Counsel for the plaintiff argues that this interpretation is
bolstered by the contra proferentem rule, since the Plan was
drafted by Bell Canada and not by any of the class members.
They state that “[ i]t is a basic principle of contractual interpretation that a provision that is ambiguous or capable of more than
one reasonable interpretation shall be interpreted against its
drafter”: O’Neill v. General Motors of Canada,  O.J. No.
3239, 2013 ONSC 4654 (S.C.J.), para. 69. They also invoke the
inherent vulnerability of the class members engaged in employment litigation against their employer, and submit that, “in the
absence of ‘clear language mandating some other result,’
employment contracts are interpreted so as to protect employees”:
ibid., para. 72, citing Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd.,
 3 S.C.R. 701,  S.C.J. No. 94, para. 91.
 For their part, counsel for the defendants point out that in
statutory interpretation, “The ‘last antecedent doctrine’ does not
apply where it is rebutted by the context of the statute or by
a reading of the statute as a whole”: Adams, supra, para. 37. The
same, they say, applies to its opposite, the series qualifier rule.
They submit that in modern interpretation cases, “[r]esort is
made to the entire document so as to ensure that the interpretation of a particular term is contextual”: Dinney v. Great-West Life
Assurance Co.,  M.J. No. 116, 2009 MBCA 29, para. 58.
With respect to the interpretation of s. 1.29 of the Plan, they state
that “[t]he meaning of a particular clause should be considered in
conjunction with other relevant clauses”: ibid., para. 61.
 The context that the defendants have in mind is s. 8.7 of
the Plan. That section sets out the way in which the annual
indexation is to be calculated once the Pension Index is arrived at
under s. 1.29. For pensioners aged 65 and older — the vast majority
of class members, with the exception of only those in their first
fraction of a year as pensioners — s. 8.7( ii)(a) provides that the
rate of indexation is the greater of
(a) the Pension Index calculated under s. 1.29, rounded to the near-
est whole number as required by s. 87( iv), up to a maximum of
2 per cent as stipulated in s. 8.7( i); and
(b) 60 per cent of the Pension Index rounded to two decimal places
under s. 8.7( ii) to a maximum of 4 per cent under s. 8.7 ( ii)(a).
 As already indicated, Bell calculated that the adjusted
Pension Index for 2017 was 1 per cent. This was then compared
with a figure equal to 60 per cent of the pension Index of
1.49 (=0.89622 per cent) and rounded to two decimal places