Pension Plans and Class Actions: The Vivendi Case
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it