MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1510858968

Pension Plans and Class Actions: The Vivendi Case

2014· article· en· W1510858968 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueDefense Counsel Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueCorporate Governance and Law
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLawSupreme courtClass actionPensionCommissionBusinessJudgementPolitical sciencePublic administrationState (computer science)
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

ON January 16, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada1 affirmed the judgement of the Quebec Court of Appeal2 which had authorized the class action brought against Vivendi Canada Inc. (Vivendi). This important decision confirms, among other things, that the rules for authorizing class actions in Quebec are more liberal than those in the common law provinces.I. The FactsSeagram Ltd. (Seagram), which was established in 1857, over time became one of Canada's leading producers of wine and spirits. Its head office and principal place of business were in Montreal, Quebec.In 1977, Seagram set up a supplemental health insurance plan for its management and non-unionized employees (the Plan). The Plan covers eligible employees both while employed and after they retire.Over the years, the Plan was modified on a number of occasions. In 1985, Seagram amended the document describing the terms of the Plan, adding a unilateral amendment clause pursuant to which it reserved the right to modify or suspend the Plan at any time.In December 2000, Vivendi SA. acquired Seagram, which had over 700 employees at the time. In December 2001, Seagram's assets relating to the production of wine and spirits were sold to Pernod Ricard and Diageo, and Seagram ultimately became Vivendi.In September 2008, Vivendi told the retirees and beneficiaries that amendments to the Plan would take effect on January 1, 2009 (the Amendments):* the annual deductible retirees and beneficiaries had to pay would be substantially increased;* only prescription drugs on the list of drugs for the province of residence of retirees or beneficiaries would henceforth be reimbursed;* a lifetime maximum of $15,000 for all coverage under the Plan would be introduced whereas there was none before.In 2009, Michel Dell'Aniello applied to the court for authorization to institute a class action and asked that he be ascribed the status of representative of the following persons:[translation] All retired officers and employees of the former Seagram Company Limited who are eligible for postretirement medical care under Vivendi Canada Inc.'s health care plan (Plan) and eligible dependents within the meaning of the Plan (beneficiaries), as well as, with regard to the damages claimed, the successors of any such officers, employees or beneficiaries who have died since January 1, 2009.Mr. Dell'Aniello sought, among other things, a declaration that Vivendi illegally amended the Plan, and to have the Amendments cancelled and the Plan reinstated as it was before the Amendments. The proposed group includes some 250 retirees or surviving spouses of retirees who worked in six provinces-134 in Quebec, 82 in Ontario, 3 in Alberta, 16 in British Columbia, 2 in Saskatchewan and 13 in Manitoba.II. The Quebec Superior Court Decision1On August 3, 2010, the Quebec Superior Court dismissed Mr. Dell'Aniello's motion for authorization to institute a class action. Contrary to what Vivendi claimed, the judge held that, pursuant to article 3148 (3) of the Civil Code of Quebec (C.C.Q.), Quebec authorities have jurisdiction to hear the action provided the class action is authorized. The court found that it is easier and more convenient to institute the class action in Quebec since over half of the potential group members (57%) live in Quebec.The Court refused to authorize the class action, finding that it raises a range of individual recourses and that the requirement that there be similar or related questions of law or fact as required by article 1003 a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) was not met. In his view, the class action is therefore not the most appropriate procedural vehicle. He was of the opinion that if the action was authorized, the judge would have to conduct a detailed review of a multitude of individual circumstances, which would constitute a multitude of mini-trials. Because the right to insurance benefits crystallizes at the time of retirement, the intention of the parties with respect to the vesting of rights must be determined as of that time. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,453
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,617

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,221
Écart entre enseignants0,195 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle