One of the alliance`s main problems was the application for a cash injunction, which would prevent the uncontested defendant from asserting rights against another defendant if ultimately found liable. The court found that it had jurisdiction to compel an inpaid defendant to drop charges against the defendants, including cross-claims and knights of claim to implement Pierringer`s agreement. The Court found that there was no reason to sue the defendant`s assessment compensation rights if the undisputed defendant was only liable for his share of proportionate liability under a De Pierringer agreement. The court noted that the untried defendants received all the non-financial terms of Pierringer`s agreement. They had access to all relevant documents and other evidence held by the accused. Under the agreement, they are clearly protected and are not held responsible for any more of their share of the damage. The Court of Appeal set aside the appeal judge and stayed Aviva`s appeal. The Court held that disputes that alter the adversarial relationship disclosed on the basis of the briefs must be immediately disclosed to the other parties to the proceedings. Procedural fairness requires prompt publicity. This is because such agreements may affect the strategy of other litigants, such as cross-examination. B to be prosecuted, evidence to be taken or responses to the actions taken by the parties to the dispute settlement agreement. The most important thing is that the court must be informed so that it can properly control its trial in the interests of fairness and justice for all parties. Pierringer`s agreements have been in place in Canada for some time.
They were originally designed in the United States to address some of the barriers to resolution, often seen in multi-party conflicts. Pierringer`s agreements should allow one or more defendants, in a multi-party action, to resign themselves to the applicant and withdraw from the litigation, so that the other defendants are only liable for the harm they have actually caused. In MacNeil v. Kajetanowicz, the applicant brought an action against two hospitals and a neonatologist through his trial leader. The complainant settled both hospitals in a Pre-trial agreement between Pierringer, and the neonatologist became the only defendant in court. The appeal judge dismissed the application for a stay of action. He paid tribute to Aecon and said he did not support the assertion that rights against all parties to the trial should be „automatically” suspended. On the contrary, it is based on the principle of proportionality and appeared to conclude that the deferred disclosure of the litigation agreements did not prejudice the moving party. In the main proceedings, Aviva did not cite any of the oil distributors in the supply chain as defendants. By the time it decided to sue the exuberant seller, the statute of limitations had essentially expired. Aviva then began to consider the possibility of a third-party action being brought against the exuberant seller.
 This is due to the fact that the separation of liability effectively eliminates the basis for claims of contributions and compensation between the defendants and the non-deranged defendants. However, as explained below, the Pierringer agreement will not prevent an unsanitary defendant from making an independent claim against a Settling defendant in order to compensate the unthroned defendant for multiple liability.