What is the effect of a deemed undertaking on the use of discovery evidence?

By providing that the deemed undertaking “does not prohibit” certain things, the Rule preserves any other restrictions that may apply to the use of the evidence and documents in question beyond the deemed undertaking itself. Rather than saying that the discovery evidence can be used for impeachment, subrule (6) says that the undertaking does not prohibit that use. Any other common law or statutory restrictions still apply. For example, it has long been accepted that a patient has control over the dissemination of his or her medical information: McInerney v. MacDonald, 1992 CanLII 57 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138, at para. 18. That control must give way to statutory compulsion under the Rules, but it is not undermined by the exceptions to the deemed undertaking. Another ready example is an accused’s right against self-incrimination under s. 13 of the Charter. Obviously, these and any other applicable rights and constraints, as they may apply to a specific case, are undisturbed by the exceptions to Rule 30.1.01.