What is the test for admissible evidence to explain the terms of a written agreement?

Canada (Federal), Canada

The following excerpt is from Lemay v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 433 (CanLII):

In this case, the payment made meets the requirements and conditions stated by Marceau J.A. The applicant's counsel concentrated at length on Attorney General of Canada v. Bielich, 2005 FCA 363, to argue that evidence was admissible to explain the terms of a written agreement. We are not persuaded that this is what was decided in that decision. In any event, we are satisfied that it does not apply in this case, where the terms of the agreement are clear and self-explanatory.

Other Questions


Is evidence of an oral agreement not admissible to alter the terms of a written agreement? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
Is parol evidence admissible to vary or modify the express terms of a written contract? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
What is the test for admissible evidence that contradicts the terms of a written contract? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is parole evidence admissible to vary or modify the express terms of a written contract? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
Is parol evidence admissible to establish that an oral agreement does not conflict with the written contract? (British Columbia, Canada)
How have the courts interpreted the terms of an agreement or written agreement regarding alimony under the Income Tax Act? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
Can evidence that is not in the form of a written agreement be considered to prove otherwise? (Alberta, Canada)
Is parol evidence admissible to challenge a mortgage agreement? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
Does the parol evidence rule extend to cases where a document may not embody all the terms of the agreement? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is parol evidence admissible to establish that a party made misrepresentations in a settlement agreement? (Ontario, Canada)