Use of Video and Photo Evidence: Difference between revisions
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
==Mott v. Green, 2020 ONSC 3761 (CanLII)<ref name="Mott"/>== | ==Mott v. Green, 2020 ONSC 3761 (CanLII)<ref name="Mott"/>== | ||
[28] The second is that there was no evidence as to when the bruising had occurred, or how the bruising had occurred, only the photographs. All but one of the photographs do not show a face. Most digital photographs have the date and time the photograph was taken contained in their file name. That would have been of assistance. In addition, evidence from the photographer would have been of assistance in determining date and equally important authenticity: see R. v. Creemer, 1967 CanLII 711 (NS CA), [1967] N.S.J. No. 3 (N.S. C.A.), 53 M.P.R. 1. Given the evidence of Ms. Mott that the text messages annexed to the respondent’s affidavit had, from time to time, been altered through cutting and pasting, I do have concerns that the photographs may be from a completely different point in time and may have nothing to do with the applicant. | [28] The second is that there was no evidence as to when the bruising had occurred, or how the bruising had occurred, only the photographs. All but one of the photographs do not show a face. Most digital photographs have the date and time the photograph was taken contained in their file name. That would have been of assistance. In addition, <b><u>evidence from the photographer would have been of assistance in determining date and equally important authenticity:</b></u> see <i>R. v. Creemer, 1967 CanLII 711 (NS CA), [1967] N.S.J. No. 3 (N.S. C.A.), 53 M.P.R. 1.</i><ref name="Creemer"/> Given the evidence of Ms. Mott that the text messages annexed to the respondent’s affidavit had, from time to time, been altered through cutting and pasting, I do have concerns that the photographs may be from a completely different point in time and may have nothing to do with the applicant. | ||
Revision as of 17:43, 13 December 2021
| Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2024-05-07 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 1828 |
| Page Categories: | [Evidence Law] |
| Citation: | Use of Video and Photo Evidence, CLNP 1828, <59>, retrieved on 2024-05-07 |
| Editor: | Sharvey |
| Last Updated: | 2021/12/13 |
Regina v. Creemer and Cormier, 1967 CanLII 711 (NS CA)[1]
Page 22
- ...
All the cases dealing with the admissibility of photographs go to show that such admissibility depends on (1) their accuracy in truly representing the facts; (2) their fairness and absence of any intention to mislead; (3) their verification on oath by a person capable to do so. (...)
Mott v. Green, 2020 ONSC 3761 (CanLII)[2]
[28] The second is that there was no evidence as to when the bruising had occurred, or how the bruising had occurred, only the photographs. All but one of the photographs do not show a face. Most digital photographs have the date and time the photograph was taken contained in their file name. That would have been of assistance. In addition, evidence from the photographer would have been of assistance in determining date and equally important authenticity: see R. v. Creemer, 1967 CanLII 711 (NS CA), [1967] N.S.J. No. 3 (N.S. C.A.), 53 M.P.R. 1.[1] Given the evidence of Ms. Mott that the text messages annexed to the respondent’s affidavit had, from time to time, been altered through cutting and pasting, I do have concerns that the photographs may be from a completely different point in time and may have nothing to do with the applicant.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Regina v. Creemer and Cormier, 1967 CanLII 711 (NS CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/hv151>, retrieved on 2021-12-13
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Mott v. Green, 2020 ONSC 3761 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/j89t2>, retrieved on 2021-12-13
