Mr. Musters deposed that the calls and messages he
extracted from the cellphone are authentic. The messages are
continuous and joined. No “spoofing” service was employed.
 Mr. Musters also examined 31 photos taken with the
camera feature of the cellphone on the date of the alleged offence
against G.D. The images, with one exception, were unaltered and
authentic. In his opinion, the altered image was a “touched up”
copy of an original photo taken about ten minutes earlier.
The evidence of trial counsel
 In her affidavit, C.B.’s trial counsel deposed that when
she learned about text messages and photos contemporaneous
with the alleged offences, she retained a private investigator to
“extract” those messages and photos from the cellphone. The
photographs of the text messages revealed an exchange with the
cellphone of D.P. The photos were all taken on the date of the
alleged offence against G.D.
 Trial counsel called the private investigator as a witness
at trial and entered his report as an exhibit in the proceedings.
Counsel considered that this report, coupled with D.P.’s testimony
that she communicated with the appellant C.B. by text message
and that the phone number displayed on the text messages was
her number, was sufficient to support a reasonable inference that
D.P. wrote the relevant messages and that the photos were taken
at the dates and times depicted on the phone.
 Trial counsel also relied on D.P.’s evidence that no one
else had her phone at the relevant time. She did not consider
D.P.’s evidence that the appellant C.B. had installed an app on her
phone as credible because it only emerged on the second day of
her testimony after having at least implicitly acknowledged on
the first day that she sent one of the messages. Trial counsel did
not consider retaining anyone to do a more sophisticated extraction and analysis of the contents of the cellphone and sought no
instructions from the appellant C.B. to do so.
 In cross-examination, trial counsel acknowledged that the
case against the appellant C.B. turned on the credibility of the
complainants and the issue of consent. Her trial strategy was to
challenge the credibility of both complainants and the reliability
of their accounts of non-consensual conduct. An important part of
her strategy, which was discussed several times with her client,
was to use the text messages and photos to challenge the complainants’ credibility and support the defence position.
 Trial counsel agreed that when she cross-examined D.P.
using the photographs of the text messages, no evidence had been
adduced to establish that the cellphone was that of the appellant