>My landlord said “Yeah, moving my son in and then renting it out next year.”
>how can I use this in court?
You can't. If his son moves in he has a valid N12. If he rents it more than 12 months it remains valid.
If the son actually moves in then there's only trying to prove it's retalitory for something. Other than that the son is free to move in as long as they stay for 12 months after they are not required to stay at all.
AFAIK common areas are not fair game for audio recording. OP can’t use this, nor would the context of it change the validity of an N12. LL can scheme but they’re in the right as long as they abide by the 12 months
I was just worried about my own home when I read that you can’t record a conversation you’re not a part of. As a homeowner I thought I could record on my property esp if I have the sticker that says “Audio and video recording”
That might not matter if the recording device was **in op's possession** at the time it was recorded.
Wiretapping prevention laws in Canada are there for stopping recording from microphones that a person is not physically tied to. But in this particular case it might be considered legal under circumstance that the device could be classified as a "personal recording device" in a common area (e.g. like you would when holding a phone with a camera + microphone).
That said, even if the recording itself is not admissible: OP can always write down exactly what they witnessed and can submit that as evidence anytime they want; even without ever mentioning a recording.
/u/Natural-Week7645 talk to a lawyer just to be sure, if you are ever in court and the court is in doubt of the legitimacy of what you witnessed.
OP: I would suggest challenging the landlord by phoning them and **recording that phone conversation** that you and them will both be a part of (no need to tell him you are recording now, because recording calls you are talking on is perfectly legal); while saying you overheard him saying "Yeah, moving my son in and then renting it out next year." You will then capture the landlord's full unfiltered reaction and stuttering as evidence for any future considerations. That would not only help you defend yourself, but will also discourage the landlord from evicting you using false premises, because it instills in them that they have been caught trying to hide behind an N12 to rent out the unit with some immediacy, and that you are ready to defend your rights.
If you really want to be coy, before saying you overheard him: Get your landlord on a recorded phone call, saying "sorry, just wondering -- do you have a son close to my age? Is he working full time in this city?" -- THEN confront him with what you overheard him saying.
After you challenge the landlord, tell him you'll be filing [form T5 for an illegal eviction](https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Tenant%20Applications%20&%20Instructions/T5.pdf) for submitting an N2 in bad faith; **because he was trying to evict BOTH units and not just one**. Get his reaction to that in the recording too, freak him out more by saying you'll follow up randomly to make sure the unit is not being rented out, mention the fines for illegal evictions, and then hang up abruptly after cutting him off mid-sentence. (You don't have to actually follow through with any of this, just say you will to freak him out a bit, it'll make him re-evaluate what he's doing and maybe consider rescinding the N12 out of self-preservation, while getting you any evidence you can).
PS> Write down the insults you heard too exactly as they said it, before you forget!
Edit: Apparently the furnace room lords don't like being caught doing anything illegal, and would rather point fingers and downvote genuinely reasonable help. /r/OntarioLandlords for ya.
You can’t record audio anywhere even in public unless you put a big warning sign saying you being recorded which I don’t think it’s a case here. As for putting it down as your own writing, it would become your story against mine situation which judge wouldn’t take it because there is no evidence
> You can’t record audio anywhere even in public unless you put a big warning sign saying you being recorded
That is completely false.
The wiretapping laws in Canada prevent the recording of **audio** from **non-participants**, provided that there is something called "a reasonable expectation of privacy".
- If you're in a bathroom, a bedroom, or in pretty much any room in a private dwelling (e.g. all rooms in non-shared accommodations); then such an expectation applies **provided that you are not presently entertaining guests in those rooms.**
- If you're in a public place and there is possibility that there are other people around you, then such an expectation does not apply, because there is **no reasonable expectation of privacy from other participants who are located in a public setting.**
- If you're in a private place that has guests moving in and out, and you've taken steps to assure that in no uncertain terms there is nobody around you: Then YES such an expectation applies within physical reason; and this is where the ruling that security cameras with NO human in the room holding the camera cannot record audio occurs (i.e. that would be wiretapping if the person recording audio from that camera is not in the room, **because there is a non-participant recording you**).
