Do photography/videography bans in police stations and "public" buildings violate the Charter?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ก.ย. 2024
- Some police agencies have banned photography and videography in the publicly-accessible parts of their police stations, threatening to remove violators for trespassing. Is this Charter-compliant? TL;DR: Probably not.
That said, I think a policy that that focused on the disruption of ordinary operations (whether by 'aggressive' photography or otherwise) would be Charter compliant: "Anyone who interferes with the efficient operation of the facility may be asked to leave and may be served a notice under the Trespass to Property Act."
Here are my previous, related videos:
► Photography in public places - • Taking photos and reco...
► Photographing the police in public - • Recording the police i...
Where you can find me
► Privacylawyer blog: blog.privacyla...
► My law firm: www.mcinnescoo....
► Twitter: / privacylawyer
► LinkedIn: / davidtsfr. .
Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel.
All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.
#canada #charter #charterofrights #photography #videography #auditing #auditors #law
You're one of the only ones clarifying this sort of thing for Canadians. Thank you for that.
th-cam.com/video/fTlhI9sskH0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
Interesting, I just had an incident involving this in a Service Canada office. Long story short, they were openly profiling and discriminating against me in what appeared to be a wild workplace environment, and they suddenly changed their tune when I pulled out my phone and started recording. I really didn't want to do it but I have had my fill of always enduring extremely condescending lectures by the most incompetent narcissists that they can find to work in this awful places.
th-cam.com/video/fTlhI9sskH0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
Thanks for your thorough discussion regarding this. Police, more than any government agencies, need to be held accountable and closely monitored by “citizen journalists” due to their corrupt and violent tendencies!
🎉🎉🎉
Is there any kind of accountability for violating the charter ? Police departments should face some kind of accountability for this very probable violation of the charter. It sounds ridiculous that the police violates the charter with impunity.
That depends on how much money you want to spend.
th-cam.com/video/fTlhI9sskH0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
th-cam.com/video/fTlhI9sskH0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
I LOVE that you made this video. This is a big topic right now. Great timing!
Agreed 👍
The perceived ownership of public property is disturbing.😮 apparently I'm a wingnuts!😮
Don't know if you're a wingnut, but it seems relatively well settled that someone can be "trespassed" from a public building or facility. But the Charter trumps that if it infringes freedom of expression. You may find this case to be of interest: R. v. Semple and Héroux, 2004 ONCJ 55 canlii.ca/t/1h6b1
🎉🎉🎉
It is my belief that the over riding important issue is justice in the presence of police. It has been proven too many times that not all police are trustworthy, and have lied in court to the detriment of a citizen. The law must be clear that civilians need to be able to record when in the presence of a police officer. That includes in police stations. These points are indisputable facts.
th-cam.com/video/fTlhI9sskH0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS VIDEO
I'M A PART TIME CITIZEN JOURNALIST THAT RECORDS POLICE AND GOVERNMENT
THIS HAS HELPED CLEAR UP SOME THINGS I'VE ENCOUNTERED OVER YEARS
KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK IN EDUCATING THE PUBLIC WE NEED MORE PEOPLE LIKE YOU WILLING TO HELP
LOVE RESPECT FRIENDSHIP
❤️❤️🥃🥃👹👹🤠🤠
☮💜🌻
Thanks for your kind words.
MY OLD CHANNEL NAME IS
BIG RED OGRE IT HAS MORE VIDEOS THAN THIS ONE
HAD SOME CRAZY ENCOUNTERS WITH TORONTO POLICE
LOVE RESPECT FRIENDSHIP
❤️❤️🥃🥃👹👹🤠🤠
🎉🎉🎉
Signs are up in all Edmonton police buildings. In Edmonton Alberta, the police have also installed cell signal blockers inside the lobbies of their police stations.
One that really amazes me is the police taking roadside breath samples for alcohol without reasonable suspicion. Several police forces have stated they will use breathalyzers on every traffic stop, and this has already been supported by the courts. How?!
