Thanks for mentioning my court case: Reynolds vs Deep Water Recovery. DWR has been successful slowing the case down. Months wasted while they tried to stop the Protection of Public Participation Act application claiming it didn't apply to their countersuit. Wrong - the lions share of their countersuit was tossed by the judge and costs awarded to my great lawyer, Jason Gratl from the PPPA application. We have a trial date for October 2025.
Great video, I liked how you dove into the nuances. My neighbours home was for sale. The realtor did a drone video. Higher altitude with neighborhood perspective .... Evolving to a low altitude circuit of the home. The video did capture some neighbouring property details, in a fly-by kind of way. It provide an awesome overall external video of the subject home...
In Canada..........To keep yourself and others safe, fly your drone: where you can always see it You can fly at night if you have lights on your drone below 122 metres (400 feet) in the air away from bystanders, at a minimum horizontal distance of 30 metres for basic operations away from emergency operations and advertised events Avoid forest fires, outdoor concerts and parades away from airports and heliports 5.6 kilometres (3 nautical miles) from airports 1.9 kilometres (1 nautical mile) from heliports outside controlled airspace (for basic operations only) far away from other aircraft Don’t fly anywhere near airplanes, helicopters and other drones
@@privacylawyer I'm here for the 'entertainment value' and it delivers there as well. I've got an R-PAL and don't drink so don't need DUI info but your videos are of interest. (An episode on current EDC knife spec allowances would be helpful.)
Great video. As with so many topics, it’s rarely ever black and white - there’s always a bit of a grey area. Thanks for your clear and thoughtful explanation.
Hi David, I'm and Ontario paralegal (and R/C model glider enthusiast) who's watched TC and the CARs regulation slowly erode my hobby over the past 10 years with stiffling restrictions and paperwork (to fly legally) to the point where's it's almost impossible to fly recreationally. I'm wondering if you've ever worked alongside, or in consultation with, MAAC (Model Aronautics Association of Canada). We could sure use your input/expertise.
I try my best to not intrude into the privacy of others but when flying my drone it does attract more unsolicited attention than say me walking around with a pair of binoculars or my camera with a telephoto lens for bird photography. Many folks have a perceived notion that drones have eyes like an eagle and are able to capture intimate details from 20m, even 40m up. Thanks for this overview. As someone with a legal background and also a recreational drone flyer your advise carries a whole lot more credence. Have subbed to be more informed👍👍🙂
Hmmm. Is there anything preventing someone from enjoying their property by operating a slingshot in the general direction of the treetops when a drone happens to be cruising over their yard?
@@dwaynepenner2788 If it's an aircraft it should be at the regulated altitude. I beieve that is 500 feet in open country and 1000 feet (or metric equivalents) over built up areas.
Interesting that they would go back to before Confederation, but then again I guess that is what is meant by "law of the land"... Thanks for another great video.
Great video, sounds like bottom line all drone pilots are at legal risk of privacy claims and need to consider that when flying. I wonder if CAR 900.06 can apply here but that was be fact dependent. Question: should all drone operators get insurance to protect against this type of claim ?
I'm an old-timer brought up on the principle that a man's home is his castle and has a right to privacy. The concept of owning the airspace is flawed because that could be interpreted by making it illegal for aircraft to fly high over your home. I think that there should be a definition of the minimum height (not a vague definition but a defined height in metres) over private property for drones. You brought up certain exceptions if someone was located next door to Hydro or other such installation that the agency or company has to use drones over your property but must provide proof of that right.
@@jetstream6389 You would have to phone transport canada and ask them the legality of drones I am a pilot and know the law regarding airplanes but drones are something I have never had to deal with. If you have drones hovering over your property phone the police. The meth heads are using drones to scope out rural property before breaking in and stealing things now.
Though you do have the reasonable right to privacy in your own spaces, drones looking into windows, down onto your property, seems immoral if not criminal. Scoping out people being in their own private space with them expectating reasonable privacy, is a fundamental violation of the meaning of the law.
Thanks for this, David. It was concise, clear and just excellent. I’m in B.C. - not a drone operator - but I have a question. If there is no legislation in Canada regulating drone flight (a) what about aerodromes and defence installations? Are they covered by some kind of regulation? And (b) you will frequently see signage to the effect that an area is a ‘No Drones’ area. Is this not backed up by any law and is just there to discourage drone operators but lacks teeth? Terrific video. Thanks.
Yeah, this video was only about trespass law and didn't cover the Canadian Aviation Regulations which do regulate where and how drones can operate, depending on the mass of the drone. And there are other laws that can apply. There can be restrictions on where all drones can operate, but most of the "no drones" signs I've seen do not have to do with any particular law or regulation.
I have a question about drones taking pictures. Would it be legal for a municipality to fly a drone over one's property to check for bylaw infractions. We have a five acre lot in the country in a municipality that spans a huge area. Some residents are concerned that this could happen as a mistrust in our council is ever growing 😕 Any help would be greatly appreciated 👍 thanks kindly
For a municipality to do this, it would engage s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: "8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure." The question would turn on whether it is authorized by a reasonable law, or whether there is a subjective and objective reasonable expectation of privacy. The outcome of that analysis would really depend on what's going on.
refer to the case out in his province where one judge said no and it was tossed on appeal that they can walk all around your property . and an insurance company inspector gets it also
@@privacylawyerI’m originally from Edmonton and we had a very interesting situation there. The West Edmonton Mall was at the time owned by three brothers of the Gherzmezian family. The brothers purchased three houses located immediately adjacent to each other in a very upscale area of Edmonton. Many trees were planted around the three houses to obscure them from the street and other neighbours. It was only when the city did either aerial photography or checked satellite photos (apparently a routine thing) was it discovered that the houses had been connected by enclosed walkways with no building permits and contrary to zoning. The walkways were allowed to remain so some settlement must have been reached.
I live on a wooded acreage with trees all around it forming a solid block; many of which reach 100 ft, only about 2 Acres close to the residence are cleared. I have an expectation of total privacy.
If I was going to modernize the law I would either say that your airspace above your property is “protected” either to the height of the tallest structure or some arbitrary altitude like 100 M AGL(for clarity I’m not using a legal term here. I’m aware of transport Canada airspace definitions and regulations)
That's an interesting point. In my view, 100M would be too high, since Transport Canada recommends that even 250g drones fly below 120M because crewed aircraft are very unlikely to be at that altitude. I think I could live with "no lower than 20M above an occupied residence, measured from the peak of the residence."
I wonder what the law would say if drone, hovering directly over my property, were to inexplicably fail and land/crash on my property. Would I then be able to claim the the drone as my property?
Yes, in the same way that the old latin maxim doesn't describe the state of the law (in Canada) for airspace rights, it does not accurately describe the law with respect to mineral rights. If your neighbour were to build an underground bunker 50 feet below grade that extended into your property, you'd probably have a claim for trespass.
Hello, David: Thank you for this video. There MAY be some guidance to be found in case law regarding airports and the constitutionally superior position of the federal government to regulate in the area. See the Person Airport cases where the city of Mississauga wanted the airport to get a building permit for a new terminal. The decisions basically said "no" to the need for a permit as the airport is under exclusive federal jurisdiction. Airports are inherently a nuisance and depending on how close your property is to the runway, aircraft may be an invasion of your airspace. I don't know if there has been a successful case against an airport for nuisance, trespass, or use of airspace. Just curious.
@@tundrusphoto4312 even if one did try to sue the federal government over the placement of an airport there are a myriad of hurdles and pretty much a guarantee of failure (assuming the government followed it own rules and policies in making the decisions it it).
Gee.......I guess there is nothing that I can do. Once the drone is knocked down, I suppose I'll never learn who the owner is. Guess there is nothing I can do. Too bad 😂.
@@uslanja the drone operator WILL know where his drone is, and the law will very, very likely be on his side not yours. Go ahead and read section 77 of the Canadian criminal code and know that a drone has the legal definition of an aircraft and pay attention to the up to 5 year/$100k penalty for a conviction.
@@patricescattolin43 No, there are a lot of differences with the laws in Quebec as compared to Canadian law-everything from matrimony to death. Their system is based on the Napoleonic code where the laws in the remainder of Canada are not. That's as far as I can go on this topic....over to our host.😁
Something to be said for privacy curtains and other means to shield yourself from intruders. If you can prove someone is harassing you I think you have a right to civil action.
I'm just wondering what problems there would be associated with flying barrage balloons from your own property. Barrage balloons would discourage drones flying over the property...
As I can tell, the civil law is relaxed compared to TC regulations. Also there by-laws issued by certain municipalities that can greatly restrict where one can fly their drone. I think that hitting a person with a drone (or its parts, such a propeller) could potentially go under criminal law. And I'm pretty sure that hitting with a drone a moving car on a road / highway would bee seen as such.
Municipal bylaws can restrict where somebody is permitted to launch/land a drone, but they cannot restrict the use of airspace. That's the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal ministers of transport and defence.
@@BallHawkG >Municipal bylaws can restrict where somebody is permitted to launch/land a drone, but they cannot restrict the use of airspace.< Sounds right. But the municipality restricting location of the launch and land *de facto* restricts access to the airspace, even without restriction de iure. For ex. in Toronto, you can fly a drone without licence and other approvals only if it's 250 g or less. You cannot launch it from downtown area... and the range of those are too small to fly them from outside of the city. If you are licensed (an advanced RPAS operator certificate) you still need NAV Canada authorization and you need to follow Billy Bishop ATC (if given). Basically, introducing new laws few years back, they killed all the fun of flying drones, especially FVP ones.
It would be nice if someone would cover the rights of a drone flyer as far as being harassed while operating a drone. I can't seem to find the law that applies to people interrupting the drone operator and creating a safety risk. If the law was easy to find, then at least I could quote it to ignorant people.
Good point! Another area of drone law that is little known, is that even in the face of municipal guidelines prohibiting the use of drones for aircraft safety, mico-drones are exempt. They are considered too small to cause any significant damage. (example: the difference between a hummingbird or an eagle being sucked into a jet airplane's intake).
@@dwaynepenner2788 read it, and nothing seems to apply. Definitely written for planes and airports. Laws seem prejudicial to drone flyers. Lots of info how to turn in bad pilot but nothing about the publics responsibilities.
@@dwaynepenner2788 There are some municipalities that impose their own interpretation for drones. Many don't understand the aviation laws or criminal law, but want to prohibit any drone at all costs.
I would say that we don't have any rights in Canada. Section 33 of the charter makes this abundantly clear. Add to that the fact that even when in "the right", the process and associated costs of proving you are "right" is, in itself, a punishment. To add insult to injury, the taxes you pay are used against you in your own prosecution.
Incorrect about not having "any" rights in Canada. We have SOME but they're indeed potenitally up for being infringed upon via section 33. They still have to pass the Oakes test, albeit indeed there's that risk and resource asymmetry between the government and those it's impacting by the use of section 33.
@freezerlunik It's not a "right" if it can be infringed upon. Just like free speech isn't free speech if there are any restrictions: it is "restricted speech". These are binary concepts. I'm not arguing for or against anything. I'm just trying to prevent misinformation.
Which Canada, The DEMOCRACY or the Commonwealth? According to common law, if you have exclusive right of use to a piece of property,, said property includes 'up to the sky'. Facts. This entire clown world depends on all of us operating in THEIR jurisdiction. I prefer my original status as Man, rather than EMPLOYEE of the CORPORATION (CANADACORP).
to be clear, this means if you are not acting as a Man or Woman of the Commonwealth, and you recognize yourself as a citizen of the DEMOCRACY, you have NO rights, only privileges that can be taken away on a whim, so you better do what you are told (slave) ;) ps - i am not a member of your private society, so i am idiot in legalese :)
We don't Magna Carta rights based on our "Constitution". We don't even have the absolute right to a jury trial unless it's a criminal offense that carries a sentence of 5 years or more. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. IANAL but I know that much.
In todays environment that literally has a camera every hundred feet you'd think people would be used to being under constant surveillance. But for those annoying drones someone should come up with a jammer. Perhaps watching their precious, expensive toy crash to the ground might make a person be more considerate/careful where they fly.
You were right with your first sentence. There are lots of legal ways to fly a drone that are bound to annoy someone. Like many other situations, a Karen with a shotgun is everyone's worst nightmare.
I'm a hunter. If I'm hunting birds on my own property and a drone flies over low enough to be spying on me, it's going to get accidentally blasted out of the sky!
What about someone doing nude sunbathing in a private fenced yard? I would expect that some moron flying over in a drove taking video ....would constitute some action. After all, if I see a nude woman sunbathing on a nude beach, I would expect to get arrested and probably get my face punched in too. Expectation of privacy comes to mind.
Trespassing airspace by a drone sounds ridicules in consideration of a Canadian literally has no right to defend him/herself from intrusion at home unless risking of being charged with “disproportionate” use of force.
Try to tell my idiot neighbour that same thing.they tried through legal channels and shaming on Facebook to try and stop me flying a tiny drone over my own property.ok idiots learn the law
I've said this before and I'll say it again. In Canada you have no rights. For every time they put in a law they have another that says that that law doesn't cover you. We were given the constitution and bill of rights that says that we have the right to go from a to b without being stopped for no reason and then they found ways around that. Then there are all the reasons they can make up.
I don’t know about that because when I was 15 years old, about 25 years ago, my best friend‘s dad was high ranking member of the Hells Angels and the government always try to catch them growing weed, I was at his house one early morning when a helicopter flew over the house maybe 150 feet up to find where the plants were around the property when my friends dad went outside and recorded the helicopter flying over the property the next day, the police came and rated remembering right the charges were dropped. For the reason was the helicopter was in the airspace above his house and didn’t have a warrant.
Alberta I think re soil changed if you owned the property pre 1959? regarding mineral rights, came up when an oil company in its wisdom, decided to drill in downtown Calgary in the Stampede grounds. the " low level" came up re the police helicopters and they were flying "low level" and apparently got caught looking in apartment windows and claiming exempt as its "in the line of police work,
Never understood why people say i own my house, I laugh at these people because from a very young age i have known this to be false, The government owns your house and always will if you dont pay taxes who takes it? no one owns there land and never will
It’s pure ignorance fed by American Movies and TV Shows. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not have words private and property. Besides the government has Section 32 at its disposal; the Supreme Court can and does rule that a right is not absolute or a violation of a right is minor and can be allowed.
There is presently a nuclear installation occupying the land my grand parents once owned. They were booted off when the government decided they wanted the land. They were given a small sum of money and some other farm land as compensation but there was no doubt that they either took the deal as offered or got less and still be forced out.
"The right to peaceful enjoyment." If I recall correctly, our property deed (or title or whatever it is) actually includes a phrase something like that. In practice, for land, it's very nearly indistinguishable from the "ownership" you seek. We've been basking in our 'peaceful enjoyment' for almost 40 years now.
If there is no right to a reasonable height above their land then this could allow for all sorts of abuses. If I "wanted" I could build a house and then build an extension making my house like an upside down L so i was completely over their house
Building something permanent -- like you described -- over your neighbour's property would likely be trespass. And I expect contrary to local building regulations!
I think drone operaters are kinda like bad hackers that think thay own wht they want fine air space u can fly but if u video or tape or spy on my land there should be very very serious
You'll want to check out this video on my channel: ruclips.net/video/cXVKmhmc0pY/видео.html or this discussion with @@DonJoyce on ruclips.net/video/lfiunmTOxHA/видео.html
David, thanks for your informative presentations. How about something about auto companies tracking cars without the owner’s consent, or at least their informed consent: « sure, I clicked ´accept’ when I bought the car… »
Thanks for mentioning my court case: Reynolds vs Deep Water Recovery. DWR has been successful slowing the case down. Months wasted while they tried to stop the Protection of Public Participation Act application claiming it didn't apply to their countersuit. Wrong - the lions share of their countersuit was tossed by the judge and costs awarded to my great lawyer, Jason Gratl from the PPPA application. We have a trial date for October 2025.
Thanks, David! Very interesting property law exam question!
Extremely clear snd understandable explanation and discussion, David! Thank you for producing this video!!
Thanks, Don! Glad you enjoyed it!
Great video, I liked how you dove into the nuances. My neighbours home was for sale. The realtor did a drone video. Higher altitude with neighborhood perspective .... Evolving to a low altitude circuit of the home. The video did capture some neighbouring property details, in a fly-by kind of way. It provide an awesome overall external video of the subject home...
In Canada..........To keep yourself and others safe, fly your drone:
where you can always see it
You can fly at night if you have lights on your drone
below 122 metres (400 feet) in the air
away from bystanders, at a minimum horizontal distance of 30 metres for basic operations
away from emergency operations and advertised events
Avoid forest fires, outdoor concerts and parades
away from airports and heliports
5.6 kilometres (3 nautical miles) from airports
1.9 kilometres (1 nautical mile) from heliports
outside controlled airspace (for basic operations only)
far away from other aircraft
Don’t fly anywhere near airplanes, helicopters and other drones
Not much brother just taking a dump and watching some RUclips
Us locals use drones to find the forest fires...
@@ickster23yes that’s a great force multiplier.
It’s to avoid the gawkers (non-locals) that just get in the way of emergency services. ❤
But most of this is not relevant for micro-drones under 250g.
Always super informative David - thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
@@privacylawyer I'm here for the 'entertainment value' and it delivers there as well. I've got an R-PAL and don't drink so don't need DUI info but your videos are of interest.
(An episode on current EDC knife spec allowances would be helpful.)
Great video. As with so many topics, it’s rarely ever black and white - there’s always a bit of a grey area. Thanks for your clear and thoughtful explanation.
Enjoyed this David, thanks!
Glad to hear it!
Hi David, I'm and Ontario paralegal (and R/C model glider enthusiast) who's watched TC and the CARs regulation slowly erode my hobby over the past 10 years with stiffling restrictions and paperwork (to fly legally) to the point where's it's almost impossible to fly recreationally. I'm wondering if you've ever worked alongside, or in consultation with, MAAC (Model Aronautics Association of Canada). We could sure use your input/expertise.
