The difference between a Pierringer Agreement and a Mary Carter Agreement is that, in the former, the parties contemplate that the settling defendant will no longer be involved in the action and, in the latter, the settling defendant will be. In this case, the parties entered into a Mary Carter Agreement. As was required of it, the plaintiff notified the other parties of the agreement. However, the plaintiff refused to disclose the terms of the agreement. The court held that the plaintiff had to disclose those of the terms that changed the litigation landscape (e.g. how it was that the settling defendant, who took one position in the pleadings, now took a different position at trial). The facts of this case differed from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Sable Offshore Energy v. Ameron International. That case dealt with a Pierringer Agreement and the plaintiff voluntarily disclosed all of the terms of the agreement, but the price, and was allowed to withhold that information.