Source: https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/article/judicial-notice-of-internet-sources-not-guaranteed-1759/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:09:59+00:00

Document:
Has the online world become so pervasive as to warrant judicial notice? For the most part, the answer remains no.
This test limits use of the doctrine to facts “capable of immediate and accurate demonstration by resorting to readily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy.” The practice of taking judicial notice of Internet sources hinges on whether those sources are viewed as sufficiently accurate.
The problem is there is no bright line dividing judicial notice from its elusive cousin, common sense. Common sense, it has been noted, is anything but common and tends to reflect the experience of whoever happens to be driving the train at any given time.
Nonetheless, the Internet is not going away and, as such, courts are increasingly having to decide whether to take judicial notice of Internet sources.
Google Maps is a prime example.
In R. v. Calvert, the Ontario Court of Appeal took judicial notice of Google Maps for the purpose of ascertaining the distance between two events. The court said the maps could be relied on because Google Maps constituted a readily accessible and indisputably accurate source. A similar attitude towards Google Maps has been seen in recent decisions in the United States, including United States v. Rakotojoelinandrasana, United States v. Sessa, and Dai v. Holder.
Counsel wanting to oppose the use of Google Maps in court would do well to alert the presiding justice to these warnings.
Moving beyond maps and distances, the use of other online sources has witnessed a mixed reception from the judiciary.
On the other hand, the U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania in AVS Foundation v. Eugene Berry Enterprise LLC had no hesitation taking judicial notice of a trademark’s notoriety based on the fact that its online entry occupied six pages in Wikipedia.
This tension in the case law and the difficulties with evidence mined from the Internet was recently summarized in R. v. Balen.
In that decision, Ivan Balen was challenging his conviction for failing to stop at the scene of an accident. The conviction was based, in part, on the trial judge’s decision to conduct a Google search concerning the manufacturer of an important piece of evidence.
In short, judicial notice of Internet sources remains a work in progress, much like the Internet itself.
S. Leonard Polsky is litigation counsel with the Calgary office of MacPherson Leslie & Tyerman LLP, practising in the areas of commercial litigation and employment law. Megan Kheong is a student at the same office and assisted in the preparation of this article.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.