R. v. R.W.Q.

R. v. R.W.Q.

The court held that s.31.1 CEA codifies the common law low threshold for authentication of electronic documents and that the complainant's statements and disclosure materials provided evidence capable of supporting a finding that the screenshots and handwritten note were what they purported to be; the statutory best evidence rule in ss.31.2-31.3 was satisfied circumstantially for the screenshots and the original handwritten note or its emailed copy will meet best evidence; oral testimony was not required because material facts were uncontested and credibility issues are for the jury; accordingly the documents are admissible as admissions and not unduly prejudicial.

Citation
2025 BCSC 2402
Parties
Crown: Rex; Accused: R.W.Q.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pretrial Voir Dire (admissibility)
Outcome
Crown application allowed
Legal Topics
Authentication of Electronic Documents, Best Evidence Rule, Canada Evidence Act Ss.31.1 31.3, Admissions Exception to Hearsay, Voir Dire Procedure, Publication Ban S.486.4 Criminal Code
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Child Sexual Offences Authentication of Electronic Documents Best Evidence Rule Canada Evidence Act Ss.31.1 31.3 Admissions Exception to Hearsay +2 more

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Crown

R.W.Q.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pretrial Voir Dire (admissibility)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether oral evidence from the complainant is required on an admissibility voir dire
  2. 2 Whether screenshots of text messages meet the authentication threshold under s.31.1 CEA and common law
  3. 3 Whether the statutory best evidence rule in ss.31.2-31.3 CEA is satisfied for screenshots

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that s.31.1 CEA codifies the common law low threshold for authentication of electronic documents and that the complainant's statements and disclosure materials provided evidence capable of supporting a finding that the screenshots and handwritten note were what they purported to be; the statutory best evidence rule in ss.31.2-31.3 was satisfied circumstantially for the screenshots and the original handwritten note or its emailed copy will meet best evidence; oral testimony was not required because material facts were uncontested and credibility issues are for the jury; accordingly the documents are admissible as admissions and not unduly prejudicial.

Court Disposition

Crown application allowed

Orders

  • Text message screenshots admitted for use at trial.
  • Handwritten note admitted for use at trial (original to be produced at trial or emailed copy if original unavailable).