If you’re considering recording conversations for personal reasons, such as ensuring the safety of a loved one or gathering evidence in a dispute, it’s crucial to navigate the complexities of Canadian Recording Laws carefully.
Whether it’s a concern about a family member’s wellbeing or seeking clarity in a contentious situation, the impulse to record private interactions can be strong. However, before proceeding with any form of recording, understanding the legal implications is essential to avoid unintended legal consequences. Everyone has a right to privacy, and infringing upon this right, even with good intentions, can lead to serious legal issues. Questions like “Is it permissible to record my partner?” or “Can I legally record a conversation with someone without their consent?” are important to consider in the context of Canadian law.
Table Of ContentsCanada follows the one-party consent rule according to section 184 of the criminal code. Therefore, in Canada, recording private conversations is legal provided one of the participants consents to the recording. What this means is that if a call or recording involves two participants, one of them can legally record the conversation without notifying the other. Similarly, in conversations with more than two participants, obtaining consent from just one involved party suffices for the recording to be permissible. Example Digital Audio Recorder
People have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are in certain areas. These include areas such as bedrooms, bathrooms, changing rooms, etc. Generally, the rule of thumb applied here is, if you are not a party to the conversation or the person is in a private place where they expect to be alone, recording their conversations is illegal. However, there are grey areas in the law regarding recording in shared spaces or in areas where surveillance is typical. For example, if individuals live in shared housing and there is surveillance equipment in the living room, it would not hold in court for a person to claim a reasonable expectation of privacy in such a place.
Non-participants are not allowed to listen in or record the conversation. In addition, according to section 184, it is against the law for a person to knowingly intercept a private communication utilizing electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other devices. Section 184 relates to devices that may be used to eavesdrop and further clarifies that: any electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device refers to any device capable of intercepting private communication, except for hearing aid used to correct subnormal hearing of the user to not better than normal hearing. Other examples include voice recorders, video cameras with audio capabilities, phones and any other gadget that can record audio.
As there is no specific law related to video recordings in Canada, the question then becomes ‘Is audio being captured?’. If the answer is yes, you will need to defer to the audio recording laws of Canada, wherein you are required to have the consent of at least one person involved in the conversation (when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy). Audio recording laws do not apply to video, such as surveillance footage where no sound is recorded. Canada’s criminal code will only apply to video surveillance footage if used to intercept (eavesdrop) on private communications. These laws apply to areas where there is a public view; if you are on private property, you will still need approval from the property owner. This applies to places such as malls where filming improperly can result in trespassing charges.
Laws concerning call recordings for businesses are laid out by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). However, some provinces have their own provincial privacy act, which regulates call recordings for businesses. For example, Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec have their own privacy act; however, they are considered similar to PIPEDA.
Other provinces have health information laws that are considered similar to PIPEDA. These include:
In terms of call recordings regulations, when more than one law applies, businesses must comply with both regulations.
PIPEDA allows businesses to record calls by following the appropriate data practices outlined in the act. In addition, the show guides what methods are considered appropriate and inappropriate.
According to PIPEDA, businesses are required to obtain consent from their customers and inform them of the recording purposes. For example, suppose you are in a call with a business and receive the following message “This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes” at the start of the call. In that case, you are deemed to have consented to the recording if you proceed with the call.
However, the law requires businesses to use recorded calls only for purposes identified by the business during the call. So if the call was for quality assurance purposes, the recordings could not be used for anything else.
PIPEDA also states that users have a right to access their call recordings, information on how the recordings are used and disclosures of their recordings upon request.
In a workplace environment, employees can expect to be called into meetings concerning workplace performance or disputes. Employers may also want to record their employees during investigation meetings or when they are performing their day-to-day work duties.
So the question is, is it illegal to record private conversations in the workplace? According to section 184, you can record conversations that you take part in or record conversations as long as you have consent from at least one of the participants.
So if you are having a private conversation with your fellow employee or a manager, you can record the conversation without seeking consent. This is in line with the “one-party consent” exception. However, you cannot record an exchange or a meeting held by your colleagues without consent by hiding a recording device in the meeting room.
While you are allowed to record conversations that you take part in, your colleagues or boss may not take it kindly to be recorded without consent. Carrying out surreptitious recordings may lead to issues of mistrust and create the impression that you’re recording with malicious intentions.
Remember that you may be fired for secretly recording your conversations with your employer, be it in a meeting or a normal conversation. In Canada, the law allows employers to fire their employees for any reason or no reason at all.
If you’re relieved from work without just cause, you are entitled to receive a reasonable notice period or pay in lieu of notice upon the termination of your employment. However, if you’re fired with just cause, you are not entitled to any notice or `severance whatsoever. So if you’re caught making secret recordings by your employer, your employer can terminate you without any severance package and argue your termination was for cause.
In 2017, a Manitoba court case involving secret workplace recordings, Hart v. Parrish & Heimbecker, Limited, 2017 MBQB, proves why it may not be a good idea to record conversations at work secretly. In this case, the plaintiff, Mark Hart, was an employee at Stone Ridge Consulting before being terminated for cause after a series of complaints from his colleagues concerning harassment. Before his termination, he recorded his conversations with management through his phone without informing them of his surveillance activities.
While the court found his termination was for cause because of other reasons, the court weighed in on the workplace recording issue by stating:
“The plaintiff’s inappropriate use of his cell phone in secretly recording meetings with his superiors does amount to a breach of his confidentiality and privacy obligations to the defendant. Moreover, the plaintiff admitted on examination for discovery that he knew a breach of the confidentiality obligations could result in termination.”
“The misuse of his cell phone was also a breach of his personal code of conduct that he prepared as a result of his meetings with Stone Ridge Consulting.”
So it’s clear from this proceeding that the court does not approve secret workplace recordings because it amounts to misconduct or leads to an employer losing trust in an employee.
Employers are allowed to record conversations between themselves and their employees. The employer or a representative of the employer must be a participant in the conversation for it to be a legal recording. However, such recordings will be subject to privacy legislation, determining how employers collect and use their employees’ personal information.
Depending on whether your employer is provincially or federally regulated, a provincial privacy act or the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) guides the addresses collection, use and disclosure of personal employee information.
For example, under the Alberta Personal Information Protection Act, organizations are allowed to collect personal employee information (including recorded conversations) for reasonable purposes if:
The Alberta privacy act also requires employers to notify their employees that recordings are taking place and inform them how the recordings will be used.
Police officers are allowed by law to intercept private communications under the following circumstances:
In instances where there is a matter of urgency, police officers are allowed to intercept private communications provided the following conditions are met:
Private conversations obtained through illegal interception are inadmissible in court unless for the purposes of proceedings:
Persons who intercept private communications illegally may be found guilty of:
Other Canadian Laws:
