La mise en preuve des documents publics

R. v. A.P., 1996 CanLII 871 (ON CA)

Lien vers la décision

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." Sturla v. Freccia (1880), 5 App. Cas. 623 (H.L.) at 643. English and Canadian cases have generally prescribed four criteria for the admissibility of a public document without proof.

(i) the document must have been made by a public official, that is a person on whom a duty has been imposed by the public;

(ii) the public official must have made the document in the discharge of a public duty or function;

(iii) the document must have been made with the intention that it serve as a permanent record, and

(iv) the document must be available for public inspection.

See Finestone v. The Queen, supra; R. v. Kaipiainen (1953), 107 C.C.C. 377 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Northern Electric Co. et al. (1955), 21 C.R. 45 at 75-82 (Ont. H.C.); J.D. Ewart, Documentary Evidence in Canada, 1984, pp.148-75.

The fourth criterion is controversial. It is not a requirement in the United States, and in my opinion there is much to be said for the following observation by McCormick:

This limitation has been criticized, and the American courts reasonably have not adopted it. Although public inspection might provide a modest additional assurance of reliability, strictly limiting admissibility to records that are open to public inspection would be unwise because many documents with sufficient reliability to justify admission would be excluded.