MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1510858968

Pension Plans and Class Actions: The Vivendi Case

2014· article· en· W1510858968 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Louis Charette, Josee Dumoulin, Bernard Larocque, François Parent

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,376
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,747

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0160,009
Communication savante0,0070,003
Science ouverte0,0030,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0120,016
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,001

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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations23
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDefense Counsel JournalMême sujetCorporate Governance and LawTravaux en français237 207