dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
425
share rss forum feed


RogueMonk
Premium
join:2003-02-11
Stoney Creek, ON
kudos:1

Audio Recording of Registered Charity General Meeting

Does anybody have experience with the legality of audio recording the AGM of a Registered Charity?

Here is the background. I am a member of a charitable organization that has two official business meetings per year. Our last meeting was audio recorded. After the meeting, somebody has complained that the meeting was recorded without permission of the members or passed motion of the organization body.

Anybody have some insights? Thanks.
--
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliott


lugnut

@communications.com
If the meeting was open to the public I can't think of any restrictions on recording that would apply.


RogueMonk
Premium
join:2003-02-11
Stoney Creek, ON
kudos:1
Thanks. That is what I was thinking.

It was an open meeting, but only those with "privilege of the floor" were able speak/contribute.
--
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliott

jpaik

join:2002-01-09
Hamilton, ON
reply to RogueMonk
I doubt that a right to privacy exists in this circumstance.

I have been a member of a few not-for-profits. At both board and general membership meetings (the "AGM") a recording is made of the proceedings, so that minutes can be prepared at a later time. Years ago, the proceedings were "recorded" on pen-and-paper, often by someone with shorthand skills.

Regardless of method, there is a presumption that words spoken will be a matter of record. Perhaps the complainer should have chosen his/her words more carefully.
--
minimum waste, maximum joy


TLS2000
Crazy Canuck
Premium
join:2004-02-24
Mississauga, ON
Reviews:
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to RogueMonk
The Criminal Code lays out rules for electronic recording of conversations.

You must be a part of the conversation (as in, you must speak) for it to be legal to record without permission. Also, it gets iffy when you start recording a meeting as you may not be part of all of the conversations that may branch out of the meeting. For instance, when you don't have the floor and someone else is speaking and being spoken to, you aren't really part of the conversation so it would be illegal without permission.

So I wouldn't record it unless you have permission from the board. They can notify everyone in attendance that the meeting will be recorded and those people can decide if they want to participate based on being informed.
--
Tom


lugnut

@communications.com
reply to RogueMonk
Apparently there are no restrictions on recording a public meeting, however it depends on what you do with the recording...

See link >>> »www.justanswer.com/canada-law/55 ··· ded.html


mk1_416

@start.ca
reply to RogueMonk
Who did the recording? Unless one is party to the conversation, as in communicating with those being recorded, it could be very illegal.

Is the complaining party claiming that the organization's rules were violated or the law/their privacy?


humanfilth

join:2013-02-14
cyber gutter
reply to RogueMonk
Nixon hated audio recording as well. Ask what the person complaining what they have to hide.

'Official transcript'(written) of a meeting can be falsified by having certain content omitted for 'don't you dare print what I said'.

'Recording the whole show' allows for 99.9% authentication and altering the recording to change the outcome takes a little bit of skill.

If the people at the meeting knew its content was being 'minutes of the meeting are being recorded for the record', then the only issue is if they thought it was only being written down, instead of audio as well.
--
Knowledge and curiosity are not crimes and those who are curious should not be treated like criminals.. »www.eff.org/https-everywhere


lugnut

@communications.com
Since obviously nobody read the link I posted earlier in the thread I'll quote a few choice bits for your enlightenment.

quote:
...snip...

Tom Bulmer : While it is legal to record almost everything, there are restrictions about what you can do with it.

Tom Bulmer :What type of "Community Meeting" was it?

Customer:It was a Community Recreation Society meeting. The meetings are open to the public and occur once per month. There is controvery surrounding the decision of the Recreation Directors (Board Members) to not renew a five year lease agreement with a another Society whose lease agrement expired in May 2011. The Recreation Society is a registered non-profit society, as is the the other Society.

Tom Bulmer :That should be fine. Certainly there is no law stating that a meeting cannot be recorded.

Tom Bulmer :The only issue is if you want to use such a recording in a court of law as evidence. Some discussions are protected by PRIVILEGE meaning that what was said cannot be entered into evidence in court. What happens in a City Council meeting or in Parliament is privileged and can never be used to advance a court case.

Tom Bulmer :That does not mean that such records cannot be used to remind someone of what that person said or to garner support from other people or even for use in the media. It simply is not available as evidence in court with few exceptions.

Customer:Was I required to tell the attendees that I was recording the meeting? Most if not all of the attendees were aware that I was recording the meeting. Am I required to make the recording available to anyone who was in attendance at the meeting and asks for a recording?

Tom Bulmer :Nope. In this day and age, everyone should assume that their picture is being taken and voice being recorded at every moment.

...snip...