@@technoxtreme178 welcome to the party us as hunters have experienced these laws ever since the formation of liberal party
Good stuff.
Glad you enjoyed it
Great stuff
no
Great video! Thanks for sharing
What about the Tort Intrusion of Seclusion, and long range cameras?
This video, also on my channel, may be helpful: ruclips.net/video/cXVKmhmc0pY/видео.html
I try my best to not intrude into the privacy of others but when flying my drone it does attract more unsolicited attention than say me walking around with a pair of binoculars or my camera with a telephoto lens for bird photography. Many folks have a perceived notion that drones have eyes like an eagle and are able to capture intimate details from 20m, even 40m up.
Thanks for this overview. As someone with a legal background and also a recreational drone flyer your advise carries a whole lot more credence. Have subbed to be more informed👍👍🙂
Thanks. I'm glad you found it informative and helpful.
Thank you sir. That was a good talk.
Glad you enjoyed it
Hmmm. Is there anything preventing someone from enjoying their property by operating a slingshot in the general direction of the treetops when a drone happens to be cruising over their yard?
Yes. A drone is an aircraft by law. Technically it would be the same charge as taking pot shots with a hunting rifle at an airliner.
That would be like shooting at cars driving past your home!
It will not fly in court!
(Excuse the pun)
@@dwaynepenner2788 BS.
410 over/under or in Canada get the little kid to accidently discharge his slingshot!! oops.
@@dwaynepenner2788 If it's an aircraft it should be at the regulated altitude. I beieve that is 500 feet in open country and 1000 feet (or metric equivalents) over built up areas.
Interesting that they would go back to before Confederation, but then again I guess that is what is meant by "law of the land"... Thanks for another great video.
Drones are in essence; Skeet :-)
Yah my shotgun , begs to differ ! LOL !
You might want to rethink that. Shooting at a drone has the same charge as shooting at a manned aircraft.
@@dwaynepenner2788you might want to grow some balls lol
That's a great way to find yourself in jail, followed by a lifetime firearms ban.
@@privacylawyer No law against shooting skeet on rural property.
@@ArchieBunker-i2h And yet there's a rule against shooting aircraft from any property.
Great video, sounds like bottom line all drone pilots are at legal risk of privacy claims and need to consider that when flying. I wonder if CAR 900.06 can apply here but that was be fact dependent. Question: should all drone operators get insurance to protect against this type of claim ?
That would be fact dependent and 900.06 requires a risk to safety. I'm not sure drone insurance would cover for trespass and nuisance claims.
Bell thingy: so it -is- a legal term. Hah! I knew I was right.
I'm an old-timer brought up on the principle that a man's home is his castle and has a right to privacy. The concept of owning the airspace is flawed because that could be interpreted by making it illegal for aircraft to fly high over your home. I think that there should be a definition of the minimum height (not a vague definition but a defined height in metres) over private property for drones. You brought up certain exceptions if someone was located next door to Hydro or other such installation that the agency or company has to use drones over your property but must provide proof of that right.
There is a minimum height. 1000 feet over people and built up areas. That is the actual law regarding aircaft in Canada.
@@ArchieBunker-i2h But does it apply to drones?
@@jetstream6389 You would have to phone transport canada and ask them the legality of drones I am a pilot and know the law regarding airplanes but drones are something I have never had to deal with.
If you have drones hovering over your property phone the police. The meth heads are using drones to scope out rural property before breaking in and stealing things now.
Though you do have the reasonable right to privacy in your own spaces, drones looking into windows, down onto your property, seems immoral if not criminal. Scoping out people being in their own private space with them expectating reasonable privacy, is a fundamental violation of the meaning of the law.
I previously did a video on drones and privacy that you may find to be of interest: ruclips.net/video/cXVKmhmc0pY/видео.html
Thanks for this, David. It was concise, clear and just excellent. I’m in B.C. - not a drone operator - but I have a question. If there is no legislation in Canada regulating drone flight (a) what about aerodromes and defence installations? Are they covered by some kind of regulation? And (b) you will frequently see signage to the effect that an area is a ‘No Drones’ area. Is this not backed up by any law and is just there to discourage drone operators but lacks teeth?
Terrific video. Thanks.
Yeah, this video was only about trespass law and didn't cover the Canadian Aviation Regulations which do regulate where and how drones can operate, depending on the mass of the drone. And there are other laws that can apply. There can be restrictions on where all drones can operate, but most of the "no drones" signs I've seen do not have to do with any particular law or regulation.