This is just excellent. Thank you for taking the time to make these well-researched videos.
th-cam.com/video/fTlhI9sskH0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
Leaving my obligatory algorithm comment.
I do enjoy this content and thus I have liked and sappacaribed.
Excellent information!
Thanks for the video 👍
th-cam.com/video/fTlhI9sskH0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
Trespass to property act is for Private property, government is not private. So with this how can they be using this to Trespass anyone acting on the "Right" being exercised at the time?
Here's a case you may find interesting. The Court did not question that Toronto City Hall could be the subject of a Trespass to Property Act notice, but struck it down as unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional, not because it was "public property" but because it interfered with freedom of expression. The same would apply to a police station. R. v. Semple and Héroux, 2004 ONCJ 55 canlii.ca/t/1h6b1
@@privacylawyer This is great, once again I Thankyou 🌻
🎉🎉🎉
th-cam.com/video/fTlhI9sskH0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
Welcome to Canada, where we have a law for literally anything we do. Also where police will violate the law because they know it will cost you thousands of $$$ to get thrown out in court.
th-cam.com/video/fTlhI9sskH0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
Great video! But weird jump cut at 9:20 also I would suspect your advice on how to challenge these policies will go unheeded and some “auditor” will press the issue
Why the brackets?
th-cam.com/video/fTlhI9sskH0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
I'm very interested in the whole subject of our rites as outlined in our Canadian Charter. I am also referring to anywhere that denotes a public space and therefore public access. This is not just in sreference to public spaces within public buildings such as: police stations, city halls, court houses, municipal airports, and the like. I believe this rite of public space needs to be realized in private institutions as well such as: grocery stores, drug stores, malls, restaurants and the like. Just because some little arrows are put down/on the floor of a grocery store isle encouraging or demanding that I follow in the direction of those arrows doesn't mean that I am obligated to walk in that direction while getting my groceries-I'm not in prison here I'm just getting groceries. Because the store did not require me to follow those arrows when I was given free access to come into the store then I am not obligated to.
The main concern that I'm having here when it comes to our rites as stated in our 'charter of rites and fre-edoms' appears to be a denial of those rites when, it comes to our courthouses. Actually or technically they are still regarded as public courthouses even if they are not called by that name very often. In Calgary, Alberta where I live this public courthouse complex is called Calgary Courts. As soon as you walk into the building you are forced to be scanned and basically searched even if you are not appearing in court You might be just getting a form or booking a small claims case. It doesn't matter, you are still required to be scanned and searched. I find that not only ludicrous but also unlawful. In otherwards it appears that they are changing a public space into a private one or at least into a secured area and a secured area cannot be regarded as a place where the public is free to go. And yet it is a public building so where can the public go where they will be unmolested and free to film.
I accept the standard practice of not allowing filming or recording in court rooms and hallways in Canada (at least for now) but how can there be any public space where filming in public is allowed in a building such as the Calgary Courts where there is a courtroom or two or more on almost every floor. When it is the practice of regarding the hallways outside the courtroom as part of the courtroom itself then there isn't much room for any space to be regarded as public. And yet there are still public offices on that same floor where the public need to go inorder to carry out their legal business. Because of our rite to film in public then I also should -have the rite to film and record my interaction during my business with a court clerk at a public counter.
The act of filming or recording from a public space because it is a rite cannot be deemed to be disruptive or disturbing the peace. What they did though to disturb the peace was to send 7 sherrifs to intimidate me and said I couldn't film in public. Then they stole my phone and deleted the two videos I had filmed and basically manhandled me out the front door. I'm still not done with this matter but I want to be more methodical about it and utilize more legal and lawful channels. If a lawsuit or something like that can be utilized to change the position of the courthouse in regards the rite to film in public then I will proceed with that at some point. I don't film in public to cause a stir and I don't have a Y-tube channel, it is simply to record my interaction with any government official or anyone so that if necessary I can refer to the videa at a later time to double check on the information that I recieved from the initial encounter.
