Sentences with phrase «electronic evidence management»

As Canada's only independent law firm devoted exclusively to eDiscovery and electronic evidence management, Heuristica is frequently asked to speak or present at association meetings or to litigation teams about eDiscovery.

I offer that so readers know the perspective I could take concerning best practices related to electronic evidence management and litigation support.

The eDiscovery industry has been built by pioneers on the backs of unsuspecting early adopter clients and technologists who shared a common vision, the digitization of the legal world and the inevitable mainstream adoption of electronic evidence management.

Not exact matches

Early Child Development and Care Early Childhood Education Journal Early Education and Development Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development Education Education & Training Education 3 - 13 Education and Culture Education and Information Technologies Education and Society Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities Education and Treatment of Children Education and Urban Society Education as Change Education Economics Education Finance and Policy Education for Information Education Leadership Review Education Leadership Review of Doctoral Research Education Libraries Education Next Education Policy Analysis Archives Education Research and Perspectives Education Sciences Education, Citizenship and Social Justice Educational Action Research Educational Administration Quarterly Educational and Developmental Psychologist Educational and Psychological Measurement Educational Assessment Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability Educational Considerations Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis Educational Forum Educational Foundations Educational Gerontology Educational Leadership Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development Educational Management Administration & Leadership Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice Educational Media International Educational Perspectives Educational Philosophy and Theory Educational Policy Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research Educational Practice and Theory Educational Psychologist Educational Psychology Educational Psychology in Practice Educational Psychology Review Educational Research Educational Research and Evaluation Educational Research and Reviews Educational Research for Policy and Practice Educational Research Quarterly Educational Researcher Educational Review Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice Educational Studies Educational Studies in Japan: International Yearbook Educational Studies in Mathematics Educational Studies: Journal of the American Educational Studies Association Educational Technology Educational Technology & Society Educational Technology Research and Development Educational Theory eJEP: eJournal of Education Policy e-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching E-Learning and Digital Media Electronic Journal of e-Learning Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology Elementary School Journal ELT Journal Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties Engineering Design Graphics Journal English Education English in Australia English in Education English in Texas English Journal English Language Teaching English Teaching Forum Environmental Education Research Equity & Excellence in Education Ethics and Education Ethnography and Education ETS Research Report Series Eurasian Journal of Educational Research European Early Childhood Education Research Journal European Education European Educational Research Journal European Journal of Contemporary Education European Journal of Education European Journal of Educational Research European Journal of Engineering Education European Journal of Higher Education European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning European Journal of Physics Education European Journal of Psychology of Education European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education European Journal of Special Needs Education European Journal of STEM Education European Journal of Teacher Education European Journal of Training and Development European Physical Education Review Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice Exceptional Children Exceptionality Exceptionality Education International

Sedona Canada does not analyze: (1) the meaning and consequences of the «system integrity concept» in the e-records provisions of the Evidence Acts — proof of «records integrity» requires proof of «records system integrity»; (2) the National Standard of Canada for e-records management, Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2005 («72.34»); and, (3) the need of the parties to exchange verifications of compliance, provided by records management experts, of their electronic records management systems (ERMS's) with the nationalElectronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2005 («72.34»); and, (3) the need of the parties to exchange verifications of compliance, provided by records management experts, of their electronic records management systems (ERMS's) with the nationalelectronic records management systems (ERMS's) with the national standard.

However, there 2 other cases in which the state of electronic records management was provided, prior to admitting electronically - produced records as evidence.

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).

However, the Principles are not intended to place significant focus on records management (RM) or the importance or desirability of appropriate RM practices so as to be properly prepared for litigation, or on issues related to the integrity of information systems under Evidence Acts, or on the substantive law related to the admissibility of electronic records into eEvidence Acts, or on the substantive law related to the admissibility of electronic records into evidenceevidence.

Canada's National Standards for Electronic Records Management and amending the Evidence Acts

«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.

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.

Such programs include, but are not limited to, education on the following: a) an IT tool, process, or methodology designed to perform tasks that are specific or uniquely suited to the practice of law; b) using a generic IT tool process or methodology to increase the efficiency of performing tasks necessary to the practice of law; c) the investigation, collection, and introduction of social media evidence; d) e-discovery; e) electronic filing of legal documents; f) digital forensics for legal investigation or litigation; and g) practice management software.

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).

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]

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.