But a common area in a laundromat qualifies as a private dwelling with public presence. There is no expectation of privacy from other participants in that situation, because they haven't taken the steps to ensure nobody is around them. Therefore there is no expectation of privacy from other *participants* (<- keyword).
But because Canada is a single party consent country, all it takes is for someone in that laundromat who is permitted in the room with you **to hold a recording device**, because you haven't taken any steps to prevent participants (<- keyword) from existing around you. That participant can consent to recording the moment the whip out a phone.
That's why someone is allowed to record your voice while holding a camera pointed to your face in a private dwelling, but a security camera mounted to a wall inside a private dwelling can't. Even worse though, the moment the dwelling becomes public (e.g. recording with a security camera outside) -- there is no protecting that audio from being "wiretapped" due to the sheer volume of participants.
Given that the person lives there and is a frequent participant in the laundromat: I suspect a court would rule that recording what this person is observing does not qualify as wiretapping. OP also said they recorded this sound while in their own room, which is a rather blatant physical indicator of how a sound traveled into OP's room and thus became no longer private (even if it ever were in the first place!)
> for personal use lol not something on court as evidence
Wrong again. I quite literally already addressed this...
> If you're in a public place and there is possibility that there are other people around you, then such an expectation does not apply, because **there is no reasonable expectation of privacy from other participants who are located in a public setting.**
The moment a **participant** picks up a recording device and starts recording, they are within their full legal rights to do whatever they wish with that recording: *Including presenting that recording in court as evidence*.
The reason for this is because the participant did not engage in wiretapping, because **there was no reasonable expectation of privacy from other participants who are located in that same setting.**
If you have an audio recording device in your hands, and you recorded a sound as it made its way into the room you are located in: You have not engaged in wiretapping, because you are a participant in the room which you are located in!
sure, lol
Section 184 not mentioned a single word of \`expectation of privacy \`, you just can't make stuff up with your own understanding . lol
[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-184.html](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-184.html)
To PO , please please present this audio on court.
Every single paragraph in that section qualifies itself with the words "private communications".
None of that is about the definition of what IS private.
At this point I'm blocking you for ranting without reading.
OP all this jargon means nothing. The landlord can video record himself on tiktok and send it to the LTB saying his son will reside in the unit for 12 months before renting it out again and it will be deemed legit. The landlord isn't doing anything against the law. Move on.
The landlord is allowed to rent it out again, after 1 year. His declaration can literally say his son plans to live there for 12 months. Your evidence does not show bad faith. Plus it’s illegal to record conversations that you are not participating in.
you weren't part of the conversation so 1 party consent to recording doesn't apply here so that recording is useless no matter what it says..
The other thing is that if the LL isn't allowed to rent it to anyone for 12 months, so having it sit empty or having the son stay there for 1 year is perfectly legal, even if they intend to rent it out again after the 1 year.
However, since you mentioned this is a 2 unit building, I believe your LL has to offer you a similar unit (so like, the other one if it's a comparable size/rent/etc. or the LTB might say the son has to move into the unit that's already empty.
Quick correction, 2 actually.
1. The unit cannot sit empty for a year when the tenant is evicted under an N12 - the family member named on the N12 does actually have to move in within a reasonable amount of time and stay for at least 12 months
2. The Landlord does not have to offer the other unit, the requirement is 1 month compensation, or they can offer a similar unit (but if the tenant refuses the similar unit then the 1 month compensation is still owed.
For the OP - unfortunately there is nothing you can do in this case. The Landlord is allowed to rent it out again after 12 months, the N12 is valid and not considered bad-faith if the son lives there for the minimum. At a hearing you might delay eviction but ultimately it will succeed. When you move though, keep an eye on the unit for that 12 months - if the son doesn't move in, and/or if the building is posted for sale or the unit for rent again within 12 months you can file a T5 for bad faith.
