Is a statement of defence stating that an undertaking was a condition to the signing of a bond?

The statement of defence does not specifically allege that the undertaking was a condition to the signing of the bond but I am satisfied it was and will allow any necessary amendments to make the pleadings conform with the agreement as I find it: Standard Bank v. McCrossan, 1920 CanLII 30 (SCC), 55 D.L.R. 238, 60 S.C.R. 655, [1920] 3 W.W.R. 846.

Counsel for the bank takes the position that oral evidence is not admissible to vary the bond, and relies on the authority of Can. Bk. of Commerce v. Cherry, 1928 CanLII 111 (SK CA), [1928] 4 D.L.R. 87, 23 S.L.R. 189, [1928] 2 W.W.R. 662. The principle enunciated in that case has no application here for the simple reason that counsel for the bank first introduced evidence in an endeavour to show that no such undertaking was entered into. Evidently this was done in anticipation of evidence to be introduced by the defendant. Whatever the reason was, by introducing the evidence counsel for the plaintiff waived a right of objection which might otherwise have been available to him. In any case, at the trial the evidence of the defendant was not objected to. The point was raised only in a written brief submitted by counsel for the bank.