“I am particularly troubled by the use of Orders granted on an ex parte basis by this Court to perpetuate the harassment of Sepideh. The processes of the Court should not be abused. The defendants reference the common law implied undertaking rule, which requires that a party that has received information under compulsion of a Court order or during discovery is deemed to give the Court an undertaking that the information will not be used for any collateral or ulterior purpose unrelated to the litigation. In this regard, the Federal Court in Merck & Co. v. Apotex Inc. 1996 CanLII 4019 (FC), [1996] 2 F.C. 223 stated (at pp. 20-21):
In my opinion, if an undertaking is implied in regard to information produced in discovery, as is now recognized, the same may surely be said of information received by one party from another under compulsion of the court’s order. The implied undertaking may be enforced by a court order to restrain release of information in collateral proceedings or activities (…). The breach of the implied undertaking may constitute contempt of court (…).
The limits of that undertaking are that the information not be used for a collateral or ulterior purpose. That means for any purpose other than those concerned with the proceedings in which the information is produced (…). [citations omitted]