“In the Supreme Court of Canada judgment in The Queen v. Find, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863, 2001 SCC 32 (CanLII), 269 N.R. 149, 146 O.A.C. 236, 199 D.L.R. (4th) 193, 82 C.R.R. (2d) 247, 154 C.C.C. (3d) 97, 42 C.R. (5th) 1, [2001] S.C.J. No. 34, 2001 CarswellOnt 1702, the test for judicial notice is strict and a court may properly take judicial notice of facts:
|
|
1. | so notorious or generally accepted as not to be the subject of debate among reasonable persons; or |
| 2. | capable of immediate and accurate demonstration by resort to readily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy. |
And in The Queen v. Spence, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 458, 2005 SCC 71 (CanLII), 342 N.R. 126, 206 O.A.C. 150, 135 C.R.R. (2d) 318, 202 C.C.C. (3d) 1, 33 C.R. (6th) 1, [2005] S.C.J. No. 74, 2005 CarswellOnt 6824, also a Supreme Court of Canada decision, the permissible scope of judicial notice should vary according to the nature of the issue under consideration. More stringent proof of facts that are close to the centre of the controversy is necessary. This is distinguished from background facts at or near the periphery. In all cases of judicial notice, the stringent test is always the starting point. If the stringent test is not satisfied and the fact is adjudicative, it will not be judicially recognized. If the fact is social or legislative, there are levels of notoriety and indisputability. Outside adjudicative facts, the limits of judicial notice are somewhat elastic.”
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. H.(L.D.), 2008 ONCJ 783 (CanLII) at 157