A leaked audio recording that sparked a petition to disqualify Vision Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson and councillor Geoff Meggs could be the undoing of the legal action itself.

Robertson and Meggs’s counsel Bryan Baynham sought to undermine the value of the recording in his opening statement today (March 31) at the B.C. Supreme Court.

The petitioners’ lawyer David Wotherspoon told the court that the case at its core is about “electoral fairness”, and that it shouldn’t be decided “on technicality”.

The recording had Meggs telling city hall outside workers represented by Local 1004 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees that Robertson had “recommitted to not expand contracting out”.

The meeting was held in October 2014 in the lead-up to the civic election in November that year in which Robertson and Meggs won new terms.

The tape also had Kyla Epstein of CUPE Local 1004 saying that the union has “looked at how much money we would have to spend…to carry [curry] favor with Vision in expanded negotiations” of its contract with city hall.

Later in the meeting, the union recommended a campaign donation to Vision totalling $34,000. Matching donations from other CUPE provincial and national entities brought the amount to $102,000.

The petition is based on the claim that Robertson and Meggs are deemed disqualified from holding office pursuant to the provisions of the Vancouver Charter because of conflict of interest.

According to the written argument by the petitions, “Those provisions forbid a candidate from attempting in any way to influence the outcome of a matter to come before council where he or she has a direct pecuniary benefit in relation to that matter.”

Before the hearing started, Meggs was asked by the Straight what the case ultimately boils down to.

“It’s an attempt to rewrite the election outcome,” Meggs responded.

During a break in the morning’s proceedings, one of the five petitioners noted that the defence wants to avoid discussion about the nature of the case.

“The fundamental thing is was there a conflict of interest,” Randy Helten, a former mayoral candidate, told the Straight.

In his opening statement, Baynham told the court that the evidence of the petitioners is inadmissible, describing it as “quadruple hearsay”.

“What we have is a partial tape,” Baynham said, referring to the fact that the recording does not cover the entire CUPE 1004 meeting.

According to Baynham, it also came from an “anonymous source”.

The lawyer argued that there is no case to begin with, saying that the petitioners were not even able to “get to first base”.

Wotherspoon told the court that Meggs made a pledge to CUPE 1004 members to vote in a particular way that in effect confers them a benefit, which are jobs.

According to Wotherspoon, Meggs’s statement wasn’t just a statement of policy but rather a specific commitment on jobs.

As elected municipal politicians, Robertson’s and Meggs’s obligation is to the city’s taxpayers and no one else, the lawyer noted.

“You can’t serve two masters,” Wotherspoon said.

The court resumes hearing the petition this afternoon and tomorrow (April 1).