Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Research Blogs -> Slaw.ca
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Legal Research
: Slaw.caIs a Printed Document Defective in Law?
By John Gregory
Dominic Jaar has an interesting article in the droit-inc blog (en français) suggesting that a printed document may have less legal impact than the electronic original, because the printout does not reproduce all the information in the original, notably not the metadata. And these days, pretty well all documents start in electronic form, in a word processing program of some sort. Who has a typewriter any more?
This is a particular issue in Quebec because of the terms of the Act to provide a legal framework for information technologies — Loi concernant le cadre juridique des technologies de l’information, L.R.Q. c. C-1.1. That Act provides that information can have the same legal effect regardless of its medium (the ?support?). This was originally conceived to promote digitization of printed documents, but as Dominic points out, the logic works in both directions. The Act goes into considerable detail about how the integrity of a document must be maintained in moving from one medium to another, and in how the integrity should be provable (though there is a presumption of integrity, so it does not have to be proved in every case).
It has long struck me that the Quebec Act could be a kind of user?s guide to the Uniform Electronic Commerce Act and its implementing statutes across common-law Canada. Its principles are largely the same, where the subject matter overlaps (the Quebec statute touches on a number of topics that the UECA does not), but the Quebec Act goes into much more detail. It shows (in my view) that a technology-neutral statute does not have to be minimalist!
But here: is the additional detail problematic, in raising questions that should not be raised? Or does the Quebec Act (and Dominic?s observation about it) signal an important element of documentary integrity that we have been overlooking and that we should not ignore?
It is certainly well known that requests for electronic discovery generally specify that documents are to be produced in their native format, in order to capture the metadata. Is this a sign of the direction that legal analysis will go in other areas as well, that having a paper document will simply not be good enough for legal purposes? Will people have to keep the electronic original of anything that is created, even if only to be used in printed form?
Full post as published by Slaw.ca on December 11, 2009 (boomark / email).
Toyota Prius Defective Headlight
Toyota Prius Defective Headlight
Hyundai Faces Class Action Over Defective Air Bags
Hyundai Faces Class Action Over Defective Air Bags
GlaxoSmithKline Pays $750 Million Over Defective Drugs
GlaxoSmithKline Pays $750 Million Over Defective Drugs
CertainTeed Reaches Preliminary $400M to $600M Settlement in Defective Shingles Class Action
CertainTeed Reaches Preliminary Settlement in Defective Shingles Class Action
Chrysler
Defective Jeep Windows

MAY LAWYERS SEARCH FOR METADATA IN DOCUMENTS RECEIVED FROM OPPOSING COUNSEL
Defective Cars Still on the Road, Recall Notices in the Glove Box
Crearing Cool Little Booklets from PDF's - Fast
Will Contractors Be Let Off the Hook in Defective Products Drywall









