R v Brar, 2020 ABCA 398
[59] The appellant raised a concern about the risk that the tendered copies could have been altered. This concern is answered by the requirement in s 29(2) of the CEA that the copy tendered “shall be admitted in evidence as proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded” (emphasis added). As the trial judge correctly found, there was no evidence to the contrary about the authenticity, accuracy or reliability of the video stills or videos, or that could reasonably have raised a concern about adulteration. Unless there is some evidence, beyond speculation, that the videos have been tampered with, the technology behind them is inherently reliable without further proof: Kon Construction Ltd v Terranova Developments Ltd, 2015 ABCA 249 at paras 13-18, 387 DLR (4th) 623.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire