In June, a judge
ruled email evidence should be suppressed moving forward because they were obtained illegally.
This summer, the state's case took a hit when a judge
ruled email evidence used to build it was obtained illegally and should be suppressed moving forward.
Not exact matches
That still leaves a wide range of other
rules, such as hearsay and relevance, that may keep
evidence of such
emails out.
If review comments were made in secret and the
email correspondence was deleted to destroy the
evidence of that, it seems that would be a violation of IPCC
rules.
As Mashey documents here, so well, this whole party has been a set - up, with scientists on one side, bound by the
rules of
evidence and by their own integrity, and think tanks, PR counsellors and their aides and allies on the other side, using any technique aailable (including, apparently, obtaining, using and disseminating stolen
emails), to defend the right of fossil fuel companies to continue, unrestrained, in the sale and distribution of a substance that is threatening the human habitability of planet earth.
In McGarry v. Co-operators Life Insurance Co., 2011 BCCA 214 (CanLII), the Court held that there was no
evidence on the authenticity of the
emails tendered, since there was no statutory support in BC for
rules of authentication, unlike the case in other provinces,
Assuming the documentary productions could be used to impeach the plaintiff / complainant in the course of her testimony at the criminal trial (impeachment is a recognized exception to the deemed undertaking
rule, in that Rule 30.1 does not prohibit discovery evidence being used for this purpose), the civil defence lawyer emailed the plaintiff's productions to his criminal counterp
rule, in that
Rule 30.1 does not prohibit discovery evidence being used for this purpose), the civil defence lawyer emailed the plaintiff's productions to his criminal counterp
Rule 30.1 does not prohibit discovery
evidence being used for this purpose), the civil defence lawyer
emailed the plaintiff's productions to his criminal counterpart.
If it is discovered by the Contest Organizer (using any
evidence or other information made available to or otherwise discovered by the Contest Organizer) that any person has attempted to: -LSB-(i) obtain more than one (1) Entry during the Contest Period; (ii) use (or attempt to use) multiple names, identities,
email addresses, accounts to enter or otherwise participate in or disrupt this Contest;] (iii) not respect these
Rules and / or (iv) behave in a manner that otherwise undermines the integrity, fairness or administration of the Contest, then he / she may be disqualified from the Contest in the sole and absolute discretion of the Contest Organizer.