I will watch for your videos. And thanks for providing this information for the people we need it. My name is Colin.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Rules like this are just ridiculously redundant/superfluous. You can put any sign out in any station you want or make any rule in any constitution you want, but I can secretly record anywhere and then walk out again with them none the wiser. As if nothing ever happened. And that is the standard that everyone should be judged by. Why? Because it's common sense.
Thanks for this one. I enjoy your channel. One comment... if I visit either of the two mentioned police services and if my car has a dash camera, can I no longer park on those premises?
th-cam.com/video/fTlhI9sskH0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
Yes!
Awesome video! Thank you
This was SO interesting, David! Your explanation of the reasoning process to test these potential infringements on our rights is very clear. I really liked your examples at the end, summing up your conclusions. I suggest you do more of these. (Btw, I'm thinking hard about how municipal restrictions on drone use could be infringements on our rights, but realize they probably aren't. ...)
More like probably are
Thanks for your kind words, Don. If municipal restrictions have the effect of interfering with expression (which drone videography is an expressive activity), then the Charter is engaged. Protecting wildlife in a national park or a wildlife sanctuary is likely enough of a justification, but I don't think municipalities have really turned their minds to this sort of thing to be able to justify it.
@@privacylawyerYes, the videography of art would be an infringement...I'm just not so sure about what could be called the mechanism to do the videography...the flying of a device with whirling blades (as a member of the public may consider it). The fact that it is a closely regulated activity would be a good argument towards the "it's safe" angle.
Section 1 of the Charter renders our entire Charter as weak. I admire the American constitution in that there isn't a way for the Supreme Court to basically excuse Charter violations because the violation was thought to be reasonable. Liberal vs conservative judges make such decisions based on political leanings, but the Charter should be apolitical and should have rigid stances that remain consistent regardless of the political beliefs of judges.
Has anyone ever attempted to abolish section 1? I would like to see it repealed.
To say i have rights unless a panel of judges decides violating them is reasonable is basically saying my rights are not guaranteed. The US would have none of this and neither should Canada.
I agree 💯%!!!
_The US would have none of this and neither should Canada._
Americans have just allowed their supreme court to grant presidents complete immunity from the law for illegal acts committed 'during work hours' (simplified for the layman).
@imacmill I agree this is problematic in many respects. But even with this in place, the US constitution is still bulletproof compared the Canadian Charter.
THANK YOU 🎉 🇨🇦
Permission to photograph in a public library? This goes against charter of rights.
I recall a class re privacy and Canada recording of employees came up,, Think an energy company went through it and someone else. as the employee said they were trying to just get him fired.. Think Union won and it came out that public area can have cameras and non public cant. Vehicle cams werent out at the time to see where it fits.
th-cam.com/video/fTlhI9sskH0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
Thankyou for this 👍👍
Very good info👍
A great video on this topic. Thank you.
Always interesting, David!
I’m pretty sure you give up your right to privacy by being on public property. The same law that allows police to record you entering the building is the same law that allows you to record on public property. The same law that allows businesses to record outside their premises.
Even falsely convicted are being prevented from protesting both in courthouses & court grounds. I'm falsely convicted & was told to leave Edmonton Courthouse grounds on Law Day when I showed up with my protest sign. I'll do it again if anyone wants to see what happens. False convictions are an inherent part of our legal system, so although public needs to be informed, I was told there's kids & it doesn't look good.
Did you record it???
@@NewsNowVictoria No, but like a science experiment, I'd bet anyone would get same results, but how does muting falsely convicted serve public interest while people are marching into court to commit perjury to help "the good guys", not realizing they're causing false convictions.
calling out the wing nuts as they are. Good work !
You know how you know he is a good lawyer? That view isn’t cheap.
