Offices in Ottawa and Perth
(613) 722-1500

CONTACT US (613) 722-1500

Judicial Notice of COVID-19 Facts

Judicial Notice of COVID-19 Facts

Mann Lawyers

Posted January 26, 2021

When parties want to rely on facts in court they need to prove them with evidence. However, some facts are so well known that judges can take “judicial notice” of them instead of requiring proof. R. v Find, 2001 SCC 32 tells us that: “a court may properly take judicial notice of facts that are either: (1) so notorious or generally accepted as not to be the subject of debate among reasonable persons; or (2) capable of immediate and accurate demonstration by resort to readily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy.”

During the current global pandemic, information about COVID-19 seems to be everywhere. Parties may wonder what information requires evidence and what information has become so pervasive that a court will take judicial notice.

J.E.S. v. S.S., 2020 ONSC 6064 provides some guidance on this subject. The Applicant asked the court to take judicial notice of fifteen facts about COVID-19.  The Court agreed to take judicial notice of four of them:

  • “COVID-19 is a highly contagious, life-threatening, respiratory disease that attacks adults and children; [i]t spreads through person to person contact and can also be spread through touching surfaces;
  • Cases in Ontario are on the rise again;
  • Public Health rules, protocols and warnings must be followed; and
  • Public Health requirements are intended to protect all members of the public.”

However, the Court refused to take judicial notice of:

  • Information that required medical evidence to prove, for example, the assertion that “[a[dults and children with certain pre-existing conditions are more at risk for the disease to be life-threatening; these conditions include heart disease, diabetes, asthma, and weak immune systems (immune-compromised)”;
  • Incorrect information;
  • Facts that were already in evidence through affidavits;
  • A list of COVID-19 symptoms because they were not “notorious” and the list presented differed from the list on the Ontario government’s website;
  • The Toronto District School Board’s list of COVID-19 precautions since the information was not “notorious nor… readily supported by sources of indisputable accuracy”; and
  • A summary of by-laws from the City of Toronto and orders from the federal government since “the full text of these instruments [was] available online.”

J.E.S. v. S.S., 2020 ONSC 6064, sheds some light on judicial notice of COVID-19 facts. However, parties should proceed cautiously. Different judges will have different ideas of what facts meet the definition of judicial notice. This is especially true in the COVID-19 environment where knowledge about the virus continues to grow and guidelines continue to evolve.  To be safe, parties should present evidence to support the COVID-19 facts they wish to rely on in court rather than relying on judicial notice.

This blog post was written by Kathleen Broschuk, a member of the Family Law team.  Kathleen can be reached at 613-369-0362 or at

More Resources

Blog |
Employment, Labour, and Human Rights, Commercial Litigation


Posted May 23, 2023

Both in my commercial and employment litigation practice, I encounter Ontario business owners faced with serious charges laid against them under the Provincial Offences Act[...]
Blog |
Family Law


Posted May 18, 2023

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Anderson v. Anderson, 2023 SCC 13, provides guidance on domestic contracts and the enforceability of an informal[...]
Blog |
Environmental Law


Posted May 16, 2023

When many people think of contaminated sites, they think of the usual suspects such as industrial properties and gas stations.  They may not think of[...]
Blog |
Business Law


Posted May 9, 2023

Often business owners reach a point where they are considering the sale of their business either through the sale of shares or the sale of[...]
Blog |
Family Law


Posted May 2, 2023

Overview of Tort Claims in Family Matters Tort claims can be made in family law matters, so as to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings and[...]
Blog |
Employment, Labour, and Human Rights


Posted April 25, 2023

In a case that recently was decided from the Court of Appeal of Ontario called Celestini v Shoplogix Inc., 2023 ONCA 131, the Court had[...]

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.