Sentences with phrase «electronic evidence act»

Other «digital legislation» produced by the ULCC includes the Uniform Electronic Evidence Act (1998, fairly widely adopted) and the Uniform Privacy Protection Act (Data Breach Notification) of 2010.

The Court noted the source of the CEA rules in the Uniform Electronic Evidence Act.

I mentioned the position of hearsay in electronic documents in my recent column on the Uniform Electronic Evidence Act, the source of the relevant provisions of the CEA (and many provincial evidence statutes on the point).

The Uniform Electronic Evidence Act says how to apply the «best evidence» rule (which normally requires an original document, or a good explanation for the absence of the original) to electronic documents.

(quoted from a version of the Uniform Electronic Evidence Act, s. 5 (c)-RRB-

The Uniform Electronic Evidence Act (1998) you drafted is exactly right for electronic records technology John.

31.1 ff of the Canada Evidence Act, which reflect the Uniform Electronic Evidence Act.

Sections 31.1 through 31.8 (and the Uniform Electronic Evidence Act from which they derive) do not deal directly with hearsay.

Not exact matches

«To describe electronic cigarette use as «a new drug use option» and part of «at - risk teenagers» substance using repertoires» is unnecessarily alarmist, given the evidence that regular use among never smokers is negligible, the lack of evidence that electronic cigarette use acts as a gateway to tobacco use, and the likely low level of harm associated with electronic cigarette use.»

BRUSSELS — European Union antitrust authorities raided several publishers in Europe Tuesday, searching for evidence that they had acted illegally to keep prices high in the nascent electronic - book market.

Therefore it can be used to test the «integrity» that provisions such as, s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act (CEA), and s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act (OEA), require of ERMSs, for the purpose of determining the admissibility of electronic records as evidence; e.g., R. v. Oler, 2014 AEvidence Act (CEA), and s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act (OEA), require of ERMSs, for the purpose of determining the admissibility of electronic records as evidence; e.g., R. v. Oler, 2014 AEvidence Act (OEA), require of ERMSs, for the purpose of determining the admissibility of electronic records as evidence; e.g., R. v. Oler, 2014 Aevidence; e.g., R. v. Oler, 2014 ABPC 130.

Ken Chasse, who recently commented on my last note on e-evidence under the Canada Evidence Act (as reported here on Slaw.ca), thinks that hearsay as well needs adjustment because of the malleability of electronic records.

What the Crown and the court were talking about was the series of provisions on electronic evidence from s. 31.1 to s. 31.8 of the Act.

As to the use of experts in electronic records management, it is not yet the practice of lawyers to use such experts, but it should be because the Evidence Acts require it in order to use electronic records as evidence — e.g. s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act, and, s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act, and the Evidence Acts of 9 other jurisdictions in Canada contain the same requirement (including the records provisions of Book 7 of the Civil Code of Evidence Acts require it in order to use electronic records as evidence — e.g. s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act, and, s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act, and the Evidence Acts of 9 other jurisdictions in Canada contain the same requirement (including the records provisions of Book 7 of the Civil Code of evidence — e.g. s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act, and, s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act, and the Evidence Acts of 9 other jurisdictions in Canada contain the same requirement (including the records provisions of Book 7 of the Civil Code of Evidence Act, and, s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act, and the Evidence Acts of 9 other jurisdictions in Canada contain the same requirement (including the records provisions of Book 7 of the Civil Code of Evidence Act, and the Evidence Acts of 9 other jurisdictions in Canada contain the same requirement (including the records provisions of Book 7 of the Civil Code of Evidence Acts of 9 other jurisdictions in Canada contain the same requirement (including the records provisions of Book 7 of the Civil Code of Quebec).

That is the «system integrity» concept of records reliability, i.e., «records integrity» requires proof «records systems integrity,» which is the admissibility rule of the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts (e.g., s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act, and s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act).

The admissibility of an electronic record requires proof of its records management «system integrity»; e.g.: Canada Evidence Act (CEA) s. 31.2 (1)(a); and, Ontario Evidence Act (OEA) s. 34.1 (5), (5.1).

