certified as a class proceeding, the upshot of this is that one way
or another the summary judgment motion will determine the
matter for the entire class.
 As outlined above, the common issues reflect the three
substantive causes of action pleaded by the plaintiff: breach of contract, breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duties. Each, of
course, has its own legal criteria set out in a history of case law and
statutory provisions. Counsel for the plaintiff explain that all of the
class members are retirees and former employees of one or another
of the defendants, and each has a contractual entitlement from his
or her employer for the pension benefits as set out in the Plan.
Plaintiffs’ counsel also submit that the relationship is such as to
impose fiduciary duties on the defendants, and that the pension
funds are in effect held in trust for the plaintiff and class members.
 Counsel for the defendants concede that the Plan amounts
to a contract and imposes fiduciary duties on Bell Canada as its
administrator. They further submit that whatever obligations are
owed to retirees are owed by Bell Canada as administrator of the
Plan, and that the other members of the Bell family have fulfilled
their duty as former employer of the class members by establishing
and including those class members in the Plan. The rest, they say,
is up to Bell Canada as administrator, and does not involve the
other defendants. Defendants’ counsel is also of the view that the
allegation of breach of trust is inapplicable to the relationships in
issue. They submit that, “[ i]f there is no express or implied declaration of trust, then the pension plan will be governed by the
terms of the plan”: Burke v. Hudson’s Bay Co.,  2 S.C.R.
273,  S.C.J. No. 34, para. 48.
 In any case, each of the causes of action is premised here
on a single interpretive dispute under the Plan. This controversy
is centred on the calculation of the amount of pension indexation
that ought to have been applied for 2017 and subsequent years. It
is that dispute over interpretation of the indexation clause that
forms the lynchpin for each of the cause of action and all of the
a) Index calculation under the Plan
 In 2017, Bell Canada calculated and reported a 1 per cent
indexing increase in pension payments for retirees under the
Plan. The plaintiff has worked out a calculation that would have
seen a 2 per cent increase in Plan payments for 2017.
 That arithmetical difference, in turn, revolves around the
interpretation of two clauses in the Plan. First, the Pension
Index, representing the rate of inflation in Canada the prior year
is calculated in accordance with the direction contained in s. 1.29