerry S. Moroney (defendants)

Acadia Pipe & Supply Corp. (plaintiff by counterclaim) v. Wirth Limited (defendant by counterclaim)

(Action No. 8901-05175)

Indexed As: Wirth Ltd. v. Acadia Pipe & Supply Corp. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Lutz, J.

April 11, 1991.

Summary:

The issue in this case was whether there is in Alberta, an implied undertaking in the discovery process that information disclosed not be used for any purpose other than the current proceedings.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that there was such an implied undertaking in Alberta.

Practice - Topic 4157

Discovery - Confidentiality and collateral use of discovery information - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that in Alberta there is an implied undertaking on parties and counsel in the discovery process to maintain the confidentiality of information, whether it be oral or documentary evidence - Such information cannot be used for any collateral, ulterior or improper purpose - The court summarized the principles applicable to the "implied undertaking" rule and respecting applications to remove information from the implied undertaking - The court also discussed the scope of the implied undertaking and its duration - See paragraph 45.

Practice - Topic 4157

Discovery - Confidentiality and collateral use of discovery information - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the English and Canadian jurisprudence on whether there is an implied undertaking in the discovery of evidence and production of documents that the evidence found and documents produced not be used for any purpose other than the current proceedings - See paragraphs 13 to 45.

Cases Noticed:

Home Office v. Harman, [1982] 1 All E.R. 532, refd to. [para. 11].

Distillers Co. (Biochemicals) Ltd. v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [1975] 1 Q.B. 613, refd to. [para. 11].

Alterskye v. Scott, [1948] 1 All E.R. 469, refd to. [para. 11].

Riddick v. Thames Board Mills Ltd., [1977] 3 All E.R. 677 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Ed Miller Sales & Rentals Ltd. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. et al. (1986), 72 A.R. 354; 43 Alta. L.R.(2d) 299 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

Reichmann v. Toronto Life Publishing Co. (1988), 28 C.P.C.(2d) 11 (Ont. S.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Lac Minerals Ltd. v. New Cinch Uranium Ltd. (1985), 50 O.R.(2d) 260 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 11].

Ed Miller Sales and Rentals Ltd. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. et al. (No. 1) (1988), 90 A.R. 323 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Grant v. Monsanto Can. Ltd. and United Grain Growers Ltd. (1979), 30 A.R. 451; 10 Alta. L.R.(2d) 164; 101 D.L.R.(3d) 594, refd to. [para. 11].

Kyuquot Logging Ltd. v. British Columbia Forest Products Limited, [1986] 5 W.W.R. 481 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Allarcom Limited v. Canwest Broadcasting Corp. (1988), 28 B.C.L.R.(2d) 20 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

Abernethy et al. v. Ross and Ross (1985), 65 B.C.L.R. 142 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Midas Equipment Ltd. v. Zellers Inc. (1989), 100 A.R. 52, refd to. [para. 12].

Crawford v. G.D. Searle & Co. of Can. Ltd. (1987), 12 B.C.L.R.(2d) 192 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

Hunt v. T & N Plc. (1990), 43 B.C.L.R.(2d) 138 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Laxton Holdings Ltd. v. Non-Marine Underwriters (1987), 56 Sask.R. 152 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Phaneuf Fertilizer Sales Ltd. v. Le Blanc (1987), 63 Sask.R. 285 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Wasylyshen v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. and Neil (1989), 73 Sask.R. 295, refd to. [para. 24].

Key-Lake Mining Corp. v. Patrick-Knudsen Excavating Inc. (1989), 73 Sask.R. 182 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Co-operative Fire and Casualty Company v. Beaulieu (1977), 21 A.P.R. 623; 16 N.B.R.(2d) 623 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25].

V. Cyr & Fils Inc. v. Basque (1972), 5 N.B.R.(2d) 79, refd to. [para. 25].

Rocca Enterprises Ltd. v. University Press of New Brunswick Ltd. and Crowther (1989), 103 N.B.R.(2d) 224; 259 A.P.R. 224, refd to. [para. 26].

National Gypsum Co. v. Dorrell (1989), 68 O.R.(2d) 689 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 27].

Upjohn Inter-American Corp. v. Canada (1987), 10 F.T.R. 37, refd to. [para. 29].

Blake v. Governor and Company of Adventurers of England Trading Into Hudson's Bay, [1988] 1 W.W.R. 176 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Canadian Commercial Bank (1990), 106 A.R. 205, refd to. [para. 37].

Church of Scientology of California v. Department of Health and Social Securities, [1979] 1 W.L.R. 723, refd to. [para. 37].

Big Country Gas Co-op Limited et al. v. Plastex Pipelines Systems Limited et al. (1986), 44 Alta. L.R.(2d) 338 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 39].

Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Wilson (1908), 8 W.L.R. 266, refd to. [para. 42].

EMI Records Ltd. v. Spillane and others, [1986] 2 All E.R. 1016 (Ch. Div.), refd to. [para. 45].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8 [para. 40].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Choate, Clare E., Discovery in Canada (1977), p. 179, para. B61 [para. 31].

Côté and Stevenson, Civil Procedure Guide, p. 471 [para. 42].

Counsel:

J.A. D'Andrea, for the plaintiff;

R.A. Kaplan, for the defendants.

This case was heard before Lutz, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, who delivered the following decision on April 11, 1991:

Issue