In this action, two of the three Defendants/Third Parties had settled. The settlement did not involve the remaining party and there were no terms in the settlement to limit continuing litigation in the nature of a Pierringer agreement. Toronto Hydro settled with the Plaintiffs and continued its claims against Gonte and the City. Subsequently, Toronto Hydro settled its claims against the City for a dismissal of all claims between them without costs. The City sought a determination regarding what claims, and the scope of the claims, that Toronto Hydro and Gonte were permitted to continue in light of Toronto Hydro’s settlement with the City. Justice Copeland held that where the settling party has chosen to give up its claim for contribution and indemnity against the other settling party, it is not entitled to indirectly reassert that claim by seeking a bigger share of liability from the non-settling party on the basis that it now only has one party to seek contribution from. Justice Copeland also found that where there are both contract and tort claims, if the non-settling party is found liable only in contract, it cannot make a claim for contribution and indemnity against one of the settling parties under the Negligence Act because it is not a “tortfeasor” as required by the Act.