This post originally appeared as the Quirky Case Column in
Advocacy Matters, Fall 2019. This column features a case
that is interesting because of its quirkiness. This can include
unusual facts, a novel legal issue, or something else that makes it
quirky.
Austin v. Bell Canada is a case about the annual
indexing provision of a pension plan. This would not normally
qualify as interesting let alone quirky if the case did not
consider the contractual significance of the
sometimes-controversial Oxford comma and, for all the grammar nerds
out there, the last antecedent rule vs. the series qualifier rule.
I had heard urban legends about a million-dollar comma, but never
thought I would have the pleasure of reading a case about one. This
particular dispute is about whether the cost of living increase for
a pension plan for 2017 should have been 1% or 2%. The amounts for
each pensioner were insignificant, but cumulatively it is a comma
worth more than a million.
