Business Records Under Common Law: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "(R v [A-Z][a-z]+) \[ht" to "''$1'', [ht" |
m Text replacement - "([A-Z][a-z]+ v [A-Z][a-z]+)," to "''$1''," |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Business documents are admissible without notice under the common law where they meet the following requirements:<ref> | Business documents are admissible without notice under the common law where they meet the following requirements:<ref> | ||
''R v Monkhouse'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1p6j7 1987 ABCA 227] (CanLII), [1988] 1 W.W.R. 725{{perABCA|Laycraft CJ}} at para 23 to 25<br> | ''R v Monkhouse'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1p6j7 1987 ABCA 227] (CanLII), [1988] 1 W.W.R. 725{{perABCA|Laycraft CJ}} at para 23 to 25<br> | ||
Ares v Venner, [1970] SCR 608, [http://canlii.ca/t/1nl92 1970 CanLII 5]{{perSCC|Hall J}}<br> | ''Ares v Venner'', [1970] SCR 608, [http://canlii.ca/t/1nl92 1970 CanLII 5]{{perSCC|Hall J}}<br> | ||
''R v O'Neil'', [http://canlii.ca/t/frg82 2012 ABCA 162] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}}<br> | ''R v O'Neil'', [http://canlii.ca/t/frg82 2012 ABCA 162] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}}<br> | ||
''R v Oster'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fvzsm 2013 ONCJ 38] (CanLII){{perONCJ| Bishop J}}{{at|30}}<br> | ''R v Oster'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fvzsm 2013 ONCJ 38] (CanLII){{perONCJ| Bishop J}}{{at|30}}<br> | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Stated in another way:<ref> | Stated in another way:<ref> | ||
''R v Oster'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fvzsm 2013 ONCJ 38] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Bishop J}}{{at|30}}<br> | ''R v Oster'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fvzsm 2013 ONCJ 38] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Bishop J}}{{at|30}}<br> | ||
citing Palter Cap Co v Great West Life [1936], and Conley v Conley, [1968] 2 OR 677, [http://canlii.ca/t/g1h1w 1968 CanLII 236] (ON CA){{perONCA| MacKay JA}} | citing Palter Cap Co v Great West Life [1936], and ''Conley v Conley'', [1968] 2 OR 677, [http://canlii.ca/t/g1h1w 1968 CanLII 236] (ON CA){{perONCA| MacKay JA}} | ||
</ref> | </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. | :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. | ||
Revision as of 11:56, 15 January 2019
General Principles
Business documents are admissible without notice under the common law where they meet the following requirements:[1]
- 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:[2]
- 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." [3]
The reliability arises from the existence of a "business duty". By contrast a person who "provides information gratuitously" should be treated as less trustworthy.[4]
Evidence surrounding the making of the record goes to weight and not admissibility of the record.[5]
- ↑
R v Monkhouse, 1987 ABCA 227 (CanLII), [1988] 1 W.W.R. 725, per Laycraft CJ at para 23 to 25
Ares v Venner, [1970] SCR 608, 1970 CanLII 5, per Hall J
R v O'Neil, 2012 ABCA 162 (CanLII), per curiam
R v Oster, 2013 ONCJ 38 (CanLII), per Bishop J, at para 30
- ↑
R v Oster, 2013 ONCJ 38 (CanLII), per Bishop J, at para 30
citing Palter Cap Co v Great West Life [1936], and Conley v Conley, [1968] 2 OR 677, 1968 CanLII 236 (ON CA), per MacKay JA - ↑ R v Monkhouse, 1987 ABCA 227 (CanLII), per Laycraft CJ at p. 350 to 351
- ↑ R v Clarke, 2016 ONSC 575 (CanLII), per BA Allen J
- ↑ R v Zundel [1987], 1987 CanLII 121 (ON CA), 31 CCC 3d 97 (Ont.C.A.), per curiam