What is the effect of "procedure B" in a personal injury case?

Upon maturer reflection I am persuaded that it would have been preferable if I had followed "procedure B". In this respect I respectfully agree with and adopt the language of Bayda J.A. in Haidl v. Sacher at p. 302 when he stated: "In the end, it must be said that the Canadian authorities tend to put forward procedure B as the proper approach. In my respectful view, it is the approach most likely to elicit the testator's intention and for that reason is the more desirable approach. After all, ascertaining the testator's true intention is the real and only purpose of the whole exercise. Hence, the learned chambers judge, in the matter before us, did not err in admitting evidence of the testator's relationship to the beneficiaries named in his will, particularly those mentioned in cl. (h), as part of the surrounding circumstances in the light of which he then sought to interpret the testator's language by applying the 'ordinary-meaning' rule.''