I live in the North Bay area. I am a follower of many Charter auditors. There is one of them here in North Bay. I am also a strong supporter of accountability. How do we get this policy changed to better adhere to the Charter? Can this be done without spending a whole bunch of money? Is there a support service that could help us to follow through with the process of chellenging these tyrannical policies?
You may want to contact the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to see if this is something they'd want to take on. Contact your city counsellor or the local police services board, let them know it is unconstitutional and you want it changed.
I follow Ontario Audit. He came here and went into city hall and the police station and they let him be. He had some issues in city hall where security called police. They came in and let him be. This is a good sign.
All Calgary Police Departments have ( NO PHOTOGRAPHY SIGNS on the Doors
Yes they do public is public period they film us twenty four seven !
Thanks again for the civics lesson
Thank you , I 👍and Subbed , please keep making informative videos .
My main question is, if these policies are a violation and are waiting for someone eith deep pockets to fight it, why dont lawyers just use their pro bono duty yo challenge charter infringement?
Many of them do. I guess this specific issue hasn't been at the top of their lists, yet. In this case, which is really similar, I know the CCLA lawyers were pro bono and I expect the lawyers for the individual charged were also pro bono. Stewart v. Toronto (Police Services Board), 2020 ONCA 255 canlii.ca/t/j6fwl
I was trespassed from the Yarmouth Nova Scotia town hall today for filming while conducting my business I’m apparently subject to arrest if I return within the next 5 months however while I was there today i received a voter information update form as I’m required to update my information to be able to vote in the next municipal election but I need to return the form with a copy of my id before Friday September 20th or it cannot be mailed out to my home and if I miss the drop off deadline I must pick up my voter card from town hall with photo I’d but I can’t do that because I’m trespassed limiting my ability to vote not only removing me from public property
If an authorized person representing a public establishment revokes someone's implied license to be on the property just on a "Whim". I.E. No explanation why, then that person has to leave. Better to not give an explanation. At least that is what a B.C. Prov. court judge ruled back in the 80's that I am aware of. My two cents
In Alberta they will charge you for giving the police the finger isn't this also a violation of section 2?
Yup. You may find this case to be of interest: R v Wells, 2016 ABPC 171 canlii.ca/t/gsjtw
but they have cameras in all these places!!!
If only following political means was effective. Here in NS ive never had responses from kind emails, phone messages, in persin drop ins, etc etc from local council, to MLA Dave Ritcry, And to Tim Houston. The later was not just my MLA, but became Premier as well.
So i dont think the proper path is useful. And I support the conservatives. So how does one get things done when they dont respond to constituents?
So, my camera is a problem? If one has an identic mind would they be jailed for what their eyes can see?
Surely it should be how the video or photography is used?
If it's used to dox, or defame, and shared publicly for that purpose then there are likely legal steps that could be taken; harrasement, defamation, breech of privacy(?), etc..
If citizen journalists or advocacy groups, or a public person wanted to share the video, the identifiable info can be easisly removed; license plates, faces, addresses info can all be masked. If your not willing to mask stuff out before sharing, perhaps your motives come into question.
Laziness, and making up rules as they go seems to be the norm.
Yes, they do
There are so many US TH-camrs exercising essentially the same rights and freedoms that are outlind in the Charter and doing very good work at making the activities government officials transparent.
When it comes to privacy, government workers are in the public realm and can't expect privacy as such while performing their duties such as in a police station. Their salaries and titles are also public information.
When it comes to the privacy of citizens, it is the responsibility of citizens to make private their activities and not perform or expose private activities, or private information, in the public realm. Just close a door and lock it. Now they are private.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public.
BTW. We live in a surveillances society. There are cameras everywhere and, also, your internet activities are not private.
You are being watched. Big Brother has come to roost.