In regard to best evidence rule issues, admissibility of electronic records requires proof of the «systems integrity» of the electronic records management systems (ERMSs) in which the records are recorded or stored; see for example: Canada Evidence Act (CEA) s. 31.2 (1)(a); Ontario Evidence Act (OEA) s. 34.1 (5), (5.1); Alberta Evidence Act s. 41.4 (1), (2); and the, Nova Scotia Evidence Act s. evidence rule issues, admissibility of electronic records requires proof of the «systems integrity» of the electronic records management systems (ERMSs) in which the records are recorded or stored; see for example: Canada Evidence Act (CEA) s. 31.2 (1)(a); Ontario Evidence Act (OEA) s. 34.1 (5), (5.1); Alberta Evidence Act s. 41.4 (1), (2); and the, Nova Scotia Evidence Act s. Evidence Act (CEA) s. 31.2 (1)(a); Ontario Evidence Act (OEA) s. 34.1 (5), (5.1); Alberta Evidence Act s. 41.4 (1), (2); and the, Nova Scotia Evidence Act s. Evidence Act (OEA) s. 34.1 (5), (5.1); Alberta Evidence Act s. 41.4 (1), (2); and the, Nova Scotia Evidence Act s. Evidence Act s. 41.4 (1), (2); and the, Nova Scotia Evidence Act s. Evidence Act s. 23D (1).

Since 1978, I have acted as a legal advisor in the creation and updating of 72.34 and the other records management national standard, Microfilm and Electronic Images as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.11-93 («72.11»), derived from which, more than 50 compliance tests are applied.

But the phrase in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts, «the integrity of the electronic records [or documents] system,» requires an authoritative national standard to give it a sufficiently precise meaning to be workable — e.g. s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act, and the reference to the use of standards in s. 31.5.

Under the Motor Vehicle Act, an electronic or paper record from a speed monitoring device can be submitted as evidence someone was speeding.

The court held (wrongly, in my view) that the Alberta Evidence Act (which implements the Uniform Act) required compliance with the CGSB Standard, but the proponent of the electronic evidence persuasively qualified its witness and the witness showed the court that her employer had complied, and the evidence was aEvidence Act (which implements the Uniform Act) required compliance with the CGSB Standard, but the proponent of the electronic evidence persuasively qualified its witness and the witness showed the court that her employer had complied, and the evidence was aevidence persuasively qualified its witness and the witness showed the court that her employer had complied, and the evidence was aevidence was admitted.

The reason that section 6 on standards was put into the Uniform Act was to try to ensure that such standards would be read broadly, toinclude if need be these private agreements on how electronic evidence would be handled.

That concept is expressly made the basis of the rule of admissibility in the electronic record provisions that are in 11 of the Evidence Acts in Canada — e.g., s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the (Ontario) Evidence Act, and s. 31.2 (1) of the Canada Evidence Act.

Evidence Act, s. 34.1 (1) «electronic record» means data that is recorded or stored on any medium in or by a computer system or other similar device, that can be read or perceived by a person or a computer system or other similar device, and includes a display, printout or other output of that data, other than a printout referred to in subsection (6);

Evidence Act, s. 34.1 (1) Criminal Code, s. 342.1 and 841 Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, s. 31 Competition Act, s. 30 Representations, in any form, of information or concepts.

41.1 - 41.8 of the Alberta Evidence Act); (4) the National Standards of Canada for electronic records management, [i] necessary for giving the word «integrity» a meaning in those sections; and, (5) that the solution to the high cost of the «review» stage of electronic discovery proceedings requires a different strategy and procedure than are used now.

24 (1) If a document is submitted in an electronic format and is required under any Act to include an affidavit, a declaration, a statement or any other written evidence, the evidence shall be in an electronic format approved by the Director of Land Registration and shall be included in a manner approved by the Director of Land Registration.

Better to increase the attractiveness of legal services by enabling lawyers to provide related services accompanying their legal services, e.g., family law lawyers providing financial planning advice, and law firms providing accounting and tax advisory work, and litigation lawyers working with experts who improve and maintain their clients» electronic records management systems, because records are the most frequently used kind of evidence and are completely dependent on their records management systems for everything, particularly their «integrity» （ which is what the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts require be proved for admissibility; e.g., section 31.2 （ 1 ） （ a ） of the Canada Evidence Act - see: Ken Chasse, «Electronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free doelectronic records management systems, because records are the most frequently used kind of evidence and are completely dependent on their records management systems for everything, particularly their «integrity» （ which is what the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts require be proved for admissibility; e.g., section 31.2 （ 1 ） （ a ） of the Canada Evidence Act - see: Ken Chasse, «Electronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free downevidence and are completely dependent on their records management systems for everything, particularly their «integrity» （ which is what the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts require be proved for admissibility; e.g., section 31.2 （ 1 ） （ a ） of the Canada Evidence Act - see: Ken Chasse, «Electronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free doelectronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts require be proved for admissibility; e.g., section 31.2 （ 1 ） （ a ） of the Canada Evidence Act - see: Ken Chasse, «Electronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free downEvidence Acts require be proved for admissibility; e.g., section 31.2 （ 1 ） （ a ） of the Canada Evidence Act - see: Ken Chasse, «Electronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free downEvidence Act - see: Ken Chasse, «Electronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free doElectronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free downEvidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free downevidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free download ） 。

What governments do, do for the justice system doesn't cost money, such as, the Truth in Sentencing Act of 2010 (see, Criminal Code s. 719 (3)-RRB-; and, talk of abolishing the preliminary inquiry, which would be a very big mistake because: (1) what other opportunity is there for defence counsel to challenge the reliability of evidence that comes from complex electronic systems and devices, so as to better prepare for trial and plea bargaining?

