Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36
(“CCAA”) and heading for bankruptcy.
 It is important to note that the claim in Sun Indalex
proceeded under the wrongful acts branch of Soulos, particularly
the criteria laid out in para. 45. These criteria have no application to this appeal. I note that the prospect of another basis for
imposing a constructive trust was not in issue.
 Indalex sought protection from its creditors under the
CCAA. Indalex was both the corporate employer and the administrator of two employee pension plans. Such a dual role is permissible under s. 8(1)(a) of the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990,
c. P.8, which also provides, in s. 22(4), that a plan administrator
must not permit its interests to conflict with its duties in respect
of the pension fund.
 Indalex’s decision to seek protection under the CCAA
gave rise to the prospect that its financial interests could conflict
with the interests of the pension beneficiaries, thus jeopardizing
its ability to discharge its fiduciary duties properly as the plan
 All three Sun Indalex opinions in the Supreme Court
acknowledged that the permissible dual role could potentially
morph into a conflict of interest: Deschamps J., at para. 64;
Cromwell J., at paras. 196-98; and LeBel J., at para. 272. The
issue that divided the Supreme Court was the point at which
Indalex was required to address the prospect of this conflict
between its corporate duties and its duties as pension administrator, and what it ought to have done to address the conflict.
 The pension beneficiaries argued that Indalex had
breached its fiduciary duties, and claimed a constructive trust
over the proceeds of the company’s sale in priority to other creditors. This court agreed with the pension beneficiaries ((2011),
104 O.R. (3d) 641,  O.J. No. 1621, 2011 ONCA 265), but
the majority of the Supreme Court reversed.
 Cromwell J. observed, at para. 228 of Sun Indalex:
“As the Court of Appeal recognized, the governing authority con-
cerning the remedial constructive trust outside the domain of
unjust enrichment is Soulos.” The claim to a remedial construc-
tive trust foundered on the lack of a causal connection [at para.
236]: “There is no evidence to support the contention that
Indalex’s breach of its fiduciary duty as pension administrator
resulted in the assets retained in the reserve fund.”
 I do not read Gorecki, PIPSC or Sun Indalex as ruling
definitively that Soulos abolished the doctrine of good conscience
constructive trusts beyond the two defined situations of unjust
enrichment and wrongful acts. The issue was not squarely