Short answer. Often, yes. Rule 129, Section 3 requires the court to hear the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice during pre-trial and trial, whether on its own initiative or on motion. Before judgment or on appeal, the court may take notice on its own but must hear the parties if the matter is decisive of a material issue.
What the law says
During the pre-trial and the trial, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall hear the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter.
Rule 129, Section 3 — Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, may take judicial notice of any matter and shall hear the parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.
Rule 129, Section 3 — Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. Read the full provision →
During pre-trial and trial: a mandatory hearing
Section 3 requires that during pre-trial and trial, the court shall hear the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter, whether the court raises it on its own initiative or a party moves for it. This hearing requirement is mandatory at this stage, giving both sides a voice before notice is taken. The word 'shall' leaves no room for the court to skip this step during pre-trial or trial simply because the fact seems obvious or uncontroversial to the judge — the hearing requirement applies across the board at this stage, regardless of how confident the court already is about the matter it proposes to notice.
Before judgment or on appeal: a conditional hearing
The rule treats the later stages differently. Before judgment or on appeal, the court may take judicial notice of any matter on its own or on motion, but is only required to hear the parties on it if that matter is decisive of a material issue in the case — a narrower, condition-based hearing duty. In practice, this means a court can notice something relatively minor or peripheral at this later stage without convening a hearing on it, but the moment the matter goes to the heart of what the case turns on, the mandatory-hearing obligation kicks back in, just as it does automatically during pre-trial and trial.
Why the timing distinction exists
Requiring a hearing at every stage, including late in the case or on appeal, for every fact a court might notice would slow proceedings unnecessarily. Section 3 balances the parties' right to be heard against efficiency by making the hearing automatic earlier in the case and conditional — tied to real materiality — later on. Earlier in the case, when the issues are still being framed and the stakes of any particular notice are less certain, the safer default is to always hear the parties. Later on, once the case is closer to resolution, the rule trusts the court to identify for itself which matters are significant enough to warrant that same protection.