Fida Hindi

The plaintiff initiated an action seeking a declaration that the paid-up values in his life insurance policy, which significantly exceeded the face value, were correct and reflected an agreed-upon inflation protection.

The defendant, Manulife, contended that the policy's non-forfeiture table contained a clerical error, mistakenly stating "per $1,000" instead of "per $5,000" of face amount, and sought rectification.

The court found that the plaintiff never requested inflation protection, and the error in the policy was mutual and obvious.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed, and the court ordered the policy to be rectified to reflect the true agreement, changing "per $1,000" to "per $5,000" in the non-forfeiture table.

The defendant brought a motion to preclude the plaintiff's expert witness, W. Steve Prince, from testifying regarding the commercial viability of an insurance policy.

The defendant argued Prince's opinion evidence was unnecessary and irrelevant, particularly concerning policy interpretation and profitability assumptions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding Prince's evidence potentially relevant to counter the defendant's assertion that such a policy was "absurd" in 1982, and also relevant if the legal remedy of rectification were required to assess the potential unconscionability of allowing the policy to remain in place.

The defendants in a defamation action brought under the simplified procedure moved for an order extending the time for oral examination for discovery from two hours to 21 hours, and for a further and better affidavit of documents.

The court partially granted the request for further documentary production, ordering the plaintiff to produce documents relating to its relationship with CAIR and certain individuals, as these were relevant to the defendants' detailed plea of justification.

However, the court dismissed the request to extend the oral discovery time, finding no jurisdiction or justification to depart from the strict two-hour limit mandated by Rule 76.

The court determined the proper interpretation of a consulting retainer agreement governing contingent transaction fees for the sale of a business.

The respondents argued the fee provision should be interpreted as a staged structure applying 3.5% up to $6 million and 5% thereafter, while the applicant maintained the contract required 3.5% of the entire purchase price plus an additional 5% of the amount above $6 million.

The respondents sought to introduce extrinsic evidence including prior negotiations and industry standards to support their interpretation.

The court held the contractual language was clear and unambiguous despite producing a surprising result and declined to consider extrinsic evidence.

The applicant’s literal interpretation of the fee provision was upheld.