R. v. George (M.G.) and Hunter (T.B.), (1993) 146 A.R. 107 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Fradsham, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 18, 1993
• Citations: (1993), 146 A.R. 107 (ProvCt)

R. v. George (M.G.) (1993), 146 A.R. 107 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen v. Mark G. George and Terrance Blair Hunter

(Docket No. 20193033P10101-0107; 0201-0207)

Indexed As: R. v. George (M.G.) and Hunter (T.B.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Fradsham, P.C.J.

October 18, 1993.

Summary:

The accused were charged with unlawfully affecting the market price of shares. A pre­liminary issue arose respecting the admissi­bility of evidence, i.e., computer print outs.

The Alberta Provincial Court ruled on which computer print outs were admissible.

Evidence - Topic 3091

Documentary evidence - Secondary evi­dence - General - Summaries - The Alberta Provincial Court discussed when computer data constitutes an admissible summary of evidence and when computer data constitutes an opinion for purposes of determining admissibility - See paragraphs 29 to 38 - The court stated that "... the evidentiary acceptability of summaries does not extend to computer products which involve interpretations that may be the subject of legitimate debate. Such products are expressions of opinion and are subject to the rules of evidence relating to opinions" - See paragraph 37.

Evidence - Topic 3689

Documentary evidence - Secondary evi­dence - Computer print outs - The accused were charged with fraud affecting the public market - An issue arose re­specting the admissibility of computer print outs generated by the R.C.M.P. com­puter programme Stock Market An­alysis for Reconstructing Trades - The Alberta Provincial Court ruled that the print outs which fell into the category of summaries of information already in evi­dence were admissible - However, print outs contain­ing computer analyses constituted opinions and were therefore subject to the evidence rules respecting opinion evidence - In this case, the computer print outs which con­stituted opinion evi­dence were ruled inad­missible, because there was no expert evidence respecting the data.

Evidence - Topic 3689

Documentary evidence - Secondary evi­dence - Computer print outs - [See Evi­dence - Topic 3091 ].

Evidence - Topic 7014.1

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - Re computer generated opinion evidence - [See Evidence - Topic 3091 and first Evidence - Topic 3689 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Scheel (1979), 42 C.C.C.(2d) 31 (Ont. C.A.), appld. [para. 7].

Tecoglas Inc. v. Domglas Inc. (1985), 19 D.L.R.(4th) 738 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Burns Foods Ltd. et al. (1983), 42 A.R. 70 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Wingert (T.N.) (1992), 134 A.R. 271 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Jenik (1992), 15 W.C.B.(2d) 357 (Alta. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 53].

United States of America v. Bastanipour (1982), 697 F.2d 170 (7th Cir. C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 30 [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Mann, Fraser J., Computer Technology and the Law in Canada (1987), p. 188 [para. 35].

Counsel:

T.A.H. Beattie, for the Crown;

Accused persons unrepresented.

This voir dire was held before Fradsham, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on October 18, 1993.