What is the effect of writing in the ink of a life insurance policy?

The very object of the conspicuous type and ink of different colour is to give notice to him that there are conditions which the insurer is exacting from him, and which, by accepting the policy containing them, would by the general law of the land become part of his contract. Equally true is it that when evidenced in the prescribed manner, as in the case before us they are, the added or varied conditions do become part of the contract, subject, of course, to the qualification of section 171, by force of winch they may be annulled if adjudged to be not just and reasonable. And when, subject to this qualification, they are part of the contract, I do not see that there is necessarily any presumption against their justice and reasonableness. It may be argued from their very terms in connection with the statutory conditions or otherwise that they are intrinsically unjust or unreasonable, as for example, where they vary as against the insured one of the statutory conditions, or they may be shewn to be so by extrinsic evidence, but it is only if they are held on one or other of these grounds to be so that they are avoided. The contract having been made and evidenced in a lawful manner, the onus must be upon the insured to get rid of it if he can by shewing that it falls within section 171. This may be an easy task in the case I have suggested, but in strictness it seems to me that there being a contract it must rest upon the insured in the first instance to shew why any of its terms should not be binding upon him. I do not think these views are opposed to anything which has been actually decided by any case by which I am bound, or inconsistent with anything which I have myself said in Smith v. City of London Ins. Co. (1887), 14 A.R. 328, 336; or Reddick v. Saugeen Mutual Fire Ins. Co. (1888), 15 A.R 363.