Le Tribunal peut prendre connaissance d’office de ses propres dossiers et de leur contenu

R. v. Tysowski, 2008 SKCA 88

Lien vers la décision

[3]   I have concluded that the Provincial Court can look at its own records and take judicial notice of their contents.  The consequence of this conclusion is that the appeal is allowed and the convictions restored.

 

[16]  In R. v. Clarke,[8] the issue was whether a Provincial Court judge could take judicial notice of an endorsement indicating that an accused had failed to appear.  Sirois J. rejected the contention that s. 133(9) of the Criminal Code provides the sole means available to the Crown to prove the record in another court.  He wrote:

12        ... It seems to me that a further method is through the official court documents and the notations that appear thereon. If pursuant to s. 23 of the Canada Evidence Act, supra, evidence of any proceeding or record may be made in any action or proceeding by an exemplification or certified copy thereof, surely it goes without saying that the original documents are equally admissible, if not more so. They indicated here that the accused did not appear and that a bench warrant had issued at that time.[9]

He held that the endorsement on the information was admissible.

 

[17]  Noble J. expanded on this reasoning in R. v. Okanee:[10]

In my opinion, the position taken by Sirois J. is the correct one and is clear support for the view that a Provincial Judge can take judicial notice of the endorsements made either by him or his clerk in another court with respect to another charge.  In addition, however, I am of the view that any Provincial Judge can take judicial notice of an original endorsement by another judge of that court on an information.  In this regard I rely on R. v. Lewis, 1941 CanLII 234 (BC CA), 57 B.C.R. 83, [1941] 3 W.W.R. 575, 77 C.C.C. 95, [1941] 4 D.L.R. 640 (C.A.).  In that case, McDonald J.A., speaking for the court followed the statement in Craven v. Smith (1869), L.R. 4 Exch. 146 where it was held [p. 641]:

“ ‘The Court has at all times power to look at its own records, and to take notice of their contents, although they may not be formally brought before the Court by affidavit.’ ”

In Lewis, the court took judicial notice of the fact that notice of appeal filed bore the stamp of the registrar of the court and the Court of Appeal took the view that this was sufficient proof of the filing of the notice of appeal to be relied upon by the court.  Accordingly, it is my view that the learned Provincial Judge in this instance could have taken judicial notice of the endorsement on the information charging the accused with assault causing bodily harm that he had not appeared to the charge, even if that endorsement had been placed there by some other presiding judge or the clerk of the court.  Surely we have reached the stage of development of our Provincial Court system where as a court of record, one judge can take judicial notice of an endorsement on an original information with respect to a prior proceeding even though that endorsement is made by another member of that court.[11]  [Emphasis added.]

 

[18]  Justice Noble referred to R. v. Lewis,[12] which is a case where the Court itself procured the notice of appeal from the Registrar to determine if it had been date stamped as having been received within the time prescribed.  Useful reference may also be made to R. v. Hunt.[13]  A review of the above decisions reveals that they rest on the common law authority of the courts to take judicial notice of their own records as articulated in The Queen v. Jones [14] and Craven v. Smith.[15]

 

[19]  Based on these authorities, and those to which they refer, I conclude that, as a matter of settled law, a court has the authority to examine its own records and take judicial notice of their contents.  I see no reason to distinguish between the Court of Queen’s Bench and the Provincial Court as both are courts of record.[16]