not made after the expiry of the limitation period and is not
[ 33] Finally, Mr. Alguire raises policy considerations in support of his submission that the claim for rectification is statute-barred. Those considerations cannot, in the circumstances of this
case, drive the result. The Limitations Act was designed to promote certainty in the analysis of when claims are statute-barred.
The task of a reviewing court is to determine the applicable limitation period having regard to the legislation. A limitation period
analysis is not a laches analysis where the court’s investigation
is driven by the equities of the situation.
[ 34] In any event, the Limitations Act already requires parties
to act diligently and not sleep on their rights. As noted above, a
claim is discovered when a party knows, or reasonably ought to
have known, that injury, loss, or damage caused or contributed
to by an act or omission by the person against whom the claim
is made has occurred: Limitations Act, s. 5( 1)(a)( i)-( iii) and ( 2).
The fact that a claim is discovered when either a party knows or
reasonably ought to have known of the claim means that parties
cannot sit idly by and must instead act with due diligence in
determining if they have a claim. A claim, however, requires an
act or omission of the person against whom it is made:
Limitations Act, s. 5( 1)(a)( iii). In this case, it is Mr. Alguire’s resiling
from the parties’ intended agreement that grounds the rectification claim. Even though Manulife discovered the error in the
paid-up values in the policy in 2007, it did not know, and could
not reasonably ought to have known, that Mr. Alguire would
seek to resile from the parties’ intended agreement at some point
in the future. Manulife therefore cannot be faulted for failing to
act with due diligence.
[ 35] For these reasons, I would reject this ground of appeal.
(c) Costs award
[ 36] The test for leave to appeal a costs award is stringent.
Leave to appeal will not be granted, save in obvious cases where
the party seeking leave convinces the court that there are strong
grounds upon which the appellate court could find that the judge
erred in exercising his discretion: Lauzon v. AXA Insurance
(Canada),  O.J. No. 4956, 2013 ONCA 664, 235 A.C.W.S.
(3d) 510, at para. 15; Brad-Jay Investments Ltd. v. Szijjarto,
 O.J. No. 5078, 218 O.A.C. 315 (C.A.), at para. 21.
[ 37] At trial, Manulife submitted that Mr. Alguire’s conduct
was worthy of sanction and that it should be awarded its costs
of the entire proceeding on a substantial indemnity basis. It
argued that Mr. Alguire’s theory of the case was a “scam” to take