Legal

February 11, 2026 Published by Huronia Chapter - By Sonja Hodis

Peel Condo Corporation No. 96 V. Leuzzi - Use Of Recordings Of Meetings As Evidence

From the CCI Huronia Winter 2026 Condo Buzz Newsletter

In this case, Mr. Leuzzi made a recording of an owner’s townhall meeting which he wanted to introduce into evidence in the court case. He also wanted to introduce a recording of a meeting between a board member and another resident at which Mr. Leuzzi was not present. The condo corporation objected to the introduction of these recordings. The Court held that the recording between a board member and another resident was not admissible because first hand evidence was potentially available from the people that were at this meeting and the fact that the individuals were reluctant to testify was not a reason to allow the recording. In addition, the court had concerns that the recording was condensed from its original form and the missing parts affected its reliability. In terms of the recording of the townhall meeting, the Court allowed the recording to be entered as narrative evidence to help explain what occurred but not for the truth of the contents. The Court indicated that the recording would help to understand how the meeting unfolded and to assess the credibility of those involved including Mr. Leuzzi. The Court in their decision, used the recording of the meeting to find that Mr. Lezuzzi attempted to hijack the meeting and it used comments made by Mr. Lezuzzi against him.

The lessons to be learned from the Court’s decisions in relation to these recordings are:

• If you are wanting to admit a recording, you should not edit it so that the full recording is available for the court to review.
• The best evidence will always be the direct evidence of a witness. Having a witness testify or sign an affidavit will be better than just relying on a recording.
• You never know when someone is recording a conversation so you should always remember that what you say or do may end up in front of a judge. Most of us know that it is important that we always pay attention to the letters/emails/text messages we write as a judge may end up reviewing them. This case reminds us that we should also be aware of how we conduct ourselves during meetings whether they are in person, on the phone or by video conference. The recordings may be reviewed by a judge and used to determine issues in a court case.
• Be careful what you ask for and carefully review your evidence. Mr. Leuzzi wanted the recordings admitted and the condo objected. While the Court allowed the recordings as Mr. Leuzzi wanted, they did not help him in this case. They were used to make findings against him.

Although not discussed in this case, it is also important to remember that under the Criminal Code it is illegal to record a conversation between individuals if you are not part of the conversation unless you have a court order permitting it. Such recordings will likely not be admissible and may result in you being on the wrong side of the law.

Dosu v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario - A Tale of Two Judges

This case does not involve a condo corporation but it is a good reminder that the result of any case you may have before a judge, adjudicator or arbitrator is never guaranteed. The end result always depends on the person who is making the decision and is a variable that usually you can’t control. In this case, a judicial review application was filed and a party was seeking to intervene in the case. The “intervenor” application was done in writing and by mistake the same case materials were sent to two different judges who each rendered a decision one day apart. One judge allowed the application while the other judge denied the applicant. When reading the two decisions rendered, it was interesting to note that each judge focused on different things to reach their decision despite the fact that they both had the same facts and arguments before them. After discovering this embarrassing mistake, the Court ended up quashing both decisions and allowed the intervenor to join the case because all parties ended up consenting to that outcome. Unfortunately, despite the Court’s mistake, neither party was awarded any costs. Each party ended up paying for their own costs.

The lessons to be learned from this case are:

• The outcome in any case is not guaranteed – even if you think you have the best case, the judge/ adjudicator/arbitrator may not see it the same way you do. The only way to control the outcome is to mediate a solution with the other side on terms you can both live with.
• Judges/adjudicators/arbitrators come from different backgrounds and experiences and as such, they may look at your case differently than you do. Make sure when you are making submissions to a decision maker you don’t assume they will see things the same way you do. Make sure to explain what you believe are important facts and arguments in a clear, direct and concise manner to ensure that you have brought your view of the case to their attention.
• Litigation is risky and costly. You are never guaranteed a win and even if you win, you are not guaranteed to be reimbursed the costs spent to achieve the result. Managing the risk and the costs are part of the litigation strategy you should discuss with your legal advisors. Controlling the outcome and costs can only be achieved through settlement discussions and mediation. If you leave the outcome to a third party to decide, there is no guarantee you will end up with the result you think you deserve. There are many variables that you can not control in the decision-making process.

Sonja Hodis
Hodis Law