Si une personne peut affirmer qu'elle accomplit systématiquement une tâche professionnelle d'une certaine manière, cela constitue sans aucun doute une preuve, voire une preuve convaincante, qu'elle l'a accomplie de cette manière le jour en question.

Gerelus v. Lim et al., 2008 MBCA 89

Lien vers la décision

64               In my view, the judge did not err when she admitted the usual practice evidence of Dr. Ludwick and Nurse Harris, nor did she err when she relied on it.  Usual practice evidence is admissible and it is for a trial judge to determine the weight to be given to this evidence.  The judge considered the evidence of Dr. Ludwick and Nurse Harris carefully and in the context of the evidence as a whole and she found it to be persuasive.  She was entitled to do so.  As stated by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Belknap, “If a person can say of something he regularly does in his professional life that he invariably does it in a certain way, that surely is evidence and possibly convincing evidence that he did it in that way on the day in question” (at pp. 465-66).  See also Fisher v. Knibbe (1992), 1992 ABCA 121 (CanLII), 125 A.R. 219 (C.A.), and Kennedy v. Jackiewicz, [2003] O.T.C. 418 (S.C.J.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. denied, [2005] S.C.C.A. No. 27 (QL).