View source for Business Records Under Common Law

{{Currency2|January|2017}}
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderDocuments}}

==General Principles==
{{Seealso|Business Records|Business Records Under the Canada Evidence Act}}
Business documents are admissible without notice under the common law where they meet the following requirements:<ref> 
{{CanLIIRP|Monkhouse|1p6j7|1987 ABCA 227 (CanLII)|[1988] 1 WWR 725}}{{perABCA|Laycraft CJ}}{{atsL|1p6j7|23| to 25}}<br>
{{CanLIIRPC|Ares v Venner|1nl92|1970 CanLII 5 (SCC)|[1970] SCR 608}}{{perSCC|Hall J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|O'Neil|frg82|2012 ABCA 162 (CanLII)|545 WAC 351}}{{TheCourtABCA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Oster|fvzsm|2013 ONCJ 38 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ| Bishop J}}{{atL|fvzsm|30}}<br>
</ref> 
# it is an original entry;
# it was made at the time of the event;
# it was made in the routine of business;
# it was made by a person who has personal knowledge of the thing recorded;
# who had a duty to make the record; and
# the maker had no motive to misrepresent

Stated in another way:<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Oster|fvzsm|2013 ONCJ 38 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|Bishop J}}{{atL|fvzsm|13}}<br>
citing ''Palter Cap Co v Great West Life'' [1936], and {{CanLIIRPC|Conley v Conley|g1h1w|1968 CanLII 236 (ON CA)|[1968] 2 OR 677}}{{perONCA| MacKay JA}}
</ref> 
:Statements made by an unavailable Declarant under a duty to another person to do an act and record it in the ordinary practice of the defendant’s business or calling or admissible in evidence provided they were made contemporaneous with the facts stated and without motive or intent to misrepresent the facts.  Each component must be satisfied. 

The fundamental rationale behind this rule that permits records being tendered into evidence without calling the author is not to avoid the inconvenience of bringing in the witnesses or because of no reasonable alternative. Rather it is premised on the documents having been created "under circumstances which makes them inherently trustworthy.  Where an established system in a business or other organization produces records which are regarded as reliable and customarily accepted by those affected by them, they should be admitted as prima facie evidence." <ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Monkhouse|1p6j7|1987 ABCA 227 (CanLII)|61 CR (3d) 343}}{{perABCA|Laycraft CJ}}{{atp|350 to 351}}
</ref>

The reliability arises from the existence of a "business duty". By contrast, a person who "provides information gratuitously" should be treated as less trustworthy.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Clarke|gnxsz|2016 ONSC 575 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|BA Allen J}}
</ref>

Evidence surrounding the making of the record goes to weight and not admissibility of the record.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Zundel|1npn1|1987 CanLII 121 (ON CA)|31 CCC (3d) 97}}{{TheCourtONCA}}
</ref>

; Copy Quality
Where there is an issue with the quality of the copy, the judge must assess whether the document is of sufficient quality to be put to the "use intended."<Ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Skomatchuk|1nlcp|2006 FC 730 (CanLII)}}{{AtL|1nlcp|25}}<br>
{{CanLIIRPC|Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Fast (T.D.)|l71|2002 FCT 269 (CanLII)|[2002] 4 FC 584}}{{atL|l71|10}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}