The Law of Unintended Consequences: Supreme Court Rules On Rectification

At common law, Courts have always had the power to correct mistakes in a contract or written legal instrument where that instrument incorrectly records the parties' agreement. Known as rectification, this equitable remedy has been used for centuries to amend a written document that inaccurately reflects the parties' intentions.

Canadian Courts have spilled much judicial ink on the scope of rectification. It has always been the case that rectification is available to correct an instrument that does not reflect an agreement between the parties, where that agreement's terms are definite, clear and ascertainable.

But what about the case where an instrument fails to reflect a party's general intentions, i.e. where those intentions are not "definite, clear and ascertainable", and where leaving the instrument in its current flawed form will produce unintended consequences?