Clio Maria Godkewitsch

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action concerning the interpretation of a centralized health and benefits trust deed.

The plaintiffs, a local union and three of its members, sought an order that the trust wrongly denied them an annual open enrollment window for benefits, which they argued was guaranteed by their prior local collective bargaining agreement and incorporated into the centralized trust.

The court found that the trust deed, read in its grammatical sense and as a whole, and consonant with the purpose of the collective bargaining regime, did not require the continuation of the annual open enrollment window.

The court emphasized the trustees' duty of prudence in adopting industry standards to minimize "anti-selection" risk.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the plaintiffs' claim.

This supplementary endorsement addresses a challenge to a sealing order granted in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings of Laurentian University of Sudbury.

The sealing order covered confidential correspondence between the University and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, which Laurentian University argued contained sensitive information that, if disclosed, could jeopardize its restructuring efforts.

Parties opposing the sealing order contended there was no evidentiary basis for it.

Applying the two-branch test from Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), the court found that the disclosure posed a real and substantial risk to the University's future viability, that the "commercial" interest extended to the broader community, and that no reasonable alternatives existed given ongoing mediation.

Consequently, the court maintained the confidentiality of the exhibits and the existing sealing order.

The plaintiffs in a pension surplus class action moved for court approval of an amendment to a previously approved settlement after actuarial assumptions underlying the settlement proved incorrect and the anticipated surplus dramatically declined.

The amended settlement offered a guaranteed minimum payment and a potential capped second distribution if surplus re‑emerged by a specified date.

Numerous class members objected, arguing the amendment was unfair and inconsistent with the expectations created during the original settlement campaign.

The court held that it had jurisdiction under s. 29(2) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 to approve or reject the amended settlement but concluded the proposal was substantively, procedurally, circumstantially, and institutionally unfair.

The court emphasized that settlement approval requires fairness beyond mere monetary advantage and refused to approve an unfair settlement even if it represented the better option among undesirable alternatives.