APPEAL from the judgment of J.F. Diamond J.,  O.J. No.
4390, 2016 ONSC 5295 (S.C.J.) dismissing an action; APPLICATION
for leave to appeal the costs order dated September 27, 2016.
Peter Griffin, Warren Rapoport and Aryan Ziaie, for appellant.
Robert Harrison and Chad Pilkington, for respondent.
The judgment of the court was delivered by
[ 1] HOURIGAN J.A.: — The appellant, William Alguire, appeals
the decision of the trial judge dismissing his claim for declara-
tory and other relief related to a policy of insurance issued by
the respondent, the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company
(“Manulife”). Mr. Alguire also seeks leave to appeal the costs
award ordered by the trial judge.
[ 2] For the reasons that follow, I would dismiss both the
appeal and the application for leave to appeal the costs award.
 On June 3, 1982, Mr. Alguire met with an insurance broker
and Manulife agent, Alan Elias, about obtaining a $5 million key
man insurance policy with large up front premiums in the early
years of the policy and greatly reduced premiums thereafter.
A short time later, Mr. Alguire left on an extended holiday. In his
absence, Mr. Elias contacted Manulife who prepared a special
actuarial quote (the “quote”) on June 14, 1982.
[ 4] The quote provided for the requested $5 million in face
amount coverage, with large premiums paid up front. It also
contained a guaranteed paid-up value table that provided for
insurance coverage in the event of default. For example, if
Mr. Alguire defaulted on the policy at age 65, the paid-up value
at that point would have totalled $2,680,000 and he would have
been entitled to coverage in that amount. The trial judge found
that Mr. Elias accepted the quote on behalf of Mr. Alguire, and
a policy was issued on July 21, 1982 (the “policy”).
[ 5] Mr. Alguire and Mr. Elias met again in mid-August 1982.
Mr. Alguire denied that he saw the quote during that meeting.
There was no evidence from Mr. Elias, who had passed away.
His file did not contain notes of what occurred at the meeting.
Mr. Alguire testified that he was advised of and directed to a
table of non-forfeiture values on p. 3 of the policy, which set out
the paid-up values on various anniversary dates. Starting on its
15th anniversary, the policy’s paid-up value exceeds the $5 million in face amount coverage. When these proceedings started,
the policy’s paid-up value was $13,400,000.