meaningless. A contract like the Plan cannot be interpreted so as
“to effectively gut a key aspect of the [calculation] process”: Tercon
Contractors Ltd. v. British Columbia (Transportation and Highways),  1 S.C.R. 69,  S.C.J. No. 4, para. 72.
 Section 8.7 of the Plan is a precisely drafted, mathematically crafted section that is dependent on rounding being part and
parcel of the calculations it prescribes. It is not possible to surmise that the drafters of the Plan went to all of that trouble and
detail only to have the entire exercise rendered meaningless by
a deferral to Statistics Canada’s method of rounding when doing
the initial Pension Index calculation under s. 1.29 of the Pan.
 I do not read the words of s. l.29 as reflecting a modifying rule
for the series of two items that come before it. It was not intended to
apply the Statistics Canada rounding methodology to the calculation
of the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index.
 Statistics Canada may take a one-decimal place approach
to rounding in comparing one year’s CPI to the previous year’s,
but it does so for its own purposes and for a different audience.
That exercise is unrelated to the calculation by Bell of the Pension Index under the Plan.
 The Plan calls for Bell to take the CPI calculated by Statistics
Canada and then for Bell to figure out the annual percentage
increase over the previous year by a method compatible with the
Plan overall. That means that it must be done by rounding the
annual percentage increase to two decimal places, not one. That
is the only way to make sense of the combination of s. 1.29 and
s. 8.7 of the Plan.
 I do not know why s. 1.29 is phrased in the awkward way
that it is. I certainly do not know why a comma had to be inserted
before the modifying phrase “as determined by Statistics Canada”.
It was not necessary, since that modifier applies only to the CPI
which is the last antecedent before the modifying clause. It was
likely punctuated that way unconsciously; I do not believe it
was a legally induced comma.
IV. The Common Issues
 The defendants did owe contractual and fiduciary duties to
the plaintiff and all class members. They did not, however, breach
those duties. It is not necessary to determine whether Bell or any
of the defendants owed a duty as trustee to the plaintiff and all
class members, as in any case the plaintiff and the class received
precisely what the Plan called for them to receive.
 The calculation of the 2017 annual percentage increase as
required by s. 1.29 of the Plan was done correctly by Bell. The
plaintiff and class have received the correct pension payments.