Does the "real consideration" or extrinsic evidence to prove the “real consideration” generally admissible?

Ontario, Canada


The following excerpt is from Harre v Spitzer, 2016 ONSC 803 (CanLII):

Parol or extrinsic evidence to prove the “real consideration” is generally admissible: Cadinha v. Chemar Corp., [1995] B.C.J. No. 755 (B.C.S.C.), at para. 12.

Other Questions


What is the test for using the word "similar fact evidence" in a motion where the evidence is not the same fact evidence? (Ontario, Canada)
What are the considerations for a judge in ruling on admissibility of an expert’s evidence? (Ontario, Canada)
If the evidence the Respondent submitted was to add details of conversations and was not intended or capable or capable of raising any adverse impli­cations regarding the credibility of the complainant, is it admissible evidence? (Ontario, Canada)
Is a toxicology report admissible under rule 30.01 of the Canada Evidence Act? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the effect of comments by a judge that generalizations are made based on generalizations? (Ontario, Canada)
What impact would the inclusion of the evidence in the context of section 24(2) of the Charter under which the evidence is excluded? (Ontario, Canada)
In what circumstances will a medical report be admissible as evidence at a motion? (Ontario, Canada)
Is there any case law in which the Court has rejected evidence tendered in affidavit form as other affidavit evidence? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the case law on the admissibility of expert evidence in medical malpractice cases? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for proving dishonesty of fraud in a real estate transaction? (Ontario, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.