Cadieux v. Cadieux 2025 ONCA 405
Reading Time: 4 minutes (approx.)
By: Fiona Costello (Articled Clerk)
Scott Ray was driving a truck leased by his employer, United Petroleum Transport Ltd., when Patrick Cadieux ran a red light and collided with the truck. Mr. Cadieux’s minor children, who were passengers in his car, suffered catastrophic injuries. The children sued their father, Mr. Ray, and United Petroleum, as well as the City of Ottawa, alleging negligence in the design of the intersection.
During the proceedings, the plaintiffs and Ottawa entered into a Pierringer Agreement. Under its terms, Ottawa would pay a settlement reflecting its share of liability and in return, the Plaintiffs would release Ottawa from any joint and several liability with the non-settling defendants. Mr. Cadieux, Mr. Ray, and United Petroleum would then be jointly and severally liable only for the portion of damages corresponding to their collective fault. The objective was to eliminate any crossclaim for contribution and indemnity against Ottawa. A motion judge approved the agreement.
The crux of the dispute was that Mr. Cadieux, who was likely to be found primarily at fault, had limited insurance coverage of $2 million. With one child’s future care costs estimated above $14 million and Ottawa no longer subject to crossclaims, the shortfall from Mr. Cadieux’s liability would fall solely on Mr. Ray and United Petroleum. Mr. Ray and United Petroleum therefore challenged the agreement as prejudicial and sought to have it set aside. In the alternative, they asked that any shortfall be shared proportionally with Ottawa.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the agreement. The Court emphasized that prejudice must go beyond mere disadvantage. Neither a settling defendant’s release from joint and several liability nor the risk of an insolvent co-tortfeasor is considered prejudice that would prevent a Pierringer agreement from being approved. The risk of a tortfeasor paying more than their share due to an insolvent co-defendant is a longstanding feature of joint and several liability and is neither inherently prejudicial nor a direct consequence of the Pierringer agreement.
The court also rejected the request for Ottawa to share the shortfall as doing so would compel Ottawa to pay beyond its contractual obligation, effectively nullifying the settlement and placing Ottawa back in a position akin to joint liability. Such an outcome would undermine incentives to settle and weaken the public interest in encouraging multi-party litigation settlements.
Overall, Cadieux v. Cadieux affirms that courts will uphold Pierringer agreements as part of a broader commitment to facilitating settlements. Pierringer agreements therefore remain powerful tools for limiting risk—but only for those who act early. Had Ottawa delayed in seeking a settlement, it might have been left in the same unenviable position as Mr. Ray and United Petroleum.
As the court aptly concluded, if the objective is to encourage settlements, then ‘someone has to go first’ and in this case Ottawa did.
