Canada: Authenticity, Reliability And Integrity Of A Recording On A Technological Medium: The Court Of Appeal Provides Some Clarification

Last Updated: October 1 2018
Article by Jean-François De Rico, Samuel Gagnon and Charles Lapointe


Now that electronic devices that can record conversations are omnipresent, courts routinely have to deal with attempts to introduce audio recordings as evidence. In this regard, there are certain rules that must be followed in order for such evidence to be admissible.

In addition to some general principles, such as respect for fundamental rights, and consent of the parties to be recorded – which we canvassed in a previous article – certain procedural rules regarding the reliability, authenticity and integrity of a recording sought to be introduced as evidence must be respected.

In its recent decision in Benisty v. Kloda1, the Quebec Court of Appeal clarified the rules applicable to the admissibility of an audio recording initially recorded on a cassette tape and later transferred in part to a digital medium (a compact disc, or CD).

I. The facts

The appellant Charles Benisty ("Benisty") is an investor who did business with Samuel Kloda ("Kloda"), a securities broker. Benisty alleged that Kloda had consummated some 15 transactions in his account, which ended up losing him $400,000, without his authorization.

Benisty's evidence consisted essentially of recordings of his conversations with Kloda. The trial court had to rule on the admissibility of the recordings.

II. The trial decision

At first instance[2], Kloda objected to the introduction of the recordings as evidence. Benisty argued that if Kloda wanted to impugn the conditions surrounding the making of the recording (authenticity) and its contents (reliability) he would have to adduce evidence to that effect3.

The Superior Court found that the cassette recordings constituted physical evidence4 whose authenticity and probative value had not been established and that they could not be characterized as a technology-based document within the meaning of the Act to establish a legal framework for information technology5 (the "Act"), such that the recordings did not qualify for the exemption under article 2855 of the Civil Code of Québec or for the presumption of integrity of the recording medium provided for in section 7 of the Act6.

Kloda's objection was upheld, the Court taking the view that Benisty had failed to prove the authenticity and reliability of the recordings and noting that they were full of interruptions and even deletions, which may or may not have been deliberate7.

III. The decision on appeal

In this unusual situation where different recording mediums had been used8, the Court of Appeal concluded that Benisty had not met his burden of proof, and upheld the trial judge's decision.

The Court took the opportunity afforded by this case to clarify various concepts pertaining to audio recordings, devoting nearly a hundred paragraphs to the exercise. In doing so it put an end to the controversy that had been brewing ever since the Act came into force in 2001, and also corrected the trial judge's characterization of the recordings.

As explained in more detail below, a court called upon to analyze an audio recording that one of the parties wishes to enter into evidence must proceed in two stages:

  1. It must characterize the evidence in light of the goal sought by the party who wishes to produce the recording in order to determine if it is testimony or real evidence;
  2. It must determine if the medium or technology used ensures the integrity of the recording;

    • If that proves to be so, the presumption under section 7 of the Act applies and it is not necessary to separately prove the recording's authenticity;
    • Otherwise, the party seeking to adduce the recording must separately prove its authenticity in accordance with the general rules of evidence9.

A. Legal characterization of a taped audio recording

In its decision the Court of Appeal first resolved a difference of opinion in doctrinal authority as to whether a tape recording is a technology-based document, by deciding that it is.

According to its intended purpose as evidence, such a recording can be either testimony (article 2843 CCQ) or real evidence (article 2854 CCQ). Depending on which characterization it is given, the parties will have to respect the evidentiary rules specific to its admissibility as so characterized.

In this instance, because the recordings were intended to allow the Court to directly draw its own conclusions from them, they were characterized as real evidence10.

B. The requirement to prove the authenticity of a technology-based document

The Court rejected the line of cases holding that articles 2855 and 2874 of the CCQ and section 7 of the Act were intended to create a presumption exempting the party seeking to adduce a technology-based document from demonstrating the authenticity of its contents, including that it had not been altered11.

The Court delineated the scope of this presumption and drew a distinction between the medium itself and the information contained on it. The presumption created by section 7 of the Act is only to the effect that the medium or the technology used allows the integrity of the document to be established12, thereby dispensing the party from having to demonstrate that the document's medium or the technology used to communicate were designed to ensure its integrity13.

The Court then dealt with the exemption from having to prove the authenticity of real evidence, provided for in articles 2855 and 2874 CCQ. The Court discerned in those provisions the legislative intent to recognize the probative value of metadata with respect to the integrity of the document's content. It is important to note that the metadata of a technology-based document (intrinsic information that allows the author, date of creation, modifications, etc. to be identified) do not constitute independent evidence as contemplated by articles 2855 and 2874 CCQ. Thus, a technology-based document such as an audio recording generally contains two kinds of information: the recording itself and the information embedded in the document pertaining to its history (the metadata).

The Court concluded that in the absence of intrinsic information in the technology-based document (metadata) establishing that the information has not been altered and has been integrally maintained, the party seeking to enter such a document into evidence must otherwise prove its authenticity14.

Thus, to the extent that a technology-based document's metadata convinces the court of the document's authenticity, the party seeking to enter it into evidence will not have to adduce separate evidence of its making (how was it created?) or its integrity (is the information in it reliable and unaltered?). The metadata inherent in the technology-based document allows those aspects to be proved (at least partially, as metadata alone is generally of no use in identifying the parties to the conversation, or the party who recorded it).

C. Criteria for establishing the authenticity of an audio recording

In cases where proving the authenticity of a recording is necessary, the evidentiary process is twofold15.

It is first of all essential to establish the identity of the parties to the conversation. In the case of an audio recording, it must be shown in particular who made the recording, by what means, and what procedure was followed16.