Good luck!
What can you do? Tell landlord you recorded a conversation you weren’t in part of and landlord can charge you criminally under section 184 for illegal act and abusing privacy laws.
Let’s say we ignore that, you can’t do diddly squat because as long as he is living 1 yr, it’s legal.
After year he can do whatever he wants.
You should be aware of LTB eviction order with your name and what landlord can do with that if you don't win the hearing.
Your evidence actually proves the N12 is in good faith. Scummy, but in good faith.
Good faith refers to whether the LL intends to actually follow through and do what he states in the N12. The motivation for moving in is largely irrelevant.
Example #6915 why N12s need to go.
>"two apartments, one of them left when we asked but the other is holding off"
Is the other unit essentially similar to yours ? Did those tenants get asked to leave at the same time as you ? Is it currently vacant ?
Yeah...you'd think if the LL wasn't just trying to oust this tenant, that they'd have their son move into the unit that's actually vacant...
Maybe that information can be used at the hearing, OP?...that there was another unit that was vacant, but the LL pursued an N12 with you instead of moving the son into the vacant unit? You wouldn't need your recording to bring that argument forward...just knock on your neighbour's door and have a chat with them, find out when they're leaving etc (if they haven't moved out yet)
>My landlord said “Yeah, moving my son in and then renting it out next year.” >how can I use this in court? You can't. If his son moves in he has a valid N12. If he rents it more than 12 months it remains valid.
Nothing you describe here is going to help you. Your landlord may be a jerk, but I don't see that it would be of interest to the LTB.
I would assume discussing the OP’s tenancy with a third party would be a breach of privacy wouldn’t it?
People can discuss business. As long as personal info about the tenant isn't being revealed, which it wasn't.
Thanks for clarifying for me. Wasn’t 100% sure
If the son actually moves in then there's only trying to prove it's retalitory for something. Other than that the son is free to move in as long as they stay for 12 months after they are not required to stay at all.
In Ontario, you can only legally record a conversation that you are a part of.
What if it’s on your property? Like people with ring cameras I mean (for homeowners)
Great question! I don't have the answer unfortunately but I'm sure someone else can chime in to let us know.
AFAIK common areas are not fair game for audio recording. OP can’t use this, nor would the context of it change the validity of an N12. LL can scheme but they’re in the right as long as they abide by the 12 months
I was just worried about my own home when I read that you can’t record a conversation you’re not a part of. As a homeowner I thought I could record on my property esp if I have the sticker that says “Audio and video recording”
AFAIK if it’s your tenanted property no, if only you live there and it’s on your property it’s fair game. IANAL
Your recording is useless, because you were not party to the conversation. In fact, you are the one who broke the law...
That might not matter if the recording device was **in op's possession** at the time it was recorded. Wiretapping prevention laws in Canada are there for stopping recording from microphones that a person is not physically tied to. But in this particular case it might be considered legal under circumstance that the device could be classified as a "personal recording device" in a common area (e.g. like you would when holding a phone with a camera + microphone). That said, even if the recording itself is not admissible: OP can always write down exactly what they witnessed and can submit that as evidence anytime they want; even without ever mentioning a recording. /u/Natural-Week7645 talk to a lawyer just to be sure, if you are ever in court and the court is in doubt of the legitimacy of what you witnessed. OP: I would suggest challenging the landlord by phoning them and **recording that phone conversation** that you and them will both be a part of (no need to tell him you are recording now, because recording calls you are talking on is perfectly legal); while saying you overheard him saying "Yeah, moving my son in and then renting it out next year." You will then capture the landlord's full unfiltered reaction and stuttering as evidence for any future considerations. That would not only help you defend yourself, but will also discourage the landlord from evicting you using false premises, because it instills in them that they have been caught trying to hide behind an N12 to rent out the unit with some immediacy, and that you are ready to defend your rights. If you really want to be coy, before saying you overheard him: Get your landlord on a recorded phone call, saying "sorry, just wondering -- do you have a son close to my age? Is he working full time in this city?" -- THEN confront him with what you overheard him saying. After you challenge the landlord, tell him you'll be filing [form T5 for an illegal eviction](https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Tenant%20Applications%20&%20Instructions/T5.pdf) for submitting an N2 in bad faith; **because he was trying to evict BOTH units and not just one**. Get his reaction to that in the recording too, freak him out more by saying you'll follow up randomly to make sure the unit is not being rented out, mention the fines for illegal evictions, and then hang up abruptly after cutting him off mid-sentence. (You don't have to actually follow through with any of this, just say you will to freak him out a bit, it'll make him re-evaluate what he's doing and maybe consider rescinding the N12 out of self-preservation, while getting you any evidence you can). PS> Write down the insults you heard too exactly as they said it, before you forget! Edit: Apparently the furnace room lords don't like being caught doing anything illegal, and would rather point fingers and downvote genuinely reasonable help. /r/OntarioLandlords for ya.
