Judical Notice. Curley v. Taafe
In Curley v. Taafe (Ont CA, 2019) the Court of Appeal quoted as follows on judicial notice:
 R. v. Find, 2001 SCC 32,  1 S.C.R. 863, at para. 48 sets out limits for resorting to judicial notice:. R. v. MacIsaac
Judicial notice dispenses with the need for proof of facts that are clearly uncontroversial or beyond reasonable dispute. Facts judicially noticed are not proved by evidence under oath. Nor are they tested by cross-examination. Therefore, the threshold for judicial notice is strict: 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. [Citations omitted.]
In R. v. MacIsaac (Ont CA, 2015) the Court of Appeal commented usefully on the tension between the principle of judicial notice and when it can stray into impermissible speculation by a judge:
 It was open to the trial judge to draw inferences that reasonably and logically flowed from the facts established by the evidence. But it was an error of law to draw inferences that did not flow logically and reasonably from established facts, because doing so draws the trial judge into the impermissible realms of conjecture and speculation: R. v. Morrissey (1995), 1995 CanLII 3498 (ON CA), 22 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.), at pp. 530-531.
A court can take judicial notice of a fact only if it is: (1) so notorious or generally accepted that no reasonable person would disagree; or (2) capable of immediate demonstration by reference to sources of indisputable accuracy (R. v. Find, 2001 SCC 32 (CanLII),  1 S.C.R. 863, at para. 48, citing R. v. Potts (1982), 1982 CanLII 1751 (ON CA), 66 C.C.C. (2d) 219 (Ont. C.A.)).