In regard to «best evidence rule» issues, admissibility of an electronically - produced record requires proof of the «systems integrity» of the ERMS in which the electronic record was recorded or stored, as stated in s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act (CEA), or a provincial or territorial Evidence Act in civil procevidence rule» issues, admissibility of an electronically - produced record requires proof of the «systems integrity» of the ERMS in which the electronic record was recorded or stored, as stated in s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act (CEA), or a provincial or territorial Evidence Act in civil procEvidence Act (CEA), or a provincial or territorial Evidence Act in civil procEvidence Act in civil proceedings.

But, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, in my view the Canada Evidence Act really does not demand more in circumstances such as these: s. 31.3 (a), requires only evidence capable of supporting a finding of proper or unimpaired operation of the relevant electronic documentevidence to the contrary, in my view the Canada Evidence Act really does not demand more in circumstances such as these: s. 31.3 (a), requires only evidence capable of supporting a finding of proper or unimpaired operation of the relevant electronic documentEvidence Act really does not demand more in circumstances such as these: s. 31.3 (a), requires only evidence capable of supporting a finding of proper or unimpaired operation of the relevant electronic documentevidence capable of supporting a finding of proper or unimpaired operation of the relevant electronic document system.

Very interesting cases like R v Nde Soh, 2014 NBQB 20, which deals with the distinction of «real» versus «documentary» electronic evidence under the Canada Evidence Act, or Fric v. Gershman, 2012 BCSC 614, which is a nice summation of some principles for BC, are not mentioned in recenevidence under the Canada Evidence Act, or Fric v. Gershman, 2012 BCSC 614, which is a nice summation of some principles for BC, are not mentioned in recenEvidence Act, or Fric v. Gershman, 2012 BCSC 614, which is a nice summation of some principles for BC, are not mentioned in recent cases.

It also modernizes the provisions of the Act relating to electronic evidence and provides for more effective enforcement in a technologically advanced environment.

Nevertheless, the «system integrity» requirement of the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts is completely ignored — admissibility of an electronic record requires proof of the integrity of the electronic records system in which it is recorded or stored; e.g., s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act, and s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act.

This very varied evidentiary legislation situation, will produce a very inconsistent caselaw, one jurisdiction to the next, once judges and lawyers realize the consequences in law required by the fundamental difference between an electronic record and a pre-electronic paper record — in particular, the «system integrity concept» that is expressly stated in the electronic records provisions; e.g.: s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act; and, s. 31.2 (1) of the Canada Evidence Act (see my Slaw blog article, «The Dependence of Electronic Discovery and Admissibility upon Electronic Records Management,» published Nov. electronic record and a pre-electronic paper record — in particular, the «system integrity concept» that is expressly stated in the electronic records provisions; e.g.: s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act; and, s. 31.2 (1) of the Canada Evidence Act (see my Slaw blog article, «The Dependence of Electronic Discovery and Admissibility upon Electronic Records Management,» published Nov. electronic paper record — in particular, the «system integrity concept» that is expressly stated in the electronic records provisions; e.g.: s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act; and, s. 31.2 (1) of the Canada Evidence Act (see my Slaw blog article, «The Dependence of Electronic Discovery and Admissibility upon Electronic Records Management,» published Nov. electronic records provisions; e.g.: s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act; and, s. 31.2 (1) of the Canada Evidence Act (see my Slaw blog article, «The Dependence of Electronic Discovery and Admissibility upon Electronic Records Management,» published Nov. Electronic Discovery and Admissibility upon Electronic Records Management,» published Nov. Electronic Records Management,» published Nov. 22, 2013).

Those efforts failing, not until the electronic records provisions of the Canada Evidence Act, ss.

And such proof should be required in every jurisdiction, whether or not its Evidence Act has electronic records provisions — ERMS technology doesn't change its nature to suit an Evidence Act.

While electronic evidence has been made admissible after a 2000 amendment in Indian Evidence Act, 1872, still the parties have to give a printed version of such evidence for it to be marked as eevidence has been made admissible after a 2000 amendment in Indian Evidence Act, 1872, still the parties have to give a printed version of such evidence for it to be marked as eEvidence Act, 1872, still the parties have to give a printed version of such evidence for it to be marked as eevidence for it to be marked as exhibits.