Is a male plaintiff of a quit-claim deed and lease valid?

The plaintiffs further allege in the alternative that the execution by the male plaintiff of the quit-claim deed and lease was an improvident transaction from which he is entitled to be relieved and in this connection reliance is placed on Barker v. Baker 1919 CanLII 272 (SK QB), [1919] 2 W.W.R. 335. I cannot however find that there was such inequality between the plaintiff and defendant herein as to bring the case within the principle of said decision. The plaintiff according to his own evidence had been farming for a long term of years nearly always under leases and in my opinion he must necessarily have understood what he was doing. So I cannot see that he is entitled to any relief in that connection.