Then, questions must be asked regarding the integrity of the information contained in the document. Obviously, a recording full of dubious interruptions will have a low probative value. Submitting an edited version of the recording in order to facilitate the presentation of the evidence before the court is a possibility, but the interruptions must not be of such a nature as to smack of an attempt to misrepresent what was said.

As stated above, it will not be necessary to separately prove how the technology-based document was created and that its integrity has been preserved if the document contains metadata that satisfies these evidentiary requirements17. However, the oral exchanges recorded on it must be clear and intelligible.

D. Transfer from one medium to another

In the Kloda case, the recordings at issue were transferred from the original cassette tapes to a CD. The Court therefore had to determine if the rules applicable to the reproduction of a document set forth in articles 2841-2842 CCQ and in section 17 of the Act were respected.

Article 2841 CCQ distinguishes between two types of reproductions. On the one hand is a reproduction on the same medium as the original, and on the other, a reproduction resulting from the transfer of the information contained in the original to a medium based on different technology. In the case of a copy made on the same medium, article 2841 makes its admissibility subject only to certification, whereas if the content of the original has been transferred to a medium based on different technology, such as a digital copy of a paper document, the reproduction must be accompanied by documentation describing the transfer process whereby the information was transferred, in accordance with article 2482 CCQ.

The Court, noting the absence of any evidence establishing that the recording resulting from the transfer contained the same information as that on the cassette tapes, decided that it could not allow its use for the purpose of demonstrating the authenticity of the recording.

E. Procedure for contesting the reliability of the medium of a technology-based document

Finally, it is important to be aware that a litigant who intends to contest the integrity of a document must comply with article 262 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A party can contest a document by showing, for example, that its content has been altered, that its author cannot be identified or that the information it contains does not accord with that in the original.


In a context where the majority of the writings and communications sought to be entered into evidence have for many years now been technology-based documents, the provisions of the Act are essential references for astute litigators. The primary takeaway from the Court of Appeal's judgment is that a tape recording is a technology-based document as defined by law. Accordingly, a party that intends to use such a document must respect the specific provisions of the Act. Second of all, while the Court limited the scope of the presumption of integrity under section 7 of the Act to the technological medium, this presumption, i.e. that the medium used is technologically reliable, is rebuttable18.

The entering of a recording into evidence in a civil trial may seem simple – and it should be – but the rules applicable to technology-based documents remain complex and are often misunderstood. The Court of Appeal's clarifications of certain provisions of the Act in this recent decision will allow litigators to master and apply them more easily.


1. Benisty v. Kloda, 2018 QCCA 608

2. Benisty v. Kloda, 2015 QCCS 3391

3. Id., para. 89.

4. Civil Code of Québec, CQLR, c. CCQ-1991, art. 2854

5. CQLR, c. C-1.1

6. Vincent Gautrais and Patrick Gingras, "La preuve des documents technologiques", in Service de la formation continue, Barreau du Québec, Congrès annuel du barreau 2012, p. 2 at 28

7. Benisty v. Kloda, supra, note 2, para. 93

8. At first instance, Benisty entered six cassettes (exhibit P-60) containing the recordings of his conversations with Kloda. During the hearing, he played these recordings using a CD that had not been entered into evidence as an exhibit. On appeal, Benisty substituted another CD (which he referred to as exhibit P-60) but the cassettes containing the original recordings were not filed into the court record, making it impossible for the Court to compare the information on the two mediums.

9. Benisty v. Kloda, supra, note 1, paras. 118-124

10. Benisty v. Kloda, supra, note 1, paras. 59-63

11. Benisty c. Kloda, supra, note 1, para. 91. The Court referred in particular to the following decisions: Droit de la famille — 161206, 2016 QCCS 2378 (CanLII), paras. 67-70; Planificateurs immobiliers et hypothécaires JC Inc. v. Courtiers Inter-Québec Inc. (Royal Lepage Inter-Québec), 2017 QCCQ 1225 (CanLII), para. 85; Leclair v. Charest, 2016 QCCQ 2518 (CanLII), paras. 94-99; Compagnie des chemins de fer nationaux du Canada v. Compagnie d'arrimage de Québec ltée, 2010 QCCQ 942 (CanLII), para. 120; Stefanovic v. ING Assurances Inc., 2007 QCCQ 10363 (CanLII), paras. 65-66; Vandal v. Salvas, 2005 CanLII 40771 (QC CQ), [2005] R.L. 587, paras. 22-23 (C.Q.); Desjardins et Services partagés Canada, 2017 QCTAT 1222 (CanLII), para. 35; Landry et Provigo Québec Inc. (Maxi & Cie), 2011 QCCLP 1802 (CanLII), paras. 51-53.

12. Benisty v. Kloda, supra, note 1, para. 94

13. This distinction has been identified by some doctrinal writers since 2009: see in particular: J-F DE RICO, and D. JAAR, "Le cadre juridique des technologies de l'information", Congrès annuel du Barreau du Québec (2009); V. Gautrais, La preuve technologique, Montreal, Lexis Nexis, 2014, nos 501-502; M. Phillips, La preuve électronique au Québec, Montreal, Lexis Nexis, 2010, no 88.

14. Id., paras. 101 to 105

15. Vincent Gautrais, La preuve technologique, Montreal, Lexis Nexis, 2014, no 501-502

16. Benisty v. Kloda, supra, note 1, para. 107

17. Id., para. 110

18. Autorité des marchés financiers v. Baazov, 2018 QCCS 3422, para. 135

Co-written with Antoine Veillette, articling student.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Jean-François De Rico
Samuel Gagnon
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions