Key Issues & Decision

1. Does the implied undertaking of confidentiality apply to the Peterson Transcript?

   • No. The Alberta Rules of Court codify the implied undertaking in Rule 5.33, which applies only to discovery in Alberta litigation.
   • Since the Peterson Transcript was created under U.S. litigation, it does not fall under Rule 5.33. The common law implied undertaking is not applicable.

2. Is relief under Rule 5.33(1)(a) necessary to allow its use?

   • No. Because Rule 5.33 does not cover the transcript, relief is not required.

3. Should the Court permit Allridge to rely on the transcript for this or future applications under Rule 6.11(1)(f)?

   • The Court declined a blanket order for all future applications.
   • Rule 6.11(1)(f) allows evidence from another action, but relevance and materiality must be assessed separately in each instance.

Legal Reasoning

• The implied undertaking of confidentiality is a promise to the court overseeing the litigation (Juman v Doucette, 2008 SCC 8).
• Alberta’s Rule 5.33 is specific and does not extend to foreign litigation.
• If confidentiality protections exist in the U.S., any breach must be addressed in U.S. courts.

Final Ruling:

• Implied undertaking does not apply.
• Relief under Rule 5.33(1)(a) is unnecessary.
• No unconditional permission granted for future use.
• Costs awarded to Allridge. No amount was specified.