R. v. L.B.

R. v. L.B.

The electronic document (Exhibit A) was admissible as a business record because the underlying data were stored in Telus' ordinary business records before the production order and thus were not 'made in the course of' an investigation, and the printout/display qualifies as an 'electronic document' under s.31.8; accordingly s.30(10)(a)(i) did not preclude admission.

Citation
2009 BCSC 1194
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: L.B.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Admissibility Hearing (oral Ruling on Electronic Document)
Outcome
Electronic document (Exhibit A) admitted into evidence.
Legal Topics
Electronic Documents, Business Records Exception, Admissibility, Production Order, Canada Evidence Act Interpretation
Source Language
English
Evidence Criminal Law Computer/electronic Evidence Electronic Documents Business Records Exception Admissibility Production Order Canada Evidence Act Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

L.B.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Admissibility Hearing (oral Ruling on Electronic Document)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an electronic document produced pursuant to a production order is admissible as a business record under s.30 of the Canada Evidence Act
  2. 2 Whether s.30(10)(a)(i) excludes a document produced pursuant to a production order as being 'made in the course of an investigation or inquiry'
  3. 3 Whether a printout/display/other output constitutes an 'electronic document' under s.31.8 of the Canada Evidence Act

Ratio Decidendi

The electronic document (Exhibit A) was admissible as a business record because the underlying data were stored in Telus' ordinary business records before the production order and thus were not 'made in the course of' an investigation, and the printout/display qualifies as an 'electronic document' under s.31.8; accordingly s.30(10)(a)(i) did not preclude admission.

Court Disposition

Electronic document (Exhibit A) admitted into evidence.

Orders

  • Exhibit A admitted in evidence.