All of this is found in the annual indexing provision of
a pension plan.
I. The Double Motion
 The plaintiff is a pensioner who worked for one of the
defendants. Each of the defendants is a member of the Bell Canada
corporate family. Like all other retired employees of the defendants, the plaintiff has a pension funded by his former employer
and administered by Bell Canada.
 The terms of the pension plan are set out in the Bell Canada
Pension Plan, as restated May 1, 2013 (the “Plan”). Some version
of the Plan has been in existence since 1919. Yearly indexing for
inflation ( i.e., a cost of living increase) has been a part of the
Plan’s terms since 1977.
 The claim issued by the plaintiff is a proposed class action
on behalf of all similarly situated Bell retirees. It alleges that in
2017, Bell Canada miscalculated the cost of living increase for all
pensioners. The plaintiff contends that this miscalculation, in
turn, negatively impacts on the calculation of his and his fellow
pensioners’ payments under the Plan for all years thereafter.
 In this double motion, the plaintiff seeks certification under
s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6 (“CPA”)
and summary judgment of their claim under rule 20.01(1) of the
Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. His counsel
submit that Bell Canada’s error is self-evident as a matter of
statutory interpretation and mathematics, and that the error can
be corrected and compensated in damages.
 The defendants oppose both motions. Indeed, they argue
that not only should both of the plaintiff’s motions be dismissed,
but that summary judgment dismissing the claim should be
granted in their favour. Defendants’ counsel submit that Bell
Canada’s pension calculations reflect an appropriate interpretation
of the Plan, and that the mathematics employed in calculating the
pension benefits is self-evidently correct.
 Both sides agree that the affidavits and exhibits appended
thereto comprise a sufficient record in which to grant summary
judgment: Hryniak v. Mauldin,  1 S.C.R. 87,  S.C.J.
No. 7, para. 57. One way or another, the documentary evidence
will suffice and there is no need to hear viva voce evidence or to
conduct a full trial.
 The CPA sets out the criteria for certification of the action
as a class action as follows: