Source: https://www.ulcc.ca/en/uniform-acts-new-order/older-uniform-acts/749-electronic-evidence/1920-1995-electronic-evidence-act-proposals?start=5
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 17:06:14+00:00

Document:
[187} Here are some of the main legal references that support the discussion in this consultation paper.
(b)there exists a reliable assurance as to the integrity of the information between the time wehn it was first composed in its final form, as a data message or otherwise, and the time when it is displayed.
(b)the standard of reliability required shall be assessed in the light of the purpose for which the infomration was composed and in the light of all the relevant circumstances.
(b) if it is the best evidence that the person adducing it could reasonably be expected to obtain, on the grounds that it is not in its original form.
(2) Information presented in the form of a data message shall be given due evidential weight. In assessing the evidential weight of a data message, regard shall be had to the reliability of the manner in which the data message was generated, stored or communicated, to the reliability of the manner in which the integrity of the information was maintained, to the manner in which its originator was identified, and to any other relevant factor.
(3) Subject to any other rule of law, where subparagraph (b) of paragraph (1) of article  is satisfied in relation to information in the form of a data message, the information shall not be accorded any less weight in any legal proceedings on the grounds that it is not presented in its original form.
In R. v. McMullen (1979), 47 C.C.C.(2d) 499 at 506 (Ont. CA.), and in R. v. Bell and Bruce (1982), 35 O.R.(2d) 164, 65 C.C.C.(2d) 377 (Ont. CA.), affirmed without reasons,  2 S.C.R. 287, 55 O.R.(2d) 287, computer printouts were held to be admissible under the federal banking record provision, s. 29 of the Canada Evidence Act. And in R. v. Vanlerberghe (1976), 6 C.R.(3d) 222 (B.C.CA.), and R. v. Bicknell (1988), 41 C.C.C.(3d) 545 (B.C.CA.), computer printouts were held to be admissible under the business record provision, s. 30 of the Canada Evidence Act. And as to the provincial provisions, see for example Tecoglas Inc. v. Domglas Inc. (1985), 51 O.R.(2d) 196 (Ont. H.C.), in regard to the business record provision, s. 35 of the Ontario Evidence Act.
Setak Computer Services Corp Ltd. v. Burroughs Business Machines Ltd et al (1977), 15 O.R.(2d) 750; 76 D.L.R.(3d) 641 (Ont.H.C.); Re Waltson Properties Ltd. (1976), 17 O.R.(2d) 328 (Ont.H.C.); Matheson v. Barnes & I.C.B.C.  1 W.W.R. 435 (B.C.S.C.); Adderley v. Breamer,  1 O.R. 621 (Ont.H.C.).
Northern Wood Preserves Ltd. v. Hall Corp. Shipping,  3 O.R. 751, affd. 2 O.R.(2d) 335 (Ont. CA.): re other features of the business records rules.
See also: "Strategic Legal Planning for EDI", (1989) 16 Canadian Business Law Journal 66; Michael S. Baum, "EDI Law",  The EDI Forum 1; Brian D. Grayton, "Canadian Legal Issues Arising from Electronic Data Interchange", (1993), 27 B.C.L.R. 257; and Peter Jones, EDI Law in Canada, EDI Council of Canada, 1992. Ken Chasse has several article in different issues of the Canadian Computer Law Reports.
Two recent U.S. survey articles are Lynch and Brenson, "Computer Generated Evidence: The Impact of Computer Technology on the Traditional Rules of Evidence", (1989) 20 Loyola University Law Jl 919; and Zupanec, D. "Admissibility of Computerized Private Business Records", (1990), 7 A.L.R. 4th 8 at 17..

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.