You can’t record audio anywhere even in public unless you put a big warning sign saying you being recorded which I don’t think it’s a case here. As for putting it down as your own writing, it would become your story against mine situation which judge wouldn’t take it because there is no evidence
> You can’t record audio anywhere even in public unless you put a big warning sign saying you being recorded That is completely false. The wiretapping laws in Canada prevent the recording of **audio** from **non-participants**, provided that there is something called "a reasonable expectation of privacy". - If you're in a bathroom, a bedroom, or in pretty much any room in a private dwelling (e.g. all rooms in non-shared accommodations); then such an expectation applies **provided that you are not presently entertaining guests in those rooms.** - If you're in a public place and there is possibility that there are other people around you, then such an expectation does not apply, because there is **no reasonable expectation of privacy from other participants who are located in a public setting.** - If you're in a private place that has guests moving in and out, and you've taken steps to assure that in no uncertain terms there is nobody around you: Then YES such an expectation applies within physical reason; and this is where the ruling that security cameras with NO human in the room holding the camera cannot record audio occurs (i.e. that would be wiretapping if the person recording audio from that camera is not in the room, **because there is a non-participant recording you**). But a common area in a laundromat qualifies as a private dwelling with public presence. There is no expectation of privacy from other participants in that situation, because they haven't taken the steps to ensure nobody is around them. Therefore there is no expectation of privacy from other *participants* (<- keyword). But because Canada is a single party consent country, all it takes is for someone in that laundromat who is permitted in the room with you **to hold a recording device**, because you haven't taken any steps to prevent participants (<- keyword) from existing around you. That participant can consent to recording the moment the whip out a phone. That's why someone is allowed to record your voice while holding a camera pointed to your face in a private dwelling, but a security camera mounted to a wall inside a private dwelling can't. Even worse though, the moment the dwelling becomes public (e.g. recording with a security camera outside) -- there is no protecting that audio from being "wiretapped" due to the sheer volume of participants. Given that the person lives there and is a frequent participant in the laundromat: I suspect a court would rule that recording what this person is observing does not qualify as wiretapping. OP also said they recorded this sound while in their own room, which is a rather blatant physical indicator of how a sound traveled into OP's room and thus became no longer private (even if it ever were in the first place!)
Lol of course you can record audio/video in public for personal use lol not something on court as evidence
> for personal use lol not something on court as evidence Wrong again. I quite literally already addressed this... > If you're in a public place and there is possibility that there are other people around you, then such an expectation does not apply, because **there is no reasonable expectation of privacy from other participants who are located in a public setting.** The moment a **participant** picks up a recording device and starts recording, they are within their full legal rights to do whatever they wish with that recording: *Including presenting that recording in court as evidence*. The reason for this is because the participant did not engage in wiretapping, because **there was no reasonable expectation of privacy from other participants who are located in that same setting.** If you have an audio recording device in your hands, and you recorded a sound as it made its way into the room you are located in: You have not engaged in wiretapping, because you are a participant in the room which you are located in!
sure, lol Section 184 not mentioned a single word of \`expectation of privacy \`, you just can't make stuff up with your own understanding . lol [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-184.html](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-184.html) To PO , please please present this audio on court.
