We see no error in the application judge’s application of the parole evidence rule in the circumstances of this case: Hawrish v. Bank of Montreal, 1969 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1969] S.C.R. 515, at p. 520. Even if there was a collateral oral agreement, something that is disputed by the respondent, that oral agreement could not contradict the written agreement. Accordingly, we agree with the application judge that the written agreement prevails and that the respondent could enforce the note. It was contingent on nothing.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.