Latest Update — May 14, 2026 — Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada denied the defendant’s application for leave to appeal in the case of Cadieux v. Cadieux, 2025 ONCA 405. As a result, the Court of Appeal’s decision remains clear and authoritative guidance on several key points:
- Pierringer agreements cannot be vetoed by non-settling defendants.
- Joint and several liability remains intact among non-settling defendants.
- Plaintiffs should not bear insolvency risk in multi-tortfeasor cases.
The Cadieux decision serves as a significant reaffirmation of both settlement principles and access to full recovery. We are proud to have been able to secure this result for our clients.
Ontario Court of Appeal — 2025 ONCA 405
In Cadieux v. United Petroleum et al (2025 ONCA 405), the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a Pierringer agreement reached between the Plaintiffs (represented by our team at Thomson Rogers LLP), and the Defendant, the City of Ottawa.
The remaining defendants objected, arguing the deal unfairly left them jointly and severally liable alongside a co-defendant with limited insurance or assets. The Court rejected that argument and confirmed that a well-resourced defendant cannot block a partial settlement just because they may end up covering the shortfall of an insolvent co-defendant.
The decision reinforces two key points:
Plaintiffs are entitled to full recovery, even if one defendant ends up paying more than their share.
Pierringer agreements remain a vital tool in multi-party litigation and shouldn’t be sidelined by speculative concerns.
The Court noted the strong public interest in encouraging partial settlements, especially in cases involving underinsured or impecunious parties. As Ontario’s rules around settlement disclosure evolve, Cadieux confirms that resolution-focused litigation strategies still have the Court’s support.
