two competing narratives at trial. Either the parties agreed to
the terms of the quote or they agreed to a policy that provided
inflation protection. It was not Mr. Alguire’s position that he
just accepted the policy as presented without considering the
paid-up values or their effect. The trial judge, who found that
Mr. Alguire never requested inflation protection, rejected the
inflation protection narrative. That finding is not challenged on
appeal. It follows that the true agreement between the parties
was in accordance with the terms of the quote.
[ 22] In summary, because the trial judge found that the quote
was an antecedent agreement that contained the definite and
ascertainable terms of the parties’ bargain, it was open to him to
rectify the policy to reflect the parties’ true intention.
(b) Limitations Act
[ 23] Mr. Alguire argues that rectification is a cause of action,
not a defence, and is therefore subject to the two-year limitation
period in s. 4 of the Limitations Act. According to Mr. Alguire,
the limitation period commenced in 2007 when an actuary at
Manulife discovered the error, and thus rectification should not
have been granted, as Manulife did not claim that relief until it
issued its cross-application in 2013. He submits that policy considerations, including discouraging insurers from sleeping on
their rights and avoiding leaving beneficiaries to litigate cases
after the insured dies, further support dismissing the rectification claim.
[ 24] I would not give effect to this ground of appeal. I conclude
that the rectification relief sought by Manulife was not barred
by the Limitations Act. To properly analyze this ground of
appeal, it is necessary to consider a number of issues.
[ 25] The first issue is the nature of the right being asserted by
Manulife. It takes the position on appeal that it is simply asserting a defence and that accordingly rectification is not subject to
the Limitations Act. I do not agree.
[ 26] In my view, Manulife’s request for rectification is a claim.
It is more than just a denial of Mr. Alguire’s claim; it is an independent claim. Even if Mr. Alguire had not brought this proceeding, Manulife would have been entitled to bring an application
seeking rectification of the policy. Consequently, Manulife’s
request goes beyond a mere defence and qualifies as a claim for
rectification, which is equitable relief: Fairmont, at para. 12.
The Limitations Act applies to equitable claims: McConnell v.
Huxtable (2014), 118 O.R. (3d) 561,  O.J. No. 477, 2014
ONCA 86, at paras. 48-49.