Extraits pertinents:

[74] The rules of evidence and of procedure permit the production of proof by any means, material or otherwise, provided that said proof is reliable.

Art.2857 C.C.Q. "All evidence of any fact relevant to a dispute is admissible and may be presented by any means:"

[75] The rules for the production of material evidence are set out in articles 2854 and 2868 C.C.Q:

Art. 2854 C.C.Q.: The production of material things is a means of proof which allows the judge to make his own findings. Such a material thing may consist of an object, as well as the sense impression of an object, fact or place."

Art. 2868 : C.C.Q.: Proof by the production of a material thing is admissible in accordance with the relevant rules on admissibility as proof of the object, the fact or the place represented by it.

[76] In fact the law specifically provides for the filing of evidence recorded on magnetic tape or other reliable recording mechanism:

Art. 2874 C.C.Q.: "A statement recorded on magnetic tape or by any other reliable recording technique may be proved by such means, provided its authenticity is separately proved".

[77] In admitting this kind of evidence, the Court must be vigilant and must reject recorded evidence which breaches the fundamental rights of the parties or whose use will bring the administration of justice into disrepute:

Art. 2858 C.C.Q.: "The Court shall, even of its own motion, reject any evidence obtained under such circumstances that fundamental rights and freedoms are breached and that its use would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The latter criterion is not taken into account in the case of violation of the right of professional privilege."

[78] The test and criteria for the admission of proof secured by mechanical or electronic recordings is set out in Denis Cadieux vs. Le Service de Gaz Naturel Laval Inc. where Justice Gendreau J.C.A. states at page 2494, the general principal that such evidence is generally admissible;

"Je conclus cette question en rappelant que, dans la mesure où l'enregistrement mécanique d'une conversation par l'un des interlocuteurs rencontre les conditions générales d'admissibilité de la loi, que son contenu est pertinent au procès, elle devrait être produite et que l'article 5 de la charte québécoise ne devrait pas y faire échec, comme il n'empêche pas la production d'écrits privés addressés à des tiers ou même des papiers domestiques."

[79] Then he sets out the conditions for admissibility at pages 2494-2495:

"Si l'enregistrement audio est une technique fiable il remplace même les sténographes officiels dans les palais de justice – son utilisation est sujette et propice à tous les abus. La machine audio ou vidéo est soumise à son opérateur. Plus il sera habile et plus son équipement sera sophistiqué, plus il lui sera possible de truquer l'enregistrement ou, plus subtilement, de donner à un aspect ou à une partie de l'entretrien un relief qu'il n'avait pas en réalité. Un autre groupe de problèmes se rattache à la conservation du document et sa toujours possible altération qui, si elle est faite par un technicien compétent et bien outilé, sera difficilement décelable.

Aussi, la production d'un enregistrement mécanique impose à celui qui la recherche la preuve, d'abord, de l'identité des locuteurs, ensuite, que le document est parfaitement authentique, intégral, inaltéré et fiable et, enfin, que les propos sont suffisamment audibles et intelligibles. Les conséquences d'une erreur dans l'appréciation du document subséquemment admis en preuve sont si importantes que le juge doit être "entièrement convaincu", pour reprendre les mots du juge Pinard dans Hercy c. Hercy (déjà cité). Cette conviction n'est certes pas régie par la règle du droit criminel, mais le juge devra ici exercer sa discrétion avec une grande rigueur.

Sans proposer de règles ou normes précises, laissant aux plaideurs le soin de faire leur démonstration, la preuve du requérant devrait néanmoins être conduite de manière à entraîner une réponse affirmative aux critères que j'ai énumérés plus tôt. Quant à celui à qui on oppose ce moyen de preuve, il devrait lui être possible, s'il le demande, d'obtenir le document pour l'examiner personnellement ou avec l'aide d'experts. Il appartiendra alors au juge de définir les conditions de cet examen afin d'éviter toute altération.

J'ajoute aussi que, même si un document contenant une conversation rencontre les critères que j'ai énumérés, il pourra encore être écarté parce que non probant…

À mon avis et avec beaucoup d'égards, la remise d'une copie de l'enregistrement immédiatement après sa realisation n'est pas «la seule façon d'assurer l'authenticité du document» ni de «vérifier si la conversation a été enregistrée intégralement». Je crois avoir déjà exprimé l'étendue et l'objet de la preuve nécessaire dont le juge aura à se satisfaire pour autoriser la production du document…"

[80] The conditions and circumstances surrounding the present recording are as follows.

