“Section 25 of the Ontario Evidence Act states:
Copies of statutes, official gazettes, ordinances, regulations, proclamations, journals, orders, appointments to office, notices thereof and other public documents purporting to be printed by or under the authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, or the Imperial Government or by or under the authority of the government or of any legislative body of any dominion, commonwealth, state, province, colony, territory or possession within the Queen’s dominions, shall be admitted in evidence to prove the contents thereof.
In Levac v. James, 2016 ONSC 7727, at paras. 112-113, rev’d on other grounds, 2017 ONCA 842, the court described the rationale behind the public documents exception to the hearsay rule as follows:
Under the public documents exception, the records and reports of public officials are admissible for the truth of their contents because of their inherent reliability or trustworthiness and because of the inconvenience of requiring public officials to be present in court to prove the records and reports: R. v. P.(A.), [1996] O.J. No. 2986 (C.A.). In R. v. P. (A.), supra, Justice Laskin stated at para. 14:
At common law statements made in public documents are admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence. This exception is “founded upon the belief that public officers will perform their tasks properly, carefully, and honestly.” Sopinka et al. The Law of Evidence in Canada, 2nd ed. p. 231. Public documents are admissible without proof because of their inherent reliability or trustworthiness and because of the inconvenience of requiring public officials to be present in court to prove them. Rand, J. commented on the rationale for the public documents exception to the hearsay rule in Finestone v. The Queen (1953), 1953 CanLII 81 (SCC), 107 C.C.C. 93 at 95 (S.C.C.):
The grounds for this exception to the hearsay rule are the convenience of the ordinary modes of proof and, the trustworthiness of the entry arising from the duty, and that they apply much more forcefully in the complex governmental functions of today is beyond controversy.
As noted by Justice Laskin, the rationale for the exception to the rule against hearsay was explained by Justice Rand in R. v. Finestone, 1953 CanLII 81 (SCC), [1953] 2 S.C.R. 107, where Justice Rand adopted what was said centuries earlier in the English case of R v. Aickles (1785), 1 Leach Cr. L. 390 at p. 392:
The law reposes such a confidence in public officers that it presumes they will discharge their several trusts with accuracy and fidelity; and therefore whatever acts they do in discharge of their public duty may be given in evidence and shall be taken to be true, under such a degree of caution as the nature and circumstances of each case may appear to require.
In Levac, the court, relying on Laskin J.A.’s decision in R. v. P.(A.), at para. 15, held that for a document to be admissible under the public documents exception to the hearsay rule, four criteria must be satisfied:
a. the document must have been made by a public official, that is a pers on whom the duty has been imposed by the public;
b. the public official must have made the document in the discharge of a public duty or function;
c. the document must have been made with the intention that it serve as a permanent record; and
d. the document must be available for public inspection.
An adjudicative function is not a prerequisite for a document to be a public document. A public document means a document that is made for the purpose of the public making use of it, and being able to refer to it: Levac, at para. 117; R. v. P.(A.), at para. 15.”