Canada: Public Courts and Commercial Secrets: A Balancing Act

Last Updated: September 9 2010
Article by Wendy Matheson and Sandra Perri

Originally published in the Commercial Litigation Review, Volume 8, Number 3.

This article explains the different types of orders available to protect commercial secrets, and sets out the appropriate test and limitations of each providing valuable insight for all litigators, and those who face litigation.

Commercial parties involved in civil litigation are often concerned about the possibility that confidential and commercially sensitive information will become public, damaging their commercial interests. There is an inherent tension between the need to protect commercial secrets during civil litigation and our open court system. The Ontario Courts of Justice Act [CJA], R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, and Rules provide some protection, but it is not automatic and can be difficult to obtain.

The only automatic restriction on the use of material obtained in civil litigation is the deemed undertaking that applies to documents and other information received in the mandatory discovery process. Though helpful, this undertaking is very limited in scope. It does not fully protect confidential information. For effective protection, a party must go to the court for specific orders, including confidentiality orders (also known as "protective orders"), sealing orders and orders that all or part of a hearing be held in private.1 When deciding whether to give these orders the court is tasked with balancing the competing interests of the public (and its right to an open court process) and the commercial litigant (and the importance to it of maintaining confidentiality over its commercially sensitive information).2

Parties may also choose to opt out of the court system entirely to avoid public disclosure problems. Confidentiality is one of the main reasons why commercial parties agree to private dispute resolution — mainly arbitration — though limits remain on the extent of confidentiality, even in that regime.

The various routes to protection of confidential information are discussed below.

The Deemed Undertaking Rule and Its Limitations

The deemed undertaking rule3 limits the use that an opposing party can make of the documents and information obtained through the mandatory discovery process in civil litigation.4 It applies only to the parties to the litigation. They are deemed to have undertaken not to use material obtained from the discovery of the other parties for any purpose other than conducting that litigation. For example, a party cannot use the other side's discovery information to write a book or start a new business.

The deemed undertaking rule applies to documents or information that a party is compelled to produce in the course of civil litigation. As noted by the Ontario Court of Appeal, forced disclosure can compromise a litigant's legitimate interest in maintaining the confidentiality of documents and information.5 While interference with that privacy interest is justified as essential to a fair and accurate resolution of the litigation, a litigant who is compelled by law to produce documents for the purpose of a particular proceeding should not be in peril of having those documents used by the opposite party for some other purpose.6

Although the deemed undertaking provides some protection, it is limited. For example, it does not apply to discovery material that is filed with the court. A simple discovery motion may mean that considerable material becomes available to the public. Significantly, the deemed undertaking applies only to pretrial procedures. It does not restrict the use of the documents and other information at trial, where there is no automatic protection for confidential information.7 The deemed undertaking does not, therefore, fully protect commercial confidential information. Other steps are required.

Confidentiality Orders

There are at least two jurisdictional bases on which a civil litigant may apply for protection for its confidential information in an Ontario court:

  1. Section 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, which permits a court to order that any document in a civil proceeding be treated as confidential, be sealed and not form part of the public record; and
  2. Rule 30.11, which permits a court to order that a relevant document be "deposited for safe keeping" with the registrar and not be inspected by anyone except with leave of the court.

The same principles are applied when using either basis, and they are often referred to in cases without distinguishing between them.8

Further, confidentiality orders are not necessarily tied to either s. 137(2) or Rule 30.11. The inherent jurisdiction of a superior court to control its own process provides the authority for a wide range of creative and differing orders where protection is deemed necessary.9

Orders protecting material filed in court are an exception to the open court principle, which the Supreme Court of Canada has found to be inextricably linked to freedom of expression and which has been called "the very soul of justice."10 It is therefore not surprising that courts have placed a substantial onus on a party seeking a confidentiality order.

The Sierra Club Test

The leading case on the availability of a confidentiality order remains the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Sierra Club v. Canada (Minister of Finance).11 The Sierra Club of Canada challenged a $1.5 billion loan given by Atomic Energy of Canada to build two CANDU nuclear reactors in China. The Sierra Club claimed that an environmental assessment was required before the loan could be made. To defend the challenge, Atomic Energy obtained confidential documents from Chinese authorities. It then filed an affidavit in the court proceedings that referred to, but did not attach, the confidential documents. When the Sierra Club sought access to the confidential documents, Atomic Energy agreed on the condition that the documents would be subject to a confidentiality order preventing access by the public.

