Thanks so