In Canada, is it legal to lie about recording a conversation?
October 23, 2014 7:02 PM Subscribe
In Canada, if someone asks you if you are recording a conversation, can you lie and continue to record it?
My friend, "Joe", thinks this is fine, because it isn't illegal to record a conversation under one-party consent laws. My other friend, "Steve", thinks it could fall into surreptitious recording, because the other person has no reason to think you are recording. Joe thinks you would have to be daft to think that there's any duty to tell the truth nor any duty not to record and he notes that wiretapping laws are meant to protect people from intercepted communications for nefarious reasons, not to interfere with someone recording a conversation they might want on record for later (such as a business contract). Who's right?
Canada is a one-party consent jurisdiction, so you don't need permission from other people if you're part of the conversation and stay in the room or on the line.
I can't find anything that says it's illegal to lie.
The surreptitious recording laws seem to apply to wiretapping and parabolic devices, not when someone whips out an iPhone and lays it on the desk or has it sticking out of their pocket.
My friend, "Joe", thinks this is fine, because it isn't illegal to record a conversation under one-party consent laws. My other friend, "Steve", thinks it could fall into surreptitious recording, because the other person has no reason to think you are recording. Joe thinks you would have to be daft to think that there's any duty to tell the truth nor any duty not to record and he notes that wiretapping laws are meant to protect people from intercepted communications for nefarious reasons, not to interfere with someone recording a conversation they might want on record for later (such as a business contract). Who's right?
Canada is a one-party consent jurisdiction, so you don't need permission from other people if you're part of the conversation and stay in the room or on the line.
I can't find anything that says it's illegal to lie.
The surreptitious recording laws seem to apply to wiretapping and parabolic devices, not when someone whips out an iPhone and lays it on the desk or has it sticking out of their pocket.
IANAL.
This is really two questions: (1) can one party record a conversation with another party and not notify them under the one-party consent rules and (2) can someone lie to someone?
As I understand it in the US, the entire point of the one-party consent rule (which applies in several US states) is so that you can record your own calls without being in any sort of trouble: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#United_States The Canadian section of that same page mentions PIPEDA, which is probably why banks mention it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Canada In the US, since not all states are one-party states and large companies deal with people from all over the country, they play the better-safe-than-sorry game and mention it to everyone.
As for the second question, I don't think it's illegal to lie to someone (exceptions being under oath, fraud, etc.).
If you want a more definitive answer, you'll probably need to get legal advice from a lawyer.
posted by Brian Puccio at 7:55 PM on October 23, 2014
This is really two questions: (1) can one party record a conversation with another party and not notify them under the one-party consent rules and (2) can someone lie to someone?
As I understand it in the US, the entire point of the one-party consent rule (which applies in several US states) is so that you can record your own calls without being in any sort of trouble: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#United_States The Canadian section of that same page mentions PIPEDA, which is probably why banks mention it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Canada In the US, since not all states are one-party states and large companies deal with people from all over the country, they play the better-safe-than-sorry game and mention it to everyone.
As for the second question, I don't think it's illegal to lie to someone (exceptions being under oath, fraud, etc.).
If you want a more definitive answer, you'll probably need to get legal advice from a lawyer.
posted by Brian Puccio at 7:55 PM on October 23, 2014
Also I should point out that if I had any form of business relationship with you (in which we had reasonably similar structural power), and found out that you lied to me about recording our conversations? I would immediately expect you to be some form of gadfly/"gotcha"-seeking lowlife/prepping to sue me and would break off all ties with you and counsel everyone I know to avoid you. I doubt I'm alone on that one.
Again, that depends on what you're trying to do with this.
posted by Lemurrhea at 8:01 PM on October 23, 2014 [3 favorites]
Again, that depends on what you're trying to do with this.
posted by Lemurrhea at 8:01 PM on October 23, 2014 [3 favorites]
Whether they were bound by PIPEDA would depend on which province they are in and whether their business would be considered at federal work or undertaking.
If they fell under Alberta's PIPA, for e.g., they would be allowed to record the conversation without informing the individual (it's a collection of personal information without consent) if they were recording for one of the allowed collection without consent purposes (s. 14). If the purpose didn't fall within s. 14, then the organization (and an individual acting for commercial purposes is considered an organization) would need to have consent. Those circumstances are pretty limited.
For the reasons Lemurrhea outlines, a consent-based collection authority would be far more desirable in most cases even if your friend feels they have a strong case for a collection without consent authority.
posted by Kurichina at 7:13 AM on October 24, 2014
If they fell under Alberta's PIPA, for e.g., they would be allowed to record the conversation without informing the individual (it's a collection of personal information without consent) if they were recording for one of the allowed collection without consent purposes (s. 14). If the purpose didn't fall within s. 14, then the organization (and an individual acting for commercial purposes is considered an organization) would need to have consent. Those circumstances are pretty limited.
For the reasons Lemurrhea outlines, a consent-based collection authority would be far more desirable in most cases even if your friend feels they have a strong case for a collection without consent authority.
posted by Kurichina at 7:13 AM on October 24, 2014
This thread is closed to new comments.
ON THE OTHER HAND, you say they're doing this for business info. Are they going to be bound by PIPEDA and collecting personal information? Because here's a finding by the Privacy Commissioner that consent would be required. There is a very good reason that all of the recordings when you call the bank inform you that you're being recorded.
I am not your lawyer and this is not legal advice.
posted by Lemurrhea at 7:27 PM on October 23, 2014