Can a surreptitious recording of a meeting be admitted as evidence?

I did however rule that the recordings and written translations of the two in-person meetings were admissible. The principles governing the admission of such surreptitious recordings were canvassed in detail by Gray J. in Lam v. Chiu, 2012 BCSC 440. She reviewed a number of key authorities including, in particular, A.M.E.R. v. P.J.R., 2003 BCSC 1466, where Williamson J. held that there are three criteria for determining the admissibility of these kind of recordings: relevance, identification and trustworthiness. Williamson J. also considered the question of fairness and the effect on the reputation of the administration of justice of allowing surreptitiously obtained recordings into evidence.