In the present case, Neilson J. considered that it was not necessary to present the disclosure of this part of the settlement agreement, which refers to the amount of the transaction between the applicant and ALC`s defendants, since relevance has not been demonstrated. I agree with that conclusion. One of the most common and effective settlement agreements, unless all defendants want to agree, is a BC Ferry agreement. Below is a brief explanation of the content, legal implications, and possible pitfalls. Most parties to an ongoing dispute want to agree before the trial. To successfully implement, it is essential to establish a binding and reliable settlement agreement. Prior to the trial, Conarroe agreed with the province and JPW on a BC Ferries-type transaction agreement and the registration of termination orders. The hospital suspended the complaint and argued that several parties are jointly and severally liable for the damages. Prior to the trial, the hospital entered into a settlement agreement with some of the defendants, which contained a confidentiality clause. The uns cross-checked parties requested disclosure of the settlement agreement, including the amount of the transaction, arguing that the agreement, if disclosed, could affect the ongoing process as well as the amount of damages claimed by the hospital. Before British Columbia Ferry Corp. and.

para. v. T&N plc. And. Al., (1995), 16 BCLR (3d) 115 (CA), was the key issue in the preliminary settlement agreements as to whether a non-rerecosting party could request an additional financial contribution from the party that settled its claim with the claimant.