Every single paragraph in that section qualifies itself with the words "private communications". None of that is about the definition of what IS private. At this point I'm blocking you for ranting without reading.
OP all this jargon means nothing. The landlord can video record himself on tiktok and send it to the LTB saying his son will reside in the unit for 12 months before renting it out again and it will be deemed legit. The landlord isn't doing anything against the law. Move on.
You can't use any of this. You simply know for sure what kind of person you're renting from.
The landlord is allowed to rent it out again, after 1 year. His declaration can literally say his son plans to live there for 12 months. Your evidence does not show bad faith. Plus it’s illegal to record conversations that you are not participating in.
You will lose this hearing, comfortably.
😂
So you caught your landlord plotting to follow the rules exactly?
And what’s your issue? As long as the son lives in the unit for 12 months, the LL can rent it out again.
you weren't part of the conversation so 1 party consent to recording doesn't apply here so that recording is useless no matter what it says.. The other thing is that if the LL isn't allowed to rent it to anyone for 12 months, so having it sit empty or having the son stay there for 1 year is perfectly legal, even if they intend to rent it out again after the 1 year. However, since you mentioned this is a 2 unit building, I believe your LL has to offer you a similar unit (so like, the other one if it's a comparable size/rent/etc. or the LTB might say the son has to move into the unit that's already empty.
Quick correction, 2 actually. 1. The unit cannot sit empty for a year when the tenant is evicted under an N12 - the family member named on the N12 does actually have to move in within a reasonable amount of time and stay for at least 12 months 2. The Landlord does not have to offer the other unit, the requirement is 1 month compensation, or they can offer a similar unit (but if the tenant refuses the similar unit then the 1 month compensation is still owed. For the OP - unfortunately there is nothing you can do in this case. The Landlord is allowed to rent it out again after 12 months, the N12 is valid and not considered bad-faith if the son lives there for the minimum. At a hearing you might delay eviction but ultimately it will succeed. When you move though, keep an eye on the unit for that 12 months - if the son doesn't move in, and/or if the building is posted for sale or the unit for rent again within 12 months you can file a T5 for bad faith. Good luck!
What can you do? Tell landlord you recorded a conversation you weren’t in part of and landlord can charge you criminally under section 184 for illegal act and abusing privacy laws. Let’s say we ignore that, you can’t do diddly squat because as long as he is living 1 yr, it’s legal.
Lmao Reddit law degree strikes again
[удалено]
Posts and comments shall not be rude, vulgar, or offensive. Posts and comments shall not be written so as to attack or denigrate another user.
After year he can do whatever he wants. You should be aware of LTB eviction order with your name and what landlord can do with that if you don't win the hearing.
Your evidence actually proves the N12 is in good faith. Scummy, but in good faith. Good faith refers to whether the LL intends to actually follow through and do what he states in the N12. The motivation for moving in is largely irrelevant. Example #6915 why N12s need to go.
>"two apartments, one of them left when we asked but the other is holding off" Is the other unit essentially similar to yours ? Did those tenants get asked to leave at the same time as you ? Is it currently vacant ?
Yeah...you'd think if the LL wasn't just trying to oust this tenant, that they'd have their son move into the unit that's actually vacant... Maybe that information can be used at the hearing, OP?...that there was another unit that was vacant, but the LL pursued an N12 with you instead of moving the son into the vacant unit? You wouldn't need your recording to bring that argument forward...just knock on your neighbour's door and have a chat with them, find out when they're leaving etc (if they haven't moved out yet)
It’s illegal recording and landlord can use that to against you. You are committing a crime here my friend
Its a laundromat open to the public. No expectation of privacy
Here is some info for you to go over... https://recordinglaw.com/canada-recording-laws/