Bibliographic record
Abstract
The landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Re Indalex Ltd. dealt with many issues, including both the treatment of a deemed trust prescribed under the Ontario Pension Benefits Act (“PBA”) in the context of insolvency proceedings under the Companies Creditors’ Arrangement Act (“CCAA”), and the fiduciary duty owed by a debtor company in its dual role as employer sponsor and administrator of pension plans. This paper analyzes and critiques the court’s handling of these two issues, arguing that the court’s holding that the PBA deemed trust continues to apply under the CCAA (subject to the doctrine of federal paramountcy) represents a departure from its prior decisions, raises troubling policy implications, and calls into question established jurisprudence on a related issue in Canadian insolvency law. In addition, this paper shows that the five justices who formed the majority in the result did not formulate a unified approach to ascertaining the nature and scope of the fiduciary duty of an employer-administrator of pension plans, though they were in agreement that the insolvent company’s decision to commence proceedings under the CCAA in and of itself did not create a conflict between the company’s self interest and its fiduciary duty as plan administrator. Finally, this paper argues that the interplay between the court’s holdings on the two issues leads to a legal contradiction for employer-administrators that are insolvent or nearing insolvency.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".