Therefore, as part of the design process, labour practitioners should consider including a specific language in the transaction contract and/or dismissal order, the jurisdiction of the presiding tribunal for alleged breaches of the terms of the transaction contract, taking into account the scope and duration of that power. In the case of proper implementation, the parties can avoid the costs, time and resources associated with the introduction of a new measure to enforce the terms of the transaction agreement. The parties have finally settled their dispute and agreed on an agreement. All that remains is the draft agreement. However, if a procedure has already been initiated, see practical note: Execution of transaction agreements concluded after the opening of the procedure. Relaunch of the underlying dispute instead of the use of the agreement While a federal court may remain competent for the application of a transaction agreement according to the doctrine of subsidiary jurisdiction12, its decision is: 13 A federal court may, therefore: 1) retain jurisdiction to the extent that the parties require jurisdiction, 2) fully deny the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction or 3) change the scope of subsidiary liability sought by the parties.13 If the amount set out in the provision for liquidable damages is too high, the parties run the risk that a court will find that this provision is not applicable. In such a case, the party wishing to enforce the provision would be left to the discretion to prove its actual harm, which would refute the object of liquidation (which should prevent the party from having to prove damages that are difficult to determine). Damages by arguing an action for breach In most cases, disputes with the parties executing a settlement agreement and a settlement of the dispute end. Ideally, the execution of these documents will result in the full and final conclusion of the case. However, a second round of litigation may inevitably arise as a result of a breach of the settlement agreement.