Tom B., Barrister & Solicitor
Category: Canada Law
Satisfied Customers: 1936
Experience: Called to the Bar of British Columbia in 1991.
Tom B. and 2 other Canada Law Specialists are ready to help you




DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to RogueMonk
I work in the field and manage a charitable organization. The use of recording of an annual meeting is not an uncommon practice in many organizations. It helps keep a clear record of the minutes (which have legal standing), especially if there is anything contentious. As a courtesy, it may be helpful to inform the meeting that an audio record is being made for the purpose of correct recording of the minutes. Is it illegal? No. And any complaint, to be taken seriously, should be a) in writing and b) signed by the complainant, who should have standing in the meeting. Otherwise it can be ignored.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to TLS2000
said by TLS2000:

The Criminal Code lays out rules for electronic recording of conversations.

The Criminal Code is irrelevant in this matter. This is not a conversation, but a record of proceedings.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to lugnut
said by lugnut :

Tom Bulmer :The only issue is if you want to use such a recording in a court of law as evidence. Some discussions are protected by PRIVILEGE meaning that what was said cannot be entered into evidence in court. What happens in a City Council meeting or in Parliament is privileged and can never be used to advance a court case.

While the recording itself may not be used in court, the minutes or record of proceeding which come from the recording are both subject to subpoena and fully admissible in court.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


lugnut

@communications.com
said by DKS:

said by lugnut :

Tom Bulmer :The only issue is if you want to use such a recording in a court of law as evidence. Some discussions are protected by PRIVILEGE meaning that what was said cannot be entered into evidence in court. What happens in a City Council meeting or in Parliament is privileged and can never be used to advance a court case.

While the recording itself may not be used in court, the minutes or record of proceeding which come from the recording are both subject to subpoena and fully admissible in court.

Well the stuff I quoted was somewhat supported by the current Rob Ford Fiasco. No one seems to care where the photo or recordings came from while they are plastering obviously private videos all over the news channels, but Toronto Police seem to think that the means by which they came by the original video somehow instead makes it admissible as evidence in court.

The upshot is that the major networks seem to think nothing of invading Rob Ford's privacy rights in this matter and hence, in theory at least, a video taken without consent could be used in a campaign ad or a news article without any repercussions whatsoever.

At least that's what I took from the legal blog I posted.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
said by lugnut :

said by DKS:

said by lugnut :

Tom Bulmer :The only issue is if you want to use such a recording in a court of law as evidence. Some discussions are protected by PRIVILEGE meaning that what was said cannot be entered into evidence in court. What happens in a City Council meeting or in Parliament is privileged and can never be used to advance a court case.

While the recording itself may not be used in court, the minutes or record of proceeding which come from the recording are both subject to subpoena and fully admissible in court.

Well the stuff I quoted was somewhat supported by the current Rob Ford Fiasco. No one seems to care where the photo or recordings came from while they are plastering obviously private videos all over the news channels, but Toronto Police seem to think that the means by which they came by the original video somehow instead makes it admissible as evidence in court.

The upshot is that the major networks seem to think nothing of invading Rob Ford's privacy rights in this matter and hence, in theory at least, a video taken without consent could be used in a campaign ad or a news article without any repercussions whatsoever.

At least that's what I took from the legal blog I posted.

This has nothing to do with Rob Ford. This is a matter of governance (and a really minor point, at that). Minutes are also not a verbatim report of who said what, but simply a brief summary of deliberations along with the actual words of any motions made and passed by the meeting.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


lugnut

@communications.com
My point, which you seemed to miss entirely, was that short of using the recording in court, the OP would be perfectly within his rights to make an audio or video recording of the entire proceedings and post them on youtube without fear of repercussions, should he be so inclined.

Inasmuch as the OP has not actually stated his intended use for the audio recording the entire question of admissibility in court is rendered moot.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
said by lugnut :

My point, which you seemed to miss entirely, was that short of using the recording in court, the OP would be perfectly within his rights to make an audio or video recording of the entire proceedings and post them on youtube without fear of repercussions, should he be so inclined.

Inasmuch as the OP has not actually stated his intended use for the audio recording the entire question of admissibility in court is rendered moot.

You made the point poorly. I said the same thing with greater clarity. I work in the field. I do this for a living. This is not a significant matter whatsoever. The objection, which the OP indicated had been made, is entirely irrelevant. And again, this has absolutely nothing to do with any Rob Ford videos. Nothing.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


RogueMonk
Premium
join:2003-02-11
Stoney Creek, ON
kudos:1
reply to RogueMonk
Thanks all.


TLS2000
Crazy Canuck
Premium
join:2004-02-24
Mississauga, ON
Reviews:
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to DKS
said by DKS:

said by TLS2000:

The Criminal Code lays out rules for electronic recording of conversations.

The Criminal Code is irrelevant in this matter. This is not a conversation, but a record of proceedings.

It is still a conversation, but you are quite right otherwise. My mistake. I forgot that the interception rules applied only where the people speaking have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A public meeting would not have that.
--
Tom