Atomic Energy sought a confidentiality order on the basis of its commercial interests. Without such an order, it would have been in breach of its contractual obligations to the Chinese authorities and "would suffer a risk of harm to its competitive position."12 At the same time, withholding these documents would disadvantage the Sierra Club by limiting its ability to challenge the affidavit and more generally hinder its "right, as a civil litigant, to present its case."13

The Supreme Court held that a confidentiality order should be granted only when two conditions are met:

  1. The order must be necessary to prevent a serious risk to an important interest, including a commercial interest, in the context of litigation because reasonably alternative measures will not prevent the risk; and
  2. The salutary effects of the confidentiality order, including the effects on the right of civil litigants to a fair trial, must outweigh its deleterious effects, including the effects on the right to free expression, which in this context includes the public interest in open and accessible court proceedings.14

The Court further found that three elements are subsumed under the first branch of the test:

First, the risk in question must be real and substantial, in that the risk is well grounded in the evidence, and poses a serious threat to the commercial interest in question ... [Second,] in order to qualify as an "important commercial interest", the interest in question cannot merely be specific to the party requesting the order; the interest must be one which can be expressed in terms of a public interest in confidentiality ... Finally, the phrase "reasonably alternative measures" requires the judge to consider not only whether reasonable alternatives to a confidentiality order are available, but also to restrict the order as much as is reasonably possible while preserving the commercial interest in question.15

In the Sierra Club case, the Supreme Court granted the order. It balanced the various rights and interests engaged, and found that the salutary effects of the order outweighed its deleterious effects.16

Given Sierra Club, there should be no question that confidentiality orders can be obtained to protect commercial confidential information. As a practical matter, however, it will generally not be sufficient for the party seeking the order to simply argue that it meets the Sierra Club test. Similarly, consent is not determinative. Normally, the court requires evidence, usually in the form of an affidavit, particularly with respect to the existence of a real and substantial risk to a commercial interest.

Further, courts appear more favourably disposed to granting an order when the documents sought to be protected are identified with particularity and kept to a minimum. The proposed order should minimally impede the public interest in an open court process. Further, if the parties can agree to a process to protect the confidential information, no order would be necessary unless and until confidential information had to be filed with the court. As a result, the need to seek an order can be delayed and perhaps avoided altogether, depending on how the case unfolds.

Intellectual Property Cases

Not surprisingly, confidentiality orders are frequently made in intellectual property litigation. If the very subject matter of the case is a trade secret, for example, justice would be denied altogether if the secret were forced into the public domain as a result of the litigation process.17 For example, the courts have protected trade secrets about manufacturing processes18 and recipes.19

Given the types of cases that fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, such as patent cases, confidentiality orders are often sought and granted in that Court.20

The Federal Court has generally been willing to grant confidentiality orders when it is satisfied that a party's commercial, business or scientific interests may be seriously harmed by public disclosure of patentable secrets.21

Other Commercial Cases

Outside intellectual property litigation, confidentiality orders have been granted to protect a range of commercial confidential information. For example, orders have been granted to protect business plans, principal and employee compensation, technical reports regarding products and pricing information.22 When the confidential information could give a competitor an unfair advantage, an order should presumptively be required unless the opposite party would be unduly prejudiced by the order.23

These issues often arise in cases against departed employees, whose former employers try to prevent use of confidential information. The price of litigation should not include public disclosure of the very confidential information the former employer seeks to protect.24

For regulated businesses, confidentiality obligations may also arise by statute. Not surprisingly, when sensitive reports are prepared for regulatory oversight, legislation may expressly require that the documents be treated as confidential and in some instances not be disclosed at all.25

Terms of Confidentiality Orders: "Counsel's Eyes Only"

Confidentiality orders are often complex. They usually set out a procedure for designating confidential information, who can access it and how, as well as how the confidential information must be dealt with when it is filed with the court and how the "confidential" designation can be challenged. An order may be granted for pretrial steps only, so that the scope of the order is revisited when a second order is sought for the trial.

In some cases, confidentiality may include a term limiting disclosure "for counsel's eyes only." Courts are reluctant to grant these orders and have done so only in "very unusual circumstances,"26 noting that when litigation involves technical or scientific information, counsel may be unable to use this information effectively without consulting with his or her client.27 But this term may be essential to the protection of competitively sensitive information when the opposing party is itself a competitor.

Sealing Orders

A sealing order is a particular type of confidentiality order that a party can pursue with respect to documents that it wishes to keep out of the public court record. The confidential information that must be filed with the court is filed under seal and not available to members of the public who request access to the court file.

