Before British Columbia Ferry Corp. and. al. v. T-N plc. and. Al., (1995), 16 BCLR (3d) 115 (CA), was the key issue in the transaction agreements as to whether a non-member party could demand an additional financial contribution from the party that settled its claim with the applicant. BC Ferry resolved this issue by applying the deeply rooted right of assessment, under which a defendant cannot be compelled by another defendant to pay more than his proportionate share of the damage. Under the agreement, ferry workers will not see a pay increase in the first year, but will increase by two per cent in years 2 and 3. One of the most common and effective transaction agreements, if not all defendants want to settle, is a BC Ferry Agreement. A brief discussion ensues about its content, its legal effects and its possible pitfalls. The new collective agreement is in effect until the end of October 2025. A BC Ferries agreement gives one or more defendants the opportunity to detach themselves from a multi-party proceeding concerning the applicant`s agreement, to forego the recovery of a portion of the loss which, in the end, must be attributed to the settler parties by the unaffordable defendants.
In the three scenarios mentioned above, the non-dismissed parties want to know how much the settlers paid the plaintiff. Questions of confidentiality and privilege arise. Does the applicant have an obligation to disclose the amount of the dispute settlement to the parties who have not resolved it? The court also found that the contribution rights of non-resident defendants are not affected by a BC Ferry transaction. The billing parties are removed from the equation, but not their distribution of responsibility. For example, if a defendant breaks a BC Ferries agreement and is ultimately held liable for 20% of the damages, non-resident parties may demand a contribution from the remaining 80% between them. In no situation will they be responsible for the 20% attributable to the party of the settlers. This decision appears to close the door when it argues that liability is dissociated between the remaining defendants unsettled at the conclusion of a BC Ferries agreement, unless there are unusual circumstances that respect the benefit of that agreement by the parties who are not settled. This should allow the parties to pause when they know that other parties are considering BC Ferries agreements – especially if there are non-existent parties remaining in the action.
While an unbilled portion is not responsible for the payment of the portion of the loss that is ultimately attributable to the settlers, it may eventually be available to pay a premium on the lion`s part if the other unbilled parties are unable to pay. The hospital argued that the settlement agreement contained a provision that the hospital had waived its right to recover from the untested defendants some of the losses and damages attributed to the defendant`s fault. As you probably recognized, such a transaction agreement is essentially a BC Ferry agreement.