What is the necessity for parties to consider electronic evidence provisions alongside more established rules?

The necessity for “parties to consider the electronic evidence provisions alongside more established rules” arises from the wording of section 31.7 (which I have cited in full at para. 87) and is discussed in The Law of Evidence in Canada, at 1351-1356. Referencing Saturley v. C.I.B.C. Worldmarkets Inc., 2012 NSSC 226, at paras. 11-13, the authors state: “18.97 On the Saturley approach, an analysis is conducted to determine whether additional evidential considerations must be applied beyond the statutory requirements governing electronic information. Justice Wood explained: It is possible that a given item of electronic information may have aspects of both real and documentary evidence. For example, an email in electronic form will include electronic data identifying the computer on which it was created and when it was sent. That information is added automatically by the computer software and would likely constitute real evidence. If the content of the e-mail is being introduced for its truth, it would be considered a document and subject to admissibility as such. 18.98 This analysis appears to accord with s. 31.7 of the Canada Evidence Act, which states that ss. 31.1 to 31.4 do not affect any rule of law relating to the admissibility of evidence, except the rules relating to authentication and best evidence. The ongoing applicability of hearsay and documentary evidence rules to electronic information makes sense. …”