I feel like you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here.
Firstly, the two associations that were the primary defendants in this case agreed with the plaintive to stipulate to a series of facts, before judgement, and agreed to allow the judge to 'arbitrate' the settlement, ~200,000$/plaintive.
And second, the Church will pay nothing.
On what basis do you make this claim? Firstly there is a standing court order that they are legally obligated to pay. Secondly they agreed to the situation of facts, which granted the judge the authority to determine the settlement. Outside a gross mischarge of justice, or the Judge making a serious error or law, they can't appeal this decision as they agreed to it.
Secondly, previous settlements against the Catholic Church have all been paid out in full. In fact prior to this settlement, the previous 'record settlement' was also in Quebec, for 20 million dollars just over a year ago, which was paid out in full with out any "extreme obstructionism".
I suggest the Radio-Canada article Qui paie pour les péchés de l'Église if you can read French. The title translates to "Who pays for the Church's sins".
Because the cases cited are against individuals, or specific orders. Like a corporation that divides into smaller corporations, to hold the parent corporation liable, you have to connect it to the wrong, or at very least demonstrate that it should have known about the wrong, or it was negligent in its actions that created the circumstances/situation that enabled the wrong.
When people sue an individual priest, or a specific institution, its often hard to demonstrate that the Church itself was connected, aware or holds any liability for the action. So if you are wronged by a priest, and successfully sue for this action... the article is correct, its very hard to collect as Priests don't really have any assets. Same with many of these institutions, that have fairly limited financial means. To claim the Church itself is liable for the actions, it much more complicated and considerably more difficult. Its like if you walk into the Apple store and an employee punches you in the face. You can sue that employee, but to claim that Apple Inc or Tim Cook is liable for that action, is a much harder case to prove.
they have insurance for that and the settlement money will be paid by the insurance company.
They likely have some degree of liability insurance, but firstly these actions go back over 50 years. Who was insuring them at that time would be the insurance company that would pay. If this company still exists, if they are still liable to honor any degree of the policy, if they can even prove there was a policy are all major issues. And anything not covered by insurance, which in the case of these large settlements for criminal acts, is usually most of it, the defendants are legally obligated to pay.
The Archdiocese of Portland is a good example of this, after paying out over 40M in settlements that was not covered by insurance, they were forced to declare bankruptcy and sell off some major assets to cover their remaining debts.
In other cases, the government will have to pay.
The government does not insure civil settlements, nor is there any circumstance where they would be obligated to pay a civil settlement where they are not a named and found guilty defendant.