of the Plan. Then, as a second step, that figure is compared with
the previous year’s figure in order to determine the annual percentage increase for the year.
 The parties are in agreement as to how that calculation is
to be performed. In fact, they agree that for 2017 the percentage
increase over the previous year was 1.49371 per cent. What they
disagree on is how to round off that number. Statistics Canada, in
publishing its Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) inflation rate for the
year, rounded it off to one decimal place, resulting in a percentage
increase of 1.5 per cent. Counsel for the plaintiff submit that this
is the correct figure and is precisely how s. 1.29 mandates the calculation as based on the CPI rate.
 Bell Canada, on the other hand, rounded it off to two decimal places, resulting in a percentage increase of 1.49 per cent. In
doing so, it invoked the language of s. 8.7( iv) of the Plan, which
provides that, “All percentage increases shall be rounded to the
nearest 2 decimal points . . .” Counsel for the defendants submit
that this is the correct methodology taking the language of the
Plan as a whole into account.
 Each then rounded to a whole number as mandated by
s. 8.7 of the Plan, and in doing so each employed the usual understanding that figures of .5 and above get rounded up to the
nearest whole number, while figures below .5 get rounded down
to the nearest whole number. Accordingly, the plaintiff, using the
CPI figure referenced in s. 1.29 of the Plan, would have required
an increase of 2 per cent for the 2017 pension payments, while
Bell, using its own figure in accordance with the direction in
s. 8.7( iv) of the Plan, implemented an increase of 1 per cent for
the 2017 pension payments.
 In the result, the parties are a percentage point off of each
other’s calculation. That 1 per cent difference is, of course, crucial
to the 2017 payment calculation for retirees. But it will also
reverberate through time, since each year’s calculation is premised on an increase from the previous year.
b) The interpretation debate
 The calculation difference between the parties turns on
whether Bell as manager of the Plan is to independently deter-
mine the annual percentage increase for the pensioners taking
account of the directions otherwise set out in the Plan, or whether
Bell is to apply the annual percentage increase as determined by
Statistics Canada in the given year. The plaintiff states that this
is answered by the specific wording of s. 1.29 of the Plan:
s. 1.29 “Pension Index” means the annual percentage increase of the
Consumer Price Index, as determined by Statistics Canada, during the