See these articles (pdf): (1) «Admissibility of Electronic Records Requires Proof of Records Management System Integrity»; (2) «The Sedona Canada Principles are Very Inadequate on Records Management and for Electronic Discovery»; (3) «A Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems»; (4) «Electronic Records as Evidence»; and, (5) «Solving the High Cost of the «Review» Stage of Electronic Discovery».

It treats good records management as being merely, «helpful but optional,» instead of mandatory and essential to the effectiveness of discovery and admissibility proceedings concerning the use of electronic records as evidence.

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.

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... [more]

And worse, the drafting committee of the 2nd edition of the «Sedona Canada Principles — Addressing Electronic Discovery,» will not compensate for the impact of the change (from pre-electronic paper records technology, to electronic records management technology) upon the efficacy of all laws concerning the use of electronic records asElectronic Discovery,» will not compensate for the impact of the change (from pre-electronic paper records technology, to electronic records management technology) upon the efficacy of all laws concerning the use of electronic records aselectronic paper records technology, to electronic records management technology) upon the efficacy of all laws concerning the use of electronic records aselectronic records management technology) upon the efficacy of all laws concerning the use of electronic records aselectronic records as evidence.

It provides the necessary means of determining when an e-records management system has the necessary «system integrity» required by the admissibility rule that your ULCC working group wrote into the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts.

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»).

«Why a Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems» (2012), 9 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review» 17 (U.K.)(this article is written for related professions as well as for lawyers).

A digitally signed document retains its authenticity whereas most electronically signed documents do not as they are deprived of Electronic and Document Management System evidence inherent in a closed system.

And therefore, how can the Sedona Canada Principles — Addressing Electronic Discovery be an adequate text, given that it completely ignores the importance of electronic records management, and the critical dependence on an electronic record upon its ERMS, and also the provisions of the EvidElectronic Discovery be an adequate text, given that it completely ignores the importance of electronic records management, and the critical dependence on an electronic record upon its ERMS, and also the provisions of the Evidelectronic records management, and the critical dependence on an electronic record upon its ERMS, and also the provisions of the Evidelectronic record upon its ERMS, and also the provisions of the Evidence Acts?

Its high cost, dependence upon the quality of electronic records management, interdependence with admissibility of evidence rules and practices, and development of TAR (technology aided review) software, which in itself raises many complex issues, will maintain disclosure and discovery's importance to all litigators for many years to come.

«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.

This appeal requires an examination of the effect of electronic record management on the laws of evidence, which were formulated on different assumptions about how records are kept.

[8] See for example this article: Ken Chasse, «Why a Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems» (2012), 9 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review 17, a U.K. «open source» journal, i.e., providing free downloading of articles (click «Archives» to access the contents of volume 9).

Such is also true of their legal departments, as is shown by the absence of ERMS issues in almost all case law and guidelines concerning the use of electronic records as evidence, including the four Sedona Canada Principles texts; see: Why a Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems,» (2012), 9 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Reviewelectronic records as evidence, including the four Sedona Canada Principles texts; see: Why a Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems,» (2012), 9 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review 1evidence, including the four Sedona Canada Principles texts; see: Why a Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems,» (2012), 9 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law ReviewElectronic Records Management Systems,» (2012), 9 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review 1Evidence and Electronic Signature Law ReviewElectronic Signature Law Review 17 (pdf).

See also: «The Sedona Canada Principles are Very Inadequate on Records Management and for Electronic Discovery»; and my Feb. 12th Slaw post, Electronic Discovery: The Concept and Purpose of the Sedona Canada Principles 2nd Edition, and, «Electronic Records as Evidence,» and the other records management articles listed on my SSRN authManagement and for Electronic Discovery»; and my Feb. 12th Slaw post, Electronic Discovery: The Concept and Purpose of the Sedona Canada Principles 2nd Edition, and, «Electronic Records as Evidence,» and the other records management articles listed on my SSRN authmanagement articles listed on my SSRN author's page.

(6) revising the records provisions of the Evidence Acts in Canada in support of these innovations by adding a «rebuttable presumption of inadequacy,» so as to enforce proof of compliance with the National Standards of Canada for electronic records management;

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.