The authority for having documents sealed comes from s. 137 of the CJA, which allows a party to apply for an order that any document filed in a civil proceeding be treated as confidential, be sealed and not form part of the public record. Like all confidentiality orders, sealing orders are not readily granted, given the importance placed on an open court system. The Sierra Club principles apply. Therefore, sealing orders should be available to protect commercial confidential information.

Businesses have also sought sealing orders to protect broader interests. Ontario courts have generally been unwilling to seal court files when the potential for harm to the corporation or individual involved is no different than the harm generally suffered from the public disclosure that ordinarily accompanies litigation. In MDS Health Group Ltd. v. Canada,28 the Court was asked to seal the court file in an action that involved a dispute concerning supply arrangements between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and MDS. MDS alleged that public disclosure of the dispute would cause its customers to seek other sources of supply. Noting that the case was not one in which the publicity would destroy the subject matter of the action, the Court held that similar considerations arise in many cases. To give effect to these concerns would undermine the openness of the court system.

Courts have also shown an unwillingness to grant sealing orders sought for the sole reason that public disclosure would result in bad publicity or a loss of confidence, since these may be consequences common to all commercial litigation. In Publow v. Wilson,29 the defendants in a wrongful dismissal action moved for an order to seal motion material that revealed that the parent company was insolvent. The defendants feared that if the detrimental information came to the attention of suppliers and customers, they would withdraw their credit from the company and stop dealing with it. The defendants alleged that this could lead to the collapse of the company and the subsequent loss of 600 jobs. The Court observed that it was, in effect, being asked to disregard the potential harm to the suppliers and customers of the business in favour of the employees whose jobs were at risk. The Court refused, concluding that the case was not an appropriate exception to the rule that the business of the courts should be conducted in the open, where it can be subjected to public scrutiny.30

Hearings Held in Camera

Even if a sealing order is obtained, protecting the information from public access in the court file, there may still be the risk of disclosure when pretrial motions are argued in open court and when the action proceeds to trial. If the confidential information must be referred to in court a further order must be sought so that the particular portion of the hearing is held in camera — that is, with members of the public excluded from the courtroom.

Section 135(2) of the CJA is one basis on which these orders are made. It provides that the court may exclude the public from a hearing when the possibility of serious harm or injustice to any person justifies a departure from the general principle that court hearings should be open to the public. Again, the court must balance these competing interests.

In the commercial context, sealing orders and orders that portions of a hearing be held in camera tend to go hand in hand. That is, if the test for a sealing order is met, it is a natural extension to order that those portions of the hearing in which the sealed evidence will be addressed also be held in camera.31 However, it would be rare for an entire hearing to be held in camera in the commercial civil context. More typically, the courtroom will be closed for only those portions of the hearing during which the sealed evidence is addressed.

Private Dispute Resolution

As an alternative means of avoiding the consequences of public disclosure, commercial parties often agree to opt out of the public court system entirely and instead pursue private dispute resolution (e.g., arbitration). In private dispute resolution, parties can agree to any confidentiality terms they see fit. The entire matter can be determined in private. However, arbitrations may still carry the risk of public disclosure if the arbitration is challenged in court — for example, if an arbitral award is the subject of a statutory appeal. There is no guarantee that the court will uphold the parties' private confidentiality agreement.

In the case of 8875474 Ontario Inc. Pizza Pizza,32 after acknowledging the merits of confidentiality during ADR, Justice Farley held that the onus was nonetheless on the moving party to "demonstrate sound reason for departing from the openness rule." He noted that one must assume that each side recognized the openness of court proceedings when it appealed the award. If they wished to avoid public disclosure, the parties could have chosen not to appeal the arbitrator's award. Justice Farley concluded that there were no public policy reasons for extending that confidentiality to the appeal process, and he denied the order.33


At the heart of this area of law is a recognition of the need to balance the public interest in an open court system with the need to protect commercial confidential information. The price of access to justice should not be the destruction of valuable business information. Nor should a party be forced to give competitors commercial secrets through an open court system that allows anyone access to materials in a court file. We therefore have a regime that requires "a balancing act" in order to give due regard to these competing interests. While the public interest in an open court system is strong, in appropriate cases there are orders available to protect commercial confidential information.


1 Also called "in camera" hearings.

2 Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [2002] S.C.J. No. 42, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 522 [Sierra Club].

3 Rule 30.01.

4 Including documentary discovery, oral or written examination for discovery, examinations in aid of execution, inspection of property and medical examinations under the Rules.

