The Plaintiff sought to compel Answers to Undertakings given by the Defendant during Questioning. Verville J. considered Rules 5.1(1), 5.2(1) and 5.25(1)(a), as well as the existing common law. Verville J. noted that in Mahamed v Matthews, 2011 ABQB 187, Veit J. reviewed Rule 5.2 and stated that the Rule is “much narrower than its predecessor”. Verville J. reviewed each undertaking to determine whether it was relevant and material to the issues in dispute and considered whether the Undertaking could reasonably be expected to significantly help determine the answer to an issue in dispute.