Le fardeau de la preuve applicable à la démonstration de l'authenticité en vertu de 31.1 LPC

R. v. Avanes et al., 2015 ONCJ 606 (CanLII)

Lien vers la décision

53.              The Defence argue that the authenticity and “best evidence” requirements of the CEA have modified the common law and made it more onerous.  They base their argument on the wording of s. 31.7, which states that

Sections 31.1 to 31.4 do not affect any rule of law relating to the admissibility of evidence, except the rules relating to authentication and best evidence [my emphasis]

In particular, they submit that the use of the word “affect” connotes a material change to the way these terms were understood at common law.  Otherwise, they argue, the provisions are redundant.  In support of their argument, they point to the fact that in the business records context, Parliament saw fit to explicitly preserve the common law.  Section 30(11) of the CEA states as follows:

The provisions of this section shall be deemed to be in addition to and not in derogation of … any existing rule of law under which any record is admissible in evidence or any matter may be proved [my emphasis]

54.              The Crown argues that the CEA’s electronic documents provisions provide shortcuts for the admission of electronic evidence and do not raise their proponent’s burden of proof.

55.              I find that the authenticity requirement in the electronic documents provisions does not modify the common law but codifies it. 

56.              First, on its own terms, s. 31.1 does not impose a balance of probabilities burden on the party seeking the admission of the evidence.  Rather, it refers to “evidence capable of supporting a finding that the electronic document is that which it is purported to be.”  That is a recitation of the common law’s concept of authentication, which imposes a low standard.