Most US states (~45) are "one-party" consent jurisdictions.  
Is British Columbia (BC) a one-party consent or all-party consent jurisdiction?

---

Clarification of Question by grthumongous-ga on 21 Apr 2005 15:32 PDT

expertlaw, wasssup?

---

Clarification of Question by grthumongous-ga on 23 Apr 2005 11:36 PDT

Does anybody else want this one?

---

Clarification of Question by grthumongous-ga on 23 Apr 2005 15:06 PDT

markj, thanks for wading in. 
I want/hope to maintain a broad scope;the matter of telephonic
communications being a special case.

If no one else steps up to the plate by this time tomorrow I will ask you
to formulate an offical Answer.

---

Clarification of Question by grthumongous-ga on 24 Apr 2005 16:53 PDT

markj, "Go For It".  Please.

---

Request for Question Clarification by markj-ga on 26 Apr 2005 06:41 PDT

grthumongous --

Based on the reservations I expressed in my previous comment, I am
still not sure that I can give you an answer that would be satisfy me
(which is my usual standard for deciding whether to post an answer or
a comment.

But, before I decide whether I can give you the information you need,
please let me know what you mean by "maintain[ing] a broad scope."  In
my experience, "one-party," "two-party" and "all-party" consent refer
virtually exclusively to the recording of telephone conversations.  To
demonstrate my point, take a look at the results of a simple Google
search using the terms "one party" "two party" "consent":

"one party" "two party" consent
://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2004-01%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=%22one+party%22+%22two+party%22+consent

Finally, even if I decide that I can't do justice to the question, I
will post as a comment what else I have in the way of inconclusive,
but possibly useful, information.

markj-ga

---

Clarification of Question by grthumongous-ga on 27 Apr 2005 19:45 PDT

Sorry to be tardy responding to you.

By broad scope I meant for any and all circumstances in the jurisdiction of BC.  

e.g.  On the telephone, on a cell phone (analog or digital where
"expectations of privacy *may* be different than land-line, but where
digital technology makes its interception qualitatively harder than
"CB-radio" style analog),
in one's home, in one's business, in a restaurant, in a bar, in a car, on a bus.

As you can see the list is long. The telephone is one special case.
A link you provided gives a good example of drawing a line around
prohibited behaviour.

Prohibited:
A home-owner/parent could not record audio of the nanny with the kids
in the home WHILE the parent is away because NO provinces/states/feds
allow NO-party consent. The only exception *might* be if the kids were
the consentors.  So NO-party consent never permits recording audio.
You must have either one-party OR all-party consent.

CQ1)
So, the telephone scenario is one special case.  If you want to limit
the scope of your response to that alone, I will grant up to 4 stars.


The bar scenario has three variants.
CQ2) A reporter sidles up to the subject, identifies himself as a
reporter, and interviews the subject in BC.   Is one-party consent
enough (the reporter)?

CQ3) A reporter sidles up to the subject and interviews the subject in
BC.   but without stating "I am a reporter", just implying that he is
a fellow bar patron. Is one-party consent still enough (the reporter)?

CQ4) A reporter sidles up to the subject who is talking to a buddy.
The whiskey is already flowing. Loose talk sinks ships. The reporter
injects themselves into the conversation with a mere "Right On!", or
"A lot of people would agree!". Is one-party consent enough (the
reporter)?

CQ5)
A reporter sidles up to the subject who is talking to a buddy. The
whiskey is already flowing. Loose talk sinks ships. The reporter says
nothing, just observes/listens. Is one-party consent enough (the
reporter)?

I included CQ5 for completeness but I suppose it will be fuzzy--it
might turn on the "expectation of privacy" in a public bar.

You mean, for taping telephone calls?

expertlaw, I was thinking generally, for any situation in that jurisdiction.
If there is a solution for your specific scenario then please state it.

Since you have posted a string of unanswered questions of late, I
think you that you deserve a little feedback on this one.  I have
taken a look at this one and have not been able to come up with a
definitive answer.  Here's why:

1. The terms "one-party" and "two-party" consent usually refer to law
relating to the recording of telephone or other conversations where
there may (or may not) be an "expectation of privacy."

2. This sounds straightforward, but sometimes it gets complicated by
the fact that both state (or provincial) governments and the federal
government get into the act.  For example, in the U.S., the law
governing the recording of telephone conversations is generally found
at the state level, but, even in one-party consent states, federal law
makes it illegal for a broadcaster to record and broadcast a call
without the consent of the second party.

3.  In Canada, it appears that federal law provides that the recording
of telephone conversations generally can be done with the consent of
one party to the conversation. Here is one secondary source for that
general principle (other sources are available):

http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-canada.htm


4.  So far, so good, but British Columbia apparently has its own
"Privacy Act," which states generally that "privacy may be violated by
eavesdropping or surveillance, whether or not accomplished by
trespass."

http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/P/96373_01.htm


I fear that it would take a good working knowledge of B.C. provincial
statutory, regulatory and case law to determine where the provincial
and federal privacy laws overlap in their operation in order to sort
out the applicable law that governs the recording of telephone
conversations there.


I could give you an answer focused on Canadian federal law, but I
don't have the necessary "feel" for the federal/provincial
relationship in the Canadian legal system to make even an educated
guess on whether and how the B.C. situation is different.