unethic business tactics at the worlds' local bank.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think it's stand in court unless the other party acknowledge they are being taped. But if it's to the boss, that's another story.

SIR_jeff wrote: ↑Hi

Not sure if this is the right forum. "Someone I know" ; ) turned on a recorder during a meeting with a Bank representative, as the bank made mistakes before and denied that.

It turns out the bank denied what they promised again, but my acquaintance have the promise on tape.

Is he or she allowed to release this tape to the bank rep's boss or the public (say youtube)?

according the Criminal Code:

"A person may intercept a private communication if the originator of the communication or the person intended by the originator to receive the communication consents to the interception and an authorization has been obtained 184.2(1)"

I'd say youtube is out of the question, but I would hazard to guess that you can show the bank rep the tape.

CocaCola_Addict wrote: ↑Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think it's stand in court unless the other party acknowledge they are being taped. But if it's to the boss, that's another story.

Im not sure if the law applies to businesses but he/she does not have to tell them they are recording the conversation.

k__dam wrote: ↑Im not sure if the law applies to businesses but he/she does not have to tell them they are recording the conversation.

It is an interesting subject and the answer is not universal. Last time I checked (in 2001) it was ok to secretly record conversation in which you participate. (In Ontario, the answer may be different in other provinces).

I'd say, send the rep transcript the conversation asking to confirm accuracy of it. If does not help, go with the tape to the bank's ombudsman.

oh, and for future -- anything bank promises must be in writing!

circa76 wrote: ↑according the Criminal Code:

"A person may intercept a private communication if the originator of the communication or the person intended by the originator to receive the communication consents to the interception and an authorization has been obtained 184.2(1)"

I'd say youtube is out of the question, but I would hazard to guess that you can show the bank rep the tape.

So does it mean my friend did not break any law as she/he was the one of the two people in the meeting and the one that recorded it.

From everything I've read, your friend didn't break the law in recording the conversation that she participated in

and, yes, the bank can be held "liable" for any verbal contracts that they entered into, however, accountability could require a trip to court.

if you take it to court, there is a burden of proof. Just because somebody on the tape says they are "Mr Harman from Canada bank" the voice could have been from anybody doing an acting job .... of course, calling them onto the stand means they risk perjuring themselves ... but the burden of proof is still your friends hands ... then, of course, there is a question of whether or not the bank employee is legally authorized to enter into a contract (having an employee at home depot say he will build your house isn't likely to get one built for you, even if you get him on tape).

I would take it to the bank, first the manager, then the ombudsman ... but, regardless, if they have been saying one thing and doing another to your friend and this is not the first case ... time for a new bank.

SIR_jeff wrote: ↑So does it mean my friend did not break any law as she/he was the one of the two people in the meeting and the one that recorded it.

That's right, but as CheapScotman says, there are other factors to consider as well. I would first approach the bank rep with the info, and then approach the manager. If you were financially damaged in some way, then you have a case to go higher; otherwise, get a new bank and move on.

the intention is not trying to take them to court, or pin them down on the oral agreement. how this bank worked is really upsetting my friend. The manager probably knows that he was not being bluffed about the recording, but then he offered no appology or no nothing. That is disrepect.

Just want need to give them a lesson, and stop them from doing this bait and switch thing over and over again. I guess their either think small customers are dumb, helpless, so they did not pay any attention; or just they are just utterly incompetent and dishonest.

Put it on Youtube. Give it to the bank. Roast the employee who made the promises. You'll be doing us a favour, banks (and all companies) should be afraid of people taping conversations, it will make them a lot more likely to treat us fairly.

i6s1 wrote: ↑Put it on Youtube. Give it to the bank. Roast the employee who made the promises. You'll be doing us a favour, banks (and all companies) should be afraid of people taping conversations, it will make them a lot more likely to treat us fairly.

Or it may back fire.

You can do whatever you want with the recording.

As was posted above, you may record any communications under the condition that at least one person involved in the communication agrees to it.

Khrak wrote: ↑You can do whatever you want with the recording.

As was posted above, you may record any communications under the condition that at least one person involved in the communication agrees to it.

If it is personal the the other pseron could take some sort of legal action.

ottawasportsfan2010 wrote: ↑If it is personal the the other pseron could take some sort of legal action.

Not unless there is some sort of contract restricting him from recording. You can walk up to anyone you want and record a conversation with them. There's nothing stopping you. You're allowed to make recordings of any conversation if you have permission of at least one person involved. Barring any contract stating otherwise, you can do whatever you want with that recording.

ottawasportsfan2010 wrote: ↑Or it may back fire.

How? The conversation was legally recorded and belongs to the OP's friend. There's nothing the bank can do.

updated. the friend really wants to find out if it's ok to release it.

SIR_jeff wrote: ↑updated. the friend really wants to find out if it's ok to release it.

Sure it is. If someone is sexually harassing you, then you should be recording the conversation to gather evidence. You don't need to ask the offender: can I have your permission to record the following conversation in which you will sexually harass me?

lol

I think the confusion comes from watching American cop/court shows - in the US, taping is covered by state laws and varies. In some US jurisdictions, all parties must consent to a taping for it to be legal; in others, single party recording is permissible. There's a chart at http://www.rcfp.org/taping/quick.html that shows the differences.

In Canada, we are a "one party" jurisdiction - only one participant in a discussion need know that they are being recorded . That holds true even if there are more than two people involved in the conversation:

"CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA: PART VI: INVASION OF PRIVACY:

Section 183.1: Where a private communication is originated by more than one person or is intended by the originator thereof to be received by more than one person, a consent to the interception thereof by any one of those persons is sufficient consent for the purposes of any provision of this Part. [1993, c.40, s.2.]" http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.183.1.html

Once you have a recording, the only information that you are specifically precluded from publishing are personal details covered by the Privacy Act (SIN number, credit card numbers, etc.).

There's a fairly good overview of telephone recording (as a subset of recording in general) at http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law.htm.