MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1510858968

Pension Plans and Class Actions: The Vivendi Case

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

Bibliographic record

VenueDefense Counsel Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Governance and Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawSupreme courtClass actionPensionCommissionBusinessJudgementPolitical sciencePublic administrationState (computer science)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from 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. …

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0120.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDefense Counsel JournalSame topicCorporate Governance and LawFrench-language works237,207