5 Kitchenham v. AXA Insurance Canada, [2008] O.J. No. 5413, 2008 ONCA 877 at para. 1.

6 Ontario (Securities Commission) v. Norshield Asset Management (Canada) Ltd., [2010] O.J. No. 637, 2010 ONSC 891.

7 Further, the court can remove the obligation altogether, when the interests of justice require it, under Rule 30.1(8).

8 We similarly do not distinguish between them for the purposes of this article.

9 For example, see the special discovery steps imposed regarding the identity of anonymous Internet users (Warman v. Fournier, [2010] O.J. No. 1846, 2010 ONSC 2126 (Div. Ct.)) and in respect of Crown briefs (D.P. v. Wagg, [2004] O.J. No. 2053, 71 O.R. (3d) 229 at paras. 27-28 (C.A.), aff'g [2002] O.J. No. 3808, 61 O.R. (3d) 746 at paras. 48-50 (Div. Ct.)); see also the recognition of the Court's inherent jurisdiction to make a confidentiality order in Eisses v. CPL Systems Canada, [2008] O.J. No. 239, 163 A.C.W.S. (3d) 365 at para. 5.

10 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] S.C.J. No. 38, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480 at para. 21.

11 Sierra Club, supra note 2; note that this case was in the Federal Court, but the principles are applied routinely in the Ontario courts and elsewhere in Canada.

12 Ibid. at para. 49.

13 Ibid. at para. 50.

14 Ibid. at para. 53.

15 Ibid. at paras. 54-57.

16 Ibid. at paras. 91-92.

17 CPC International Inc. v. Seaforth Creamery Inc., [1996] O.J. No. 2059 (Ont. Gen. Div.) at para. 35 [CPC International].

18 See, e.g., Dupont Canada Inc. v. Russel Metals Inc., [2000] O.J. No. 2043 (Master).

19 See, e.g., CPC International, supra note 17.

20 Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd., [1993] F.C.J. No. 1117, 51 C.P.R. (3d) 305.

21 Laboratories Servier v. Apotex Inc., [2006] F.C.J. No. 1764, 2006 FC 1405 at paras. 6-7.

22 Towers Perrin v. Cantin, [2000] O.J. No. 3514, 50 O.R. (3d) 476 (S.C.J); Shaw v. Shaw, [2007] O.J. No. 4999 (S.C.J.); BASF Canada Inc. v. Max Auto Supply (1986) Inc., [1999] O.J. No. 515 (Ont. Gen. Div.) [BASF Canada].

23 BASF Canada, ibid. at para. 17.

24 See, e.g., GasTOPS v. Forsyth, [2000] O.J. No. 5614, 15 C.P.C. (5th) 116 (S.C.J.).

25 For examples, see s. 22 of the Office of the Supervisor of Financial Institutions Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.18 (3rd supp.), and s. 672 of the Insurance Companies Act, R.S.C. 1991, c. 47 and related regulations.

26 See, e.g., Merck v. Apotex, [2004] F.C.J. No. 684, 2004 FC 567 at para. 8; Deprenyl Research Ltd. v. Canguard Health Technologies Inc., [1992] F.C.J. No. 128, 41 C.P.R. (3d) 228 (F.C.T.D.) [Deprenyl Research]; Zeneca Pharma Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare), [1994] F.C.J. No. 543, 55 C.P.R. (3d) 1 (F.C.T.D.) [Zeneca Pharma].

27 Deprenyl Research, ibid.; Zeneca Pharma, ibid.; GasTOPS Ltd. v. Forsyth, supra note 24 at para. 9.

28 [1993] O.J. No. 2552, 20 C.P.C. (3d) 137 (Ont. Gen. Div.).

29 [1994] O.J. No. 3036 (Gen. Div.) at para. 18.

30 Ibid. at paras. 8, 20.

31 See, e.g., Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Canada (Director Appointed under the Canadian Business Corporations Act), [1996] O.J. No. 2380, 6 C.P.C. (4th) 170 at para. 4 (Ont. Gen. Div.), in which Blair J. noted that "[t]here would be little point in sealing the Record while at the same time holding the exemption hearing in open court, thereby tipping off the world to the Applicant's potential bid — the very thing the sealing order would be designed to prevent."

32 [1994] O.J. No. 3112 (Ont. Gen. Div.).

33 See also Adesa Corp. v. Bob Dickerson Auction Service, [2004] O.J. No. 4925, 73 O.R. (3d) 787 (S.C.J., Comm. List).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions