Can a settler intervene in the administration of a trust?

The rationale for the decision was, briefly: (1) that on well-established trust principles, a settler (assuming the appellant is akin to a settler as a "Participating Employer" under the Plan) cannot intervene in the administration of a trust unless the power to do so was expressly reserved in the trust instrument and no such reservation exists in this case; (2) as the trust was created and is funded through collective bargaining arrangements between the employers' organizations and the Union, the appellant has no privity of contract and cannot enforce obligations arising from those arrangements; and (3) it cannot be said that there arises in the relationship between the appellant and the trustees any vulnerability, one of the three essential features of a fiduciary duty, such as that concept was understood by the authorities: Frame v. Smith, 1987 CanLII 74 (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99, because the appellant has avenues of redress through its bargaining agent if the trustees fail to administer the Plan appropriately.