There are Canadian auditors as well doing some good work up here 👍
@@prairie745 Yeah...I've seen a few. The only problem I ave with auditing here in Canada is that the LAW/Charter can be a bit flimsy when it comes to the courts. The USA Constitution seems to be more rock solid. I belive that if there were more canadian auditors, these inconsistencies in own own charter would be called out and then firmed up. Although the Carter is broader in scope, it tends to have a few holes in it. The Bill of Rights, now superceded by the Charter tends to be more rigid and helps to address inconsistencies in the newer Charter. A good example is the right to travel freely within Canada without harassment or molestation by any government agent. Case in point. The Ontario RIDE program which randomly stops innocent motorists to see if the driver is potentially a DUI suspect. This is no different than the police showing up at your door at any time and investigating you for any crime without any reasonable suspicion of a crime and demanding answers with the threat of arrest and or seizure of property as is the case with the RIDE program where the police WILL seize you, your drivers license and place you under arrest if you do not comply and answer their demands. I disagree with this program based solely on what the Bill of Rights says about my rights and freedoms. The Charter is weak on the matter. Unfortunately the Supreme Court of Canada upholds the right of Ontario police agencies to maintain this program. Several states in the USA have dropped similar programs based on their unconstitutional nature.
@@Ian-iu2tl I totally agree with you on the DUI stuff. How many 🇨🇦 'Auditors'/copwatchers do you follow, just asking
@@prairie745 I've seen a few Canadian auditors and generally I don't watch them because I am fearful for their defeat as I believe it is more likely than in the USA. I figure it this way. If someone is to engage in auditing, one had better have the time and financial resources for lawyers etc as well as a fair justice system. Let's not forget what the self-serving psychopath Trudeau did in early 2022. What a travesty of justice. So, I tend to watch more of the US stuff for sure. It is more satisfying from a legal standpoint and educational as it closely mirrors what is "supposed" to happen in Kanada-Stan.
Haha cops worried about being on video!! What a joke..
IMHO you are failing to mention sec 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Section 33: The Notwithstanding Clause
Text of Section 33:
(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.
(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.
(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).
Explanation:
The "notwithstanding clause" permits the federal Parliament or any provincial legislature to temporarily override certain sections of the Charter for a period of up to five years, after which the override must be renewed to remain in effect. This includes the fundamental freedoms in Section 2 (including Section 2(b) on freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression) and legal rights sections 7 to 15
The notwithstanding clause has not been invoked with respect to the Ontario Trespass to Property Act, so it didn't come into play with respect to these policies.
@@privacylawyer It is my understanding that a "legal action" is not required, it is the right of non federal governments. (Quebec has its own "Privacy" law). IMHO the issue with 2B is its misuse and allows the infringement of sec 7 when "2B Auditors' publish the images of individuals and businesses for profit with out authorization. (copyright or model release0. There was a case in Quebec where the province found the photographer in violation of a person privacy when he/she published the image. It was upheld by the Supreme Court, as a violation of Sec 7.
The legislature has to "expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be .... " So it has to be in the Act or another Act of the legislature.
@@privacylawyerI agree if its a by law, but it could be a policy of a particular location. enacted by a city council. if everything had to be sent to a parliament for approval nothing would get done in government. If you are correct then city councils, school boards etc. should not exist,
@@privacylawyer th-cam.com/video/p00TDqbSjSE/w-d-xo.html An example of the use of sec 2b
I subscribed ☝️🇨🇦☝️
Officer safety = Cowardice
Maybe you should be involved in a high stakes case and worried about your identity being divulged. Bet you would have a whole different outlook if people were out to kill you because they got your image from someone inside the police station. And what about just plain old common courtesy. People like to remain anonymous.
No expectation of 'privacy' out in public
@@prairie745 No expectation of common sense and common courtesy neither.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
@@user-mv5np8gm6q exactly!! 🤣😂
The CCTV cameras of Toronto Police 53 Division don't work! I requested them from the head quartets, and they told me that the information asked doesn't exist!?!?
th-cam.com/video/fTlhI9sskH0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb