Sentences with phrase «electronic evidence because»

P. 37 (e) pertain only to electronic evidence because the rule states specifically it applies to «electronically stored information» (ESI).

Not exact matches

Electronic portfolios caught her interest because they provide a way for students to show clear evidence of their teaching development in a form that is easy to share, update, and store.

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.

There is some debate in the evidence world whether the laws of hearsay require amendment because of electronic records.

R. v. Nde Soh is important because the Court accepted the need to receive evidence on the issue of admissibility as to how the computer system that produced the «electronic documents» worked.

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).

It seems very clear to me that the photos were also electronic documents, not because they were taken with a digital camera but because they were proferred as evidence as to what was in the computer, i.e. they were exactly the same in law as a printout (or the screenshots).

«Records management law» will be a necessary area of specialization because electronic records are as important to daily living as are motor vehicles, and are now the most frequently used kind of evidence.

And because such «systems integrity» is a very complex collection of ERMS principles and practices, which collection is too big to put into a definition section in such Evidence Acts, compliance with the following NSC is the necessary test as to the existence of that required «systems integrity»: Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2005 (72.34).

Therefore, 72.34 is an extremely important national standard, particularly so because electronic records and information management technology enables every electronic interaction, communication, and movement of information to automatically produce an electronic record, any one of which could be related to a legal service or proceeding, and become a piece of evidence, records now being the most frequently used kind of evidence.

Electronic records management is a complex technology, which makes current legal infrastructure of statutes, guidelines, and case law that controls the use of electronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1) electronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), andElectronic records management is a complex technology, which makes current legal infrastructure of statutes, guidelines, and case law that controls the use of electronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1) electronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), andelectronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1) electronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), andelectronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), andelectronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), andelectronic records management systems (ERMS's), and... [more]

For example, these frequently used evidence - producing types of technology go unchallenged: (1) mobile phone tower location evidence used to locate us - very frequently used because we all carry mobile phones; (2) breathalyzer / intoxilyzer readings; (3) electronic records management systems (records are now the most frequently used kind of evidence); and, (4) the technology that produces the data used to formulate expert opinion evidence.

But they will have to catch - up soon because: (1) electronic records are the most frequently used kind of evidence; and, (2) every interaction, formal and semi-formal action, communication, and transmission automatically produces an electronic record, which means more records connected to more legal services than there are pieces of paper still in file drawers.

To the contrary of Sedona Canada 2nd, electronic records management technology makes these 3 concepts more interdependent in law and necessary application: (1) the «system integrity concept» of the e-records provisions of the Evidence Acts; (2) the «proportionality principle» of electronic discovery proceedings; and, (3) the «Prime Directive» of 72.34: «an organization shall always be prepared to produce its records as evidence», i.e., records systems must always be kept in compliance with this national standard (otherwise, the e-records produced, and the adequacy of their production, should not be relied upon because, the quality of records system integrity determines the quality of records integrity — that is the «system integrity concept&Evidence Acts; (2) the «proportionality principle» of electronic discovery proceedings; and, (3) the «Prime Directive» of 72.34: «an organization shall always be prepared to produce its records as evidence», i.e., records systems must always be kept in compliance with this national standard (otherwise, the e-records produced, and the adequacy of their production, should not be relied upon because, the quality of records system integrity determines the quality of records integrity — that is the «system integrity concept&evidence», i.e., records systems must always be kept in compliance with this national standard (otherwise, the e-records produced, and the adequacy of their production, should not be relied upon because, the quality of records system integrity determines the quality of records integrity — that is the «system integrity concept»).

Addario argued Crown attorneys have a lot of control over the pace of trials, because they can ask a judge to dismiss frivolous defence applications, can draft shorter indictments, vet witness lists, skip a preliminary hearing by drafting a direct indictment, refuse to bring applications to protect confidential informants or to introduce «hearsay» evidence, and could organize disclosure in easily searchable electronic format.

«Technologically competent» also requires knowledge of the electronic technology that now produces most of the evidence, and very frequently used types of evidence; for example, these kinds of evidence: (1) records are now the most frequently used kind of evidence but most often come from very complex electronic records management systems; (2) mobile phone tracking evidence because we all carry mobile phones; (3) breathalyzer device readings because they are the basis of more than 95 % of impaired driving cases; and, (4) expert opinion evidence that depends upon data produced by electronic systems and devices.

You may not use these electronic means to investigate or communicate about the case because it is important that you decide this case based solely on the evidence presented in this courtroom.

Electronic records management is a complex technology, which makes current legal infrastructure of statutes, guidelines, and case law that controls the use of electronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1) electronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), and in their software; (3) the electronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence ActsElectronic records management is a complex technology, which makes current legal infrastructure of statutes, guidelines, and case law that controls the use of electronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1) electronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), and in their software; (3) the electronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Actselectronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1) electronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), and in their software; (3) the electronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts (evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1) electronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), and in their software; (3) the electronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Actselectronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), and in their software; (3) the electronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Actselectronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), and in their software; (3) the electronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Actselectronic records management systems (ERMS's), and in their software; (3) the electronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Actselectronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Actselectronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts (Evidence Acts (e.g. ss.

Therefore, the laws and practices controlling electronic discovery and admissibility of evidence proceedings are very inadequate because they take no account of these serious defects, very frequently found in ERMS's:

Re: lawyers practising in association with non-lawyers: - Absolutely necessary because: (1) technology will be the basis of almost all laws, therefore we will have to practice with other experts in that technology; (2) records management law will be a major area of practice because, records are the most frequently used form of evidence and e-records depend for everything on their e-records management systems (ERMSs), and they must be compliant with the National Standards of Canada for e-records management, which standards require legal opinions, and every significant change to an ERMS requires a legal opinion re ability to produce records able to satisfy laws as to e-discovery, admissibility of evidence, privacy & access to information, electronic commerce, tax laws, and compliance with National Standards of Canada for e-records management; (3) all new technologies require a legal framework, which means more work for lawyers; and, (4) otherwise, other professions and service providers who now provide «legal information,» will begin to provide «legal advice» and other services that only lawyers should be providing.

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 ） 。

[155] The defendants argue that, because of the circumstances surrounding production by Ms. Ahadi of electronic documents and the conflicts in her evidence concerning the location of electronic documents in her home, I should give no weight to either Ms. Ahadi's evidence at trial or her self - reports to the various experts.

Electronic records management is a complex technology, which makes current legal infrastructure of statutes, guidelines, and case law that controls the use of electronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facElectronic records management is a complex technology, which makes current legal infrastructure of statutes, guidelines, and case law that controls the use of electronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facelectronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1)...

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?

Because of his interest in social media, he's also been a contributing consulting expert re the California State Bar's «Effective Introduction of Evidence in California - Chapter 54 Electronic and Social Media Evidence.»

No lawyer with half a brain plugs electronic evidence into his or her own computer and pokes around because, by now, most lawyers know about metadata, and appreciate that they can alter evidence simply by browsing it.

Because most of the evidence used in legal proceedings now comes from complex electronic systems and devices, specialized legal research units like LAO LAW will be necessary for all lawyers.