• Offices in Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville

A Green Light for Pierringer Deals: How the Court in Cadieux Emboldens Settling Parties

  • Personal Injury
Picture of Peter Reinitzer

Peter Reinitzer

Peter is an associate at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP. A fearless advocate, Peter uses a combination of trial advocacy and creative alternative dispute resolution techniques to help his clients achieve their desired outcomes. Peter frequently attends at the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal where he has successfully litigated numerous trials and appeals. He has also successfully resolved countless disputes by way of mediated settlement.
Exterior of Osgoode Hall

In the landscape of Canadian civil litigation, the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision in Cadieux v. Cadieux stands as a powerful affirmation of the judiciary’s strong preference for promoting and upholding settlement agreements. The ruling sends an unequivocal message to the legal community: the public interest in resolving complex, multi-party disputes through settlement will often take precedence, even when a non-settling party faces the potential for significant prejudice. The court’s focus was not on achieving a perfect allocation of risk among all defendants, but rather on facilitating the finality and efficiency that settlement tools, such as Pierringer Agreements, provide. This decision underscores a judicial philosophy that champions the resolution of litigation, placing the onus on defendants to strategically manage their own risks in multi-defendant lawsuits rather than relying on the courts to protect them from the harsh consequences of joint and several liability.

The Factual Background

The litigation stemmed from a tragic motor vehicle accident that resulted in catastrophic injuries to two children. A lawsuit was commenced on their behalf, targeting three parties:

  1. Their father, who was the driver of their vehicle.
  2. The owner and operator of a commercial tractor-trailer (United Petroleum).
  3. The City of Ottawa, for alleged negligence in the design of the intersection.

 

The financial stakes were immense, with a claim for future care costs alone possibly exceeding $14 million. This made the available insurance coverage a critical issue. The father was insured for $2 million, while the trucking company held a $5 million policy. The City of Ottawa was self-insured.

The Pierringer Predicament and the Appeal

Before trial, the plaintiffs negotiated a Pierringer Agreement (or “partial settlement agreement”) with the City of Ottawa. This agreement allowed the City to exit the lawsuit, leaving the plaintiffs to pursue the remaining defendants, the father and United Petroleum.

United Petroleum vigorously opposed the court’s approval of this settlement, arguing that it created significant and unfair prejudice. The core of the issue was the rule of joint and several liability. Without the settlement, had the case proceeded to trial and the father been found liable for an amount exceeding his insurance policy, both United Petroleum and the self-insured City of Ottawa would have been jointly responsible for covering the shortfall. The Pierringer Agreement, however, fundamentally altered this dynamic. By removing the City from the equation, it left United Petroleum as the sole remaining defendant with deep pockets, meaning it alone would be forced to cover any shortfall created by the underinsured father. This concentration of risk was the basis for United Petroleum’s appeal.

Key Takeaways for Litigators and Insurers

The Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the settlement provides critical guidance and some stark reminders for all parties involved in multi-defendant litigation.

  • Settlement is Paramount: The court has once again confirmed that settlement is a cornerstone of our civil justice system. The policy goal of encouraging parties to resolve their disputes will not be lightly interfered with. Arguments of prejudice to a non-settling defendant, while considered, will face a very high bar.
  • The Power of the Pierringer: This decision solidifies the Pierringer Agreement as a potent strategic tool. For a defendant, settling early can be the most effective way to manage risk and achieve certainty, particularly when a co-defendant is underinsured or potentially insolvent. It incentivizes defendants to assess their exposure realistically and act decisively.
  • The Harsh Reality of Joint and Several Liability: The case is a textbook example of the risk posed by joint and several liability. A well-insured defendant can be exposed to paying a damages award far exceeding its actual degree of fault. The court has signaled that this risk is a feature of the system, not a bug, and it is a risk that parties must manage themselves through negotiation and settlement.
  • The Peril of “Waiting it Out”: The outcome for United Petroleum highlights the danger of being the last defendant standing. The decision implicitly advises litigators that decisive, early action in exploring settlement can be a far better strategy than waiting and hoping for a favourable outcome at trial, especially when the financial position of a co-defendant is a concern.
Join Newsletter

Recent Posts