Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in the Indalex Limited case, decided in April 2011, generated much controversy among members of the Canadian insolvency bar. The appeal concerned the distribution of proceeds following the sale of Indalex's assets as part of a proceeding under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The appeal was brought by members of two pension plans sponsored by Indalex, seeking a declaration that a portion of the proceeds of the asset sale be paid to the Indalex pension plans to fund the shortfall in assets available to pay the promised pension benefits from the plans' funds. The competing claim was made by Indalex's US parent corporation, based on its having satisfied a portion of the debt owed to the debtor-in-possession (DIP) lender. The Court held that Ontario pension legislation imposes a deemed trust over the employer’s assets for the amount of the shortfall in funding for a wound-up pension plan; that, unless the court in an insolvency proceeding exercises constitutional paramountcy and rules that the priority granted to the deemed trust must yield to a court-ordered priority for a DIP lender, the deemed trust retains its priority outside of bankruptcy proceedings; and that the breach of its fiduciary obligations arising from Indalex's role as pension plan administrator during an insolvency proceeding justified the imposition of a constructive trust over the sale proceeds in favour of both pension plans that outweighed the priority granted by the court when approving DIP financing in a CCAA proceeding.Members of the commercial insolvency bar are very critical of the decision, while members of the bar representing the interests of employees and pensioners have applauded it. The author writes from a labour and pension law perspective, and analyzes the controversy arising from the Court's ruling.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.103 | 0.072 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".