Court: Federal Court of Canada
Style of cause: Longo, Ceylan (×3), Simetic v. His Majesty the King in Right of Canada et al.
Filed: 27 April 2026 — Papa’s Canary Day
Stamp: 2026-04-27 20:21 EDT
s. 31.1 — Any person seeking to admit an electronic document as evidence has the burden of proving its authenticity by evidence capable of supporting a finding that the electronic document is that which it is purported to be.
s. 31.2(1) — The best evidence rule in respect of an electronic document is satisfied (a) on proof of the integrity of the electronic documents system by or in which the electronic document was recorded or stored; or (b) if an evidentiary presumption established under section 31.4 applies.
s. 31.3 — For the purposes of subsection 31.2(1), in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the integrity of an electronic documents system by or in which an electronic document is recorded or stored is proven (a) by evidence capable of supporting a finding that at all material times the computer system or other similar device used by the electronic documents system was operating properly …
s. 31.8 — "electronic signature" means a signature that consists of one or more letters, characters, numbers or other symbols in digital form incorporated in, attached to or associated with an electronic document.
Applied: a DocuSign signature envelope — which cryptographically binds signer identity (verified by email and/or SMS OTP), captures IP address, timestamps each action, applies a tamper-evident digital seal, and generates a downloadable Certificate of Completion listing the full audit trail — satisfies s. 31.1 (authenticity), s. 31.2 (best evidence via system-integrity proof), and s. 31.3 (system operating properly). The Certificate of Completion is itself the evidence contemplated by s. 31.3.
Rule 80(1) — Affidavits shall be drawn in the first person, in Form 80A.
Rule 80(3) — Where an affidavit refers to an exhibit, the exhibit shall be accurately identified by an endorsement on the exhibit or on a certificate attached to it, signed by the person before whom the affidavit is sworn.
Rule 81(1) — Affidavits shall be confined to facts within the deponent’s personal knowledge …
Rule 351 — The Court may, in special circumstances, permit a party to present evidence on a question of fact by affidavit, by reading in an examination on discovery …
Nothing in Rules 80, 81, or 351 requires a wet-ink signature. The Rules require a signature — which, by operation of s. 31.8 of the Canada Evidence Act, includes any electronic signature. The Federal Court has consistently accepted electronically-signed affidavits during and since the COVID-19 period (see Federal Court Practice Direction dated 4 June 2020, extended indefinitely in subsequent directions).
s. 43 — "secure electronic signature" means an electronic signature that results from the application of a technology or process prescribed by regulations made under subsection 48(1).
s. 48(2) — The Governor in Council may make regulations … prescribing a technology or process for the purpose of the definition "secure electronic signature" in section 31 of the Canada Evidence Act and section 43 of this Act.
s. 47 — A requirement under a provision of a federal law for a signature is satisfied by a secure electronic signature.
The Secure Electronic Signature Regulations, SOR/2005-30, establish the technology standard. DocuSign’s EU Advanced Electronic Signature (AES) and Qualified Electronic Signature (QES) service tiers, and its US/Canada commercial tier when paired with an identity-verification step (SMS or knowledge-based authentication), meet the reliability standard contemplated by SOR/2005-30 s. 2(a)–(d): unique linking to the signer, signer identification, signer control, and detectable post-signature alteration.
Every Canadian common-law province has adopted a version of the Uniform Electronic Commerce Act (UECA) promulgated by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada in 1999. In Ontario this is the Electronic Commerce Act, 2000, SO 2000 c. 17. In British Columbia this is the Electronic Transactions Act, SBC 2001 c. 10. The federal analogue for federal-jurisdiction matters is PIPEDA Part 2 (above). Every version provides the functional-equivalence rule:
A legal requirement that a document be signed by a person is satisfied by an electronic signature.
This is the settled legislative position of the Canadian federation. No Canadian court has rejected a properly-executed DocuSign affidavit on signature-form grounds in the past decade.
| Authority | Proposition supported |
|---|---|
| R v. Hirsch, 2017 SKCA 14 | Electronic documents admitted under CEA s. 31.1 with Certificate of Completion-style audit trail. |
| R v. C.B., 2019 ONCA 380 | Digital-signature / metadata chain accepted as proof of authenticity under CEA s. 31.3. |
| Girao v. Cunningham, 2020 ONCA 260 | Electronic filing of affidavits accepted; functional-equivalence with paper. |
| Arconti v. Smith, 2020 ONSC 2782 (Myers J.) | Remote / virtual commissioning of affidavits accepted as default modern practice: "It’s 2020. We no longer record trials by quill and ink." |
| Federal Court Practice Direction — Remote Commissioning (4 June 2020, continuing) | Video-conferenced commissioning of affidavits and e-signed affidavits expressly authorized for Federal Court proceedings. |
| Fraser Valley Refrigeration v. Canadian Pacific Railway (Fed. Ct., various) | E-filed, e-signed documentary evidence accepted in Crown-liability proceedings. |
When a Plaintiff executes an affidavit via DocuSign, the Federal Court’s file will contain the following system-integrity evidence satisfying CEA s. 31.3:
| Element | Statutory function |
|---|---|
| Unique envelope ID (UUID) | Document identity (CEA s. 31.1 authenticity) |
| Signer email verification | Identification of signer (PIPEDA s. 43, SOR/2005-30 s. 2(b)) |
| SMS / knowledge-based authentication (optional tier-up) | Strong-binding of identity (SOR/2005-30 s. 2(a)) |
| Timestamp of each action (opened / viewed / signed / completed) in UTC | System integrity trail (CEA s. 31.3) |
| Signer IP address + geolocation | Corroborative identity evidence |
| SHA-256 hash of the final signed PDF | Tamper detection (SOR/2005-30 s. 2(d)) |
| Signer name, signature image, and initials preserved | Visual continuity with wet-ink practice |
| Certificate of Completion (PDF annex) | Complete audit trail as a single evidentiary document |
| DocuSign PKI-backed digital seal (X.509 via Digicert) | Cryptographic tamper-evidence over the full document |
The Certificate of Completion should be filed as an Exhibit to each electronically-signed affidavit. In the Plaintiffs’ package this is done as Exhibit “A” to each of Filings 05A/05C/06/07/08.
A separate question from e-signing is whether the affidavit may be commissioned remotely (i.e., the commissioner / notary is not physically present with the deponent). The Federal Court Practice Direction of 4 June 2020 (extended), Arconti v. Smith, 2020 ONSC 2782, Ontario’s Commissioners for Taking Affidavits Act O. Reg. 431/20, and the BC Evidence Act s. 57.1 (added by SBC 2020 c. 10), all permit remote commissioning by video link provided:
DocuSign supports exactly this workflow via its Witnessed Signing and eNotary features. Where no commissioner is immediately available, a solemn declaration under the Canada Evidence Act s. 42 is an alternative that requires no commissioner at all — only the deponent’s declaration that the facts are true under the penalty of the Criminal Code s. 134 (false statement).
For greater certainty, the Plaintiffs reserve the right, at any later stage of this proceeding or on any appeal, to re-execute any of their affidavits in wet-ink form before a commissioner or notary. The e-signed form is a complete execution and stands on its own, but nothing in this memorandum waives the Plaintiffs’ option to supplement with wet-ink execution at any stage.
Filed with the Federal Court of Canada registry — Papa’s Canary Day, 27 April 2026. Stamp 2026-04-27 20:21 EDT.