The three analogies: (1) whereas a pre-electronic paper record can be symbolized by a piece of paper in a file drawer, an electronic record is like a drop of water in a pool of water, i.e., it is completely dependent upon its ERMS for its existence, accessibility, and «integrity» (as that word is used in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts; e.g. s. 31.2 (1)(a) CEA); (2) if expert opinion evidence were rendered admissible in the way that electronic records are, there would be no evidence presented, nor cross-examination allowed, as to the qualifications of the expert witnesses, i.e., the «qualifications» of an electronic record being the state of records management of the ERMS in which it is stored; (3) going from a horse - powered transportation system to a motor vehicle - based transportation system has required a vast amount of new laws, regulations, and enforcement personnel, including police officers, judges, and lawyers, i.e., stepping up to a new technology requires that it be controlled by new laws and regulations, otherwise it will cause injury, damage, and inEvidence Acts; e.g. s. 31.2 (1)(a) CEA); (2) if expert opinion evidence were rendered admissible in the way that electronic records are, there would be no evidence presented, nor cross-examination allowed, as to the qualifications of the expert witnesses, i.e., the «qualifications» of an electronic record being the state of records management of the ERMS in which it is stored; (3) going from a horse - powered transportation system to a motor vehicle - based transportation system has required a vast amount of new laws, regulations, and enforcement personnel, including police officers, judges, and lawyers, i.e., stepping up to a new technology requires that it be controlled by new laws and regulations, otherwise it will cause injury, damage, and inevidence were rendered admissible in the way that electronic records are, there would be no evidence presented, nor cross-examination allowed, as to the qualifications of the expert witnesses, i.e., the «qualifications» of an electronic record being the state of records management of the ERMS in which it is stored; (3) going from a horse - powered transportation system to a motor vehicle - based transportation system has required a vast amount of new laws, regulations, and enforcement personnel, including police officers, judges, and lawyers, i.e., stepping up to a new technology requires that it be controlled by new laws and regulations, otherwise it will cause injury, damage, and inevidence presented, nor cross-examination allowed, as to the qualifications of the expert witnesses, i.e., the «qualifications» of an electronic record being the state of records management of the ERMS in which it is stored; (3) going from a horse - powered transportation system to a motor vehicle - based transportation system has required a vast amount of new laws, regulations, and enforcement personnel, including police officers, judges, and lawyers, i.e., stepping up to a new technology requires that it be controlled by new laws and regulations, otherwise it will cause injury, damage, and injustice.

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.

Improper management of electronic information can result in a finding of spoliation of evidence and the imposition of one or more sanctions including adverse inference jury instructions, summary judgment, monetary fines, and other sanctions.

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.

And it is the foundation concept of the National Standard of Canada for electronic records management: Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2005, which is largely ignored by the legal profession and the caselaw of e-discovery and admielectronic records management: Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2005, which is largely ignored by the legal profession and the caselaw of e-discovery and admiElectronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2005, which is largely ignored by the legal profession and the caselaw of e-discovery and admissibility.

The «system integrity» concept that is in the electronic records provisions in 11 of the 14 Evidence Acts in Canada, [2] dictates that the use of an e-record as evidence requires an assessment of the records management of the ERMS in which it is stored — «records integrity» requires proof of «systems integrityEvidence Acts in Canada, [2] dictates that the use of an e-record as evidence requires an assessment of the records management of the ERMS in which it is stored — «records integrity» requires proof of «systems integrityevidence requires an assessment of the records management of the ERMS in which it is stored — «records integrity» requires proof of «systems integrity.»

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 ） 。

elaw is a niche consulting, litigation support, and legal technology service provider offering expertise in the management, analysis, and presentation of electronic evidence.

With the explosion of electronic evidence and all the new forms of data over the last several years, the expensive tools of eDiscovery have transformed ECA into more of a data management exercise.

The firm's practice focuses solely on electronic discovery, evidence management, and related litigation and legal services.

A relatively new breed of e-discovery lawyer has emerged as the sheer volume of electronic evidence began to multiply in cases, resulting in a need for better management, according to Dera Nevin, managing counsel, e-discovery at TD Bank Group.

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)...

Rakesh Madhava is CEO of Nextpoint, an evidence management service based in the cloud for lawyers to manage their electronic data.

254, 254.1); (3) applications can be brought for orders for the production of their maintenance logs — see the decisions that have cited R. v. Kilpatrick, 2013 ABQB 5 (paras. 48 - 99), leave to appeal refused, R. v. Kilpatrick 2013 ABCA 168; and, (4) in relation to such evidence, the National Standards of Canada for electronic records management were applied in, R. v. Oler, 2014 ABPC 130.

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).

See; (1) «Admissibility of Electronic Records Requires Proof of Records Management System Integrity»; (2) «Electronic Records as Evidence»; (3) «The Admissibility of Electronic Business Records,» (2010), 8 Canadian Journal of Law and Technology 105; and, (4) «A Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems.»