Documentary Evidence

• Author: Matthew Gourlay/Brock Jones/Jill D. Makepeace/Glen Crisp/Renee Pomerance
• Pages: 571-611

CHAPTER 13

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

I. Introduction ..................................................... 

II. Authentication ................................................... 

III. Best Evidence Rule ................................................ 

IV. Admissions of Fact: Code s ..................................... 

V. Documents in Possession.......................................... 

VI. Judicial Documents ............................................... 

A. Common Law ................................................ 

B. Exemplifications............................................... 

C. Certified Copies Under the Canada Evidence Act .................. 

D. Exemplifications Versus Certified Copies.......................... 

E. Release Orders ................................................ 

F. Probation Orders.............................................. 

G. Ancillary Orders ............................................... 

VII. Specific Criminal Code Provisions................................... 

A. Firearm Analyst................................................ 

B. Certificate of Qualified Technician ............................... 

C. Clerk’s Certificate of Failure to Appear............................ 

D. Ownership and Deprivation: Code s. ........................ 

E. Preliminary Inquiries ........................................... 

VIII. Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ............................... 

A. Certificate of Analyst ........................................... 

B. Continuity Affidavit ............................................ 

IX. Canada Evidence Act .............................................. 

A. Business Records .............................................. 

. Common Law.............................................. 

. Canada Evidence Act, s ................................... 

. Ordinary Course of Business ................................. 

. Circumstances Surrounding the Creation of the Record ......... 

. Records Made in the Course of an Investigation ................ 

. Negative Inferences from Records ............................ 

. Notice .................................................... 

571

Copyright © 2022 Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.

I. INTRODUCTION1

Documentary evide nce may take many forms. Traditionally, a document has been

defined by the courts as any thing th at contains written or inputted information, regard-

less of what form that may take. Over 100 years ago, in R v Daye, Darling J defined a

document as “any matter expressed or described u pon any substance by means of

letters, figures, or mark s, or by more than one of these means, intended to be used, or

which may be used, for the purpose of recordi ng that matter.”2 In the modern context,

this will typically include b oth written (or typed) documents and electronic docum ents.

The law of documentar y evidence in Canada encompas ses both the common law

and various statutes, both federa l and provincial. The Canada Evidence Act, for example,

does not contain a blanket definition of a “ document” but does define business records

broadly. In doing so, it captures various forms of information s torage: “the whole or any

part of any book, docum ent, paper, card, tape or other thing on or in which information

is written, recorded, stored or reproduced.”3

Documentary evid ence will typically form a large p ortion of the Crown’s case in

financially based prosecution s. But it will also play an important role in a vari ety of other

prosecutions, including those for v iolations of court orders. Even issue s as seemingly

mundane as the question of wh ether the person arrested is the person before the cour t

can be answered by referring to the chargin g document itself.4 Crown an d defence

1 This chapter was wr itten with the assistan ce of Matthew Shumka, As sistant Crown Attorney, Sca rborough

Crown Attorney’s Office.

2 Rv Daye, [1908] 2 KB 333 at 340 (DC); see als o Fox v Sleeman (1897), 17 PR 492 (Ont C A).

3 Canada Evidence Act, RSC 1985, c C-5, s30( 12).

4 See Rv Thomas, 2018 ONSC 102 at p ara 27.

. Affidavits and the Right to Cross-Examine the Affiant ............ 

. Common Law Versus the Canada Evidence Act................. 

B. Banking or Financial Records.................................... 

. Requirements for Admissibility ............................... 

. Drawing Negative Inferences from Financial Records ............ 

. No Notice Required......................................... 

X. Provincial Laws of Evidence ........................................ 

XI. Youth Criminal Justice Act ......................................... 

A. General Principles ............................................. 

B. Youth Records ................................................ 

C. Jurisdiction of the Youth Justice Court ........................... 

D. Records Falling Within the Access Periods ........................ 

E. Extrajudicial Measures .......................................... 

F. Records Falling Outside the Access Periods ....................... 

G. Access Versus Disclosure....................................... 

H. Recommended Procedure...................................... 

Appendix A: YCJA Records—No Finding of Guilt.......................... 

Appendix B: YCJA Records—Finding of Guilt ............................. 

572 MODERN CRIMINAL EVIDENCE

Copyright © 2022 Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.

counsel need to appreciate the complexities of th is area of the law and the require-

ments for admissibility th at apply to all forms of documentary evide nce, including, for

example, business records, pub lic or judicial documents, and any pr ivate or personal

documents of witnesses.

Keep in mind that while documents may cons titute a critical part of a criminal case,

they typically stan d as corroboration to the viva voce evidence of witnesses. Nearly

all documents require a live witnes s, or an appropriately drafted affi davit, to explain

their significance and their content s. Counsel should never assume that a d ocument

“speaks for itself,” and must ensure that the proper contex t for the document is placed

before the court. Failure to do so may result in the document be ing ruled inadmissible

or being assigned a signif icantly lower weight in deliberations. Moreover, the content of

certain documents may be di visible in terms of admissibility, with certain aspects b eing

properly admitted but not other s. An example would be a medical record a dmitted to

establish the nature and extent of inj uries that also contains an otherw ise inadmissible

hearsay account from the victim to a medical profes sional. Counsel should always be

explicit as to what specific content of a record is being adm itted.5

II. AUTHENTICATION

Before a document can be admitted into evid ence at a trial, it must be authenticated.

This requires nothing more than the re being some evidence before the cour t that the

document is what it purport s to be.6 In Rv Schwartz,7 the Suprem e Court of Canada

explained this requirement:

Before any document can b e admitted into evidence … it must be authent icated in some

way by the party wh o wishes to rely on it. This authentication re quires testimony by some

witness; a document ca nnot simply be placed on the bench in f ront of the judge.8

The onus is on the part y tendering the evidence to establi sh authenticity, with the

standard being, at most, o n a balance of probabilities.9 At common law, authenticit y

requires some evidence to suppor t the conclusion that the item in question is what the

party presenting it cla ims it is.10

A detailed discussion of the authenti cation requirement in the context of digital evi-

dence can be found in Chapter 12, Se ction II.

A single witness’s testimony that the document a ccurately represents its contents

is sufficient to establish threshold reliability for the purposes of admissibility. In some

cases, an affidavit may al so be sufficient—for example, where a statute authorizes one

for this purpose11 or counsel agree to proceed on th at basis instead of calling a witness

5 See e.g. Rv Caesar, 2016 ONCA 599 at paras 4 0, 45-47.

6 See e.g. Rv CB, 2019 ONCA 380 at para 66 .

7 [1988] 2 SCR 443, 1988 Can LII 11.

8 Ibid at para 58.

9 Rv Bulldog, 2015 ABCA 251 at paras 38 -40; Rv Ball, 2019 BCCA 32 at para 73; Rv Hir sch, 2017 SKCA 14 at

para 18; Rv Evans, [1993] 3 SCR 653 at pa ra 31; CB, supra note 6 at para 67.

10 Hirsch, ibid at para 18; Evans , ibid at para 32.

11 For business reco rds, Canada Evidence Act, s30(3) contemplates the use of aff idavit(s).

Chapter 13 Documentary Evidence 573

Copyright © 2022 Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.