(5) Did Bell Canada, as administrator of the Plan, owe a fiduciary
duty to the class?
(6) If so, did Bell Canada breach its fiduciary duty?
 The duties of a trustee to the class and the duties of a fiduciary to the class are closely related questions that apply across the
proposed class. They raise issues of law more than issues of fact,
and are capable of resolution on a common basis, without any
need for individual inquiries.
 The damages questions are:
(7) If one or more of the above common issues are answered
affirmatively, can the amount of damages payable by the
defendants be determined on an aggregate basis? If so, in what
 Counsel for the defendants do not dispute that damages here
can be calculated in the aggregate for the entire class. Rather, they
dispute the amount. There is also a live dispute between the parties
as to whether damages can be calculated on the basis of missed past
pension payments alone, or in the basis of the total present value
of the loss sustained into the future. These questions apply across
the proposed class, and qualify as common issues.
 As for the s. 5(1)(d) requirement that a class proceeding be
the “preferable procedure for the resolution of the common issues”,
counsel for the defendants submits that it is not preferable. Rather,
they contend that the plaintiff ought to be required to bring the
identical case as a one-off “test case” rather than on behalf of the
entire class. Frankly, I do not see any merit in this submission.
 It is obvious that here, as in all class proceedings, judicial
economy will be enhanced by answering the common issues once
and for all members of the Bell pension plan: Caponi, para. 48. In
addition, if Bell were to be found to be miscalculating the payments under the Plan, it will be compelled by virtue of this being
a class action to changes its method of calculation for all pensioners.
This type of behaviour modification is equally a goal of the CPA:
Caponi, para. 48; Mortson, paras. 77-79; Hollick, para. 35.
 Moreover, the amount at stake for each class member here is
relatively modest. Plaintiff’s counsel estimates that on average each
class member will earn $3,909 if the claim is successful. Further-
more, the class is a vulnerable group of retirees. As plaintiff’s counsel
put it in their factum, “It is not feasible, economical or fair to require
35,000 individual proceedings to determine the same issue.”
 While counsel for the defendant says that a test case would
accomplish the same thing, and that the defendants would apply
the result of the test case to other analogous cases, there is no