[81] Uri who has no prior experience with this kind of equipment, purchased a simple commercial recording device and received instructions on how to use it from the technician who sold it to him. He demonstrated his ability to adequately use the equipment before the Court.

[82] Uri inserted the device into his inner jacket pocket and commenced recording prior to entering the coffee shop. The recording runs for one hour and fifty-four minutes, approximately ten of which are during Uri's wait for Politi to appear.

[83]  Uri terminated the recording in frustration at the very end of their meeting when he shut off the recorder, and, after a couple of minutes stormed out of the coffee shop.

[84] Upon returning home, with the help of his ten-year-old son who is a "computer techie", Uri immediately downloaded the contents of the recording device onto his computer where he copied the entire contents directly onto a disk. The disk, which has been deposited into evidence, was then turned over to his attorneys for safekeeping.

[85] Uri has demonstrated that he can operate the recording device and that he faithfully downloaded its entire contents onto the disk which has been filed into the Court record.

[86] Both parties have attested to the fact that they met at the Starbucks in Toronto on the date, time and place of the recording.

[87] During their meeting, Politi asked Uri, once, if he was recording the conversation since Uri kept returning to the subject of the outstanding 1.2 million dollars. Uri denied that he was recording their conversation. In spite of his suspicions, Politi continued to converse with Uri.

[88] Uri's denial does not affect the admissibility of the recording, nor does it bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Uri was entitled to record his conversation with Politi in order to protect himself and to have a faithful record of what was said. Politi continued to talk, notwithstanding any suspicions he may have had, of his own volition, without threat, fear or inducement. Politi must bear the consequences of that decision.

[89] The tone of the conversation throughout the recording between the parties was calm and congenial. They review and discuss details of their father's will and estate plan, prior and present litigation over Father's will, their relationship to each other, their trust (or lack of) in each other, as well as the circumstances of the transfer of the apartment and outstanding payment.

[90] The contents of the recording are clear and intelligible. There are no moments of inaudibility. At times the voices drop as they would in any normal face-to-face conversation where the conversing parties turn from each other and don't "speak directly into the mike". In the context of the overall recording, these moments do not affect the thread of the conversation which always remains clear, logical, legible and comprehensible.

[91] Uri's version that he did not alter the recording has not been challenged by Politi. Nor has he challenged Uri's ability to manipulate the recording device and his downloading and copying of the entire recording. Moreover Politi, does not challenge the contents of the conversation save and except for the fact that Uri stopped the recording a couple of minutes before he left the coffee shop, minutes which Politi claims are critical because he then allegedly denied owing Uri any money.

[92] Politi's claim that those couple of minutes at the end of the conversation are material are not credible. Politi's claim is illogical and preposterous and contradicts the whole tenor of his prior conversation with Uri in which, during 1 hour 43 minutes, he never denied owing the money to Uri. Politi now claims that at the very end of their meeting he suddenly remembered to set the record straight and that therefore, the recording is incomplete and deficient. The Court does not believe him.

[93] The recording constitutes damning evidence against Politi in support of Uri's claim. On several occasions the issue of the payment of the 1.2 million dollars was discussed[24]. During the course of the entire discussion Politi never objected to such payment or denied that it is due. To the contrary, Politi agreed that it was due, that he had admitted he would pay in front of Me Bierbrier[25]. He repeatedly stated that first he needed Uri's help to get the Du Fort Property from Araujo[26]; that he had "failed to deliver"[27]; that he would "deliver" only when the Du Fort issue was resolved[28]. Moreover, Politi threatened to crush Araujo in the process of getting Du Fort, and, Uri as well, should Uri refuse to help Politi[29] acquire an interest in the Du Fort property.

[94] The tape shows evidence of extortion: Uri's assistance of Politi against Araujo in exchange for the money. It also makes proof of threats, by Politi against Uri and his family in the event Uri failed to cooperate.

[95] The Court is convinced that the recording is reliable, authentic, unaltered, complete and meets all the tests required by law. The recording and the transcription are hereby admitted into evidence.