I have a question about drones taking pictures. Would it be legal for a municipality to fly a drone over one's property to check for bylaw infractions.
We have a five acre lot in the country in a municipality that spans a huge area. Some residents are concerned that this could happen as a mistrust in our council is ever growing 😕
Any help would be greatly appreciated 👍 thanks kindly
For a municipality to do this, it would engage s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: "8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure." The question would turn on whether it is authorized by a reasonable law, or whether there is a subjective and objective reasonable expectation of privacy. The outcome of that analysis would really depend on what's going on.
refer to the case out in his province where one judge said no and it was tossed on appeal that they can walk all around your property . and an insurance company inspector gets it also
@@privacylawyerI’m originally from Edmonton and we had a very interesting situation there. The West Edmonton Mall was at the time owned by three brothers of the Gherzmezian family. The brothers purchased three houses located immediately adjacent to each other in a very upscale area of Edmonton. Many trees were planted around the three houses to obscure them from the street and other neighbours. It was only when the city did either aerial photography or checked satellite photos (apparently a routine thing) was it discovered that the houses had been connected by enclosed walkways with no building permits and contrary to zoning. The walkways were allowed to remain so some settlement must have been reached.
I don't own the space over my property but I do own my privacy and over the last 10 years I did shot down drones and no one came to claim it
I live on a wooded acreage with trees all around it forming a solid block; many of which reach 100 ft, only about 2 Acres close to the residence are cleared. I have an expectation of total privacy.
Airplanes can't fly over?
If I was going to modernize the law I would either say that your airspace above your property is “protected” either to the height of the tallest structure or some arbitrary altitude like 100 M AGL(for clarity I’m not using a legal term here. I’m aware of transport Canada airspace definitions and regulations)
That's an interesting point. In my view, 100M would be too high, since Transport Canada recommends that even 250g drones fly below 120M because crewed aircraft are very unlikely to be at that altitude. I think I could live with "no lower than 20M above an occupied residence, measured from the peak of the residence."
@@privacylawyerthat's not a problem at all: keep your drone low, and if a minimum means you can't fly it over my property, that works out well.
what are your thoughts on Canada Cop watch , Mad Lab Press and others?
I haven't watched enough of them to form an opinion.
I wonder what the law would say if drone, hovering directly over my property, were to inexplicably fail and land/crash on my property. Would I then be able to claim the the drone as my property?
If you're Canadian, that would officially make you a dick.
...extending down to hell.. Don't most provinces hold mineral rights in the ground under my property?
I had the same question.
Yes, in the same way that the old latin maxim doesn't describe the state of the law (in Canada) for airspace rights, it does not accurately describe the law with respect to mineral rights. If your neighbour were to build an underground bunker 50 feet below grade that extended into your property, you'd probably have a claim for trespass.
Not if you have a Land Patent that grants the right to the property owner...
@@privacylawyer In Alberta the first 500 feet down are yours regarding gravel ect unless they changed it recently.
Tell the police. !!
Hello, David: Thank you for this video. There MAY be some guidance to be found in case law regarding airports and the constitutionally superior position of the federal government to regulate in the area. See the Person Airport cases where the city of Mississauga wanted the airport to get a building permit for a new terminal. The decisions basically said "no" to the need for a permit as the airport is under exclusive federal jurisdiction. Airports are inherently a nuisance and depending on how close your property is to the runway, aircraft may be an invasion of your airspace. I don't know if there has been a successful case against an airport for nuisance, trespass, or use of airspace. Just curious.
@@tundrusphoto4312 even if one did try to sue the federal government over the placement of an airport there are a myriad of hurdles and pretty much a guarantee of failure (assuming the government followed it own rules and policies in making the decisions it it).
Gee.......I guess there is nothing that I can do. Once the drone is knocked down, I suppose I'll never learn who the owner is. Guess there is nothing I can do. Too bad 😂.
@@uslanja the drone operator WILL know where his drone is, and the law will very, very likely be on his side not yours. Go ahead and read section 77 of the Canadian criminal code and know that a drone has the legal definition of an aircraft and pay attention to the up to 5 year/$100k penalty for a conviction.
@@dwaynepenner2788 Oops, the pet must have found your toy.
Common Law in Québec?
Quebec has Civil law where the remainder of Canada is under Common law. There are some distinct differences.
@EverydayProjects are we saying that the Civil Code as equivalent statutes and the result is roughly equivalent?
@@patricescattolin43 No, there are a lot of differences with the laws in Quebec as compared to Canadian law-everything from matrimony to death. Their system is based on the Napoleonic code where the laws in the remainder of Canada are not. That's as far as I can go on this topic....over to our host.😁
Something to be said for privacy curtains and other means to shield yourself from intruders. If you can prove someone is harassing you I think you have a right to civil action.
I'm just wondering what problems there would be associated with flying barrage balloons from your own property. Barrage balloons would discourage drones flying over the property...
So fall back on the no witnesses and accidents happen spiel. Works for me.
As I can tell, the civil law is relaxed compared to TC regulations. Also there by-laws issued by certain municipalities that can greatly restrict where one can fly their drone.
I think that hitting a person with a drone (or its parts, such a propeller) could potentially go under criminal law. And I'm pretty sure that hitting with a drone a moving car on a road / highway would bee seen as such.
Municipal bylaws can restrict where somebody is permitted to launch/land a drone, but they cannot restrict the use of airspace. That's the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal ministers of transport and defence.
@@BallHawkG >Municipal bylaws can restrict where somebody is permitted to launch/land a drone, but they cannot restrict the use of airspace.<
Sounds right. But the municipality restricting location of the launch and land *de facto* restricts access to the airspace, even without restriction de iure. For ex. in Toronto, you can fly a drone without licence and other approvals only if it's 250 g or less. You cannot launch it from downtown area... and the range of those are too small to fly them from outside of the city. If you are licensed (an advanced RPAS operator certificate) you still need NAV Canada authorization and you need to follow Billy Bishop ATC (if given).
Basically, introducing new laws few years back, they killed all the fun of flying drones, especially FVP ones.
It would be nice if someone would cover the rights of a drone flyer as far as being harassed while operating a drone. I can't seem to find the law that applies to people interrupting the drone operator and creating a safety risk. If the law was easy to find, then at least I could quote it to ignorant people.
Good point! Another area of drone law that is little known, is that even in the face of municipal guidelines prohibiting the use of drones for aircraft safety, mico-drones are exempt. They are considered too small to cause any significant damage. (example: the difference between a hummingbird or an eagle being sucked into a jet airplane's intake).
@@sage705 section 77 of the criminal code speakers about interference with the fight crew, which is the drone operator. Big, big penalties can apply.
@@dwaynepenner2788 read it, and nothing seems to apply. Definitely written for planes and airports. Laws seem prejudicial to drone flyers. Lots of info how to turn in bad pilot but nothing about the publics responsibilities.
@ oops that one is the aeronautics act s. 7.41(1).
@@dwaynepenner2788 There are some municipalities that impose their own interpretation for drones. Many don't understand the aviation laws or criminal law, but want to prohibit any drone at all costs.
I would say that we don't have any rights in Canada. Section 33 of the charter makes this abundantly clear. Add to that the fact that even when in "the right", the process and associated costs of proving you are "right" is, in itself, a punishment. To add insult to injury, the taxes you pay are used against you in your own prosecution.
Incorrect about not having "any" rights in Canada. We have SOME but they're indeed potenitally up for being infringed upon via section 33. They still have to pass the Oakes test, albeit indeed there's that risk and resource asymmetry between the government and those it's impacting by the use of section 33.
@freezerlunik It's not a "right" if it can be infringed upon. Just like free speech isn't free speech if there are any restrictions: it is "restricted speech". These are binary concepts.
I'm not arguing for or against anything. I'm just trying to prevent misinformation.
@@ickster23 okay buddy.
There you are lol
Which Canada, The DEMOCRACY or the Commonwealth?
According to common law, if you have exclusive right of use to a piece of property,, said property includes 'up to the sky'.
Facts. This entire clown world depends on all of us operating in THEIR jurisdiction.
I prefer my original status as Man, rather than EMPLOYEE of the CORPORATION (CANADACORP).
to be clear, this means if you are not acting as a Man or Woman of the Commonwealth, and you recognize yourself as a citizen of the DEMOCRACY, you have NO rights, only privileges that can be taken away on a whim, so you better do what you are told (slave) ;)
ps - i am not a member of your private society, so i am idiot in legalese :)
We don't Magna Carta rights based on our "Constitution". We don't even have the absolute right to a jury trial unless it's a criminal offense that carries a sentence of 5 years or more. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. IANAL but I know that much.
Get peppersprayed often?
In todays environment that literally has a camera every hundred feet you'd think people would be used to being under constant surveillance. But for those annoying drones someone should come up with a jammer. Perhaps watching their precious, expensive toy crash to the ground might make a person be more considerate/careful where they fly.
You were right with your first sentence. There are lots of legal ways to fly a drone that are bound to annoy someone. Like many other situations, a Karen with a shotgun is everyone's worst nightmare.
Come get your downed drone.
I'm a hunter. If I'm hunting birds on my own property and a drone flies over low enough to be spying on me, it's going to get accidentally blasted out of the sky!
What about someone doing nude sunbathing in a private fenced yard? I would expect that some moron flying over in a drove taking video ....would constitute some action. After all, if I see a nude woman sunbathing on a nude beach, I would expect to get arrested and probably get my face punched in too. Expectation of privacy comes to mind.
So, what could happen if you damaged a drone hovering in your fenced back yard?
or if a drone falls on you
You could be charged with a crime under section 77 of the Criminal Code (endangering safety of an aircraft).
Trespassing airspace by a drone sounds ridicules in consideration of a Canadian literally has no right to defend him/herself from intrusion at home unless risking of being charged with “disproportionate” use of force.
Just ask for a Jury Trial, then commonsense would *probably* apply. Depending on the reasonableness of your defense.
Try to tell my idiot neighbour that same thing.they tried through legal channels and shaming on Facebook to try and stop me flying a tiny drone over my own property.ok idiots learn the law
Feel free to share this video with them!
I've said this before and I'll say it again.
In Canada you have no rights.
For every time they put in a law they have another that says that that law doesn't cover you.
We were given the constitution and bill of rights that says that we have the right to go from a to b
without being stopped for no reason and then they found ways around that.
Then there are all the reasons they can make up.
in chinada you have no rights at all, sorry
I don’t know about that because when I was 15 years old, about 25 years ago, my best friend‘s dad was high ranking member of the Hells Angels and the government always try to catch them growing weed, I was at his house one early morning when a helicopter flew over the house maybe 150 feet up to find where the plants were around the property when my friends dad went outside and recorded the helicopter flying over the property the next day, the police came and rated remembering right the charges were dropped. For the reason was the helicopter was in the airspace above his house and didn’t have a warrant.
Bullshit
Needs to change
Minimum 100' all directions should be off limits & punishable by tresspass
Canada has become a fucking shit hole
Alberta I think re soil changed if you owned the property pre 1959? regarding mineral rights, came up when an oil company in its wisdom, decided to drill in downtown Calgary in the Stampede grounds. the " low level" came up re the police helicopters and they were flying "low level" and apparently got caught looking in apartment windows and claiming exempt as its "in the line of police work,
"Low level" is likely where the analysis turned.
@@privacylawyer word got out that people would start letting balloons loose with big long strings on em if they had any more night visits.
If a drone is flying and filming over my property ,it will be introduced to Mr. 12 gauge. Don't care what anyone says
That's a great way to find yourself in jail with a lifetime firearms ban.
Never understood why people say i own my house, I laugh at these people because from a very young age i have known this to be false, The government owns your house and always will if you dont pay taxes who takes it? no one owns there land and never will
It’s pure ignorance fed by American Movies and TV Shows. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not have words private and property. Besides the government has Section 32 at its disposal; the Supreme Court can and does rule that a right is not absolute or a violation of a right is minor and can be allowed.
There is presently a nuclear installation occupying the land my grand parents once owned. They were booted off when the government decided they wanted the land. They were given a small sum of money and some other farm land as compensation but there was no doubt that they either took the deal as offered or got less and still be forced out.
Fun fact: You actually don’t own anything in Canada
"The right to peaceful enjoyment." If I recall correctly, our property deed (or title or whatever it is) actually includes a phrase something like that.
In practice, for land, it's very nearly indistinguishable from the "ownership" you seek. We've been basking in our 'peaceful enjoyment' for almost 40 years now.
If there is no right to a reasonable height above their land then this could allow for all sorts of abuses. If I "wanted" I could build a house and then build an extension making my house like an upside down L so i was completely over their house
Building something permanent -- like you described -- over your neighbour's property would likely be trespass. And I expect contrary to local building regulations!
@@privacylawyer Yes of course esp in regards to building codes but I was using it more exemplary to the idea of "personal" airspace
I think drone operaters are kinda like bad hackers that think thay own wht they want fine air space u can fly but if u video or tape or spy on my land there should be very very serious
how does this differ from voyeurism or stationary security camera and trespass intrusions on seclusion ,🥸🤓,Canada
You'll want to check out this video on my channel: ruclips.net/video/cXVKmhmc0pY/видео.html or this discussion with @@DonJoyce on ruclips.net/video/lfiunmTOxHA/видео.html
@@privacylawyer yes thank you, was exactly what i was asking about, thank you 🥸🤓,Canada
David, thanks for your informative presentations. How about something about auto companies tracking cars without the owner’s consent, or at least their informed consent: « sure, I clicked ´accept’ when I bought the car… »