Yes No Share to Facebook
Taking Judicial Notice The Acceptance of Alleged Facts As True Without Evidence
Does a Judge Always Need Proof That a Fact Is True?
The Requirement of Proving That a Fact Is True Becomes Unnecessary Where the Fact Is Notoriously Known and Uncontroversial. For Such Facts a Judge May Simply Take Judicial Notice of the Fact Without Need of Any Evidence.
Understanding the Principle Known As Taking Judicial Notice Without Evidence of Notoriously Known Truths
Water is wet, the Sun is bright, gasoline is flammable, seasons occur because the Earth is tilted, among other notoriously known facts, rarely require proof by evidence or expert testimony within a legal proceeding. These notoriously known facts are facts for which a court may take judicial notice, meaning accept as true without evidence.
The Law
The principles for taking judicial notice were recently explained by the Court of Appeal within the case of Taylor v. Hanley Hospitality Inc., 2022 ONCA 376, wherein it was said:
[30] The concept of judicial notice allows a court to receive “facts” that are “so notorious or uncontroversial that evidence of their existence is unnecessary”. This does not allow parties “to put before the court controversial evidence to the prejudice of the opposing party without providing a proper opportunity for its truth to be tested”: Public School Boards’ Assn. of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), 2000 SCC 2, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 44, at para. 5. The threshold for judicial notice is strict since the facts are not proved by evidence under oath nor tested by cross-examination: R. v. Find, 2001 SCC 32, [2001] S.C.R. 863, at para. 48.
Per the Taylor case shown above, a court may take judicial notice and accept a fact as true when the fact is so commonly known and uncontroversial that proof of the fact is unnecessary.
Summary Comment
Judicial notice is a common law doctrine that allows a court to accept facts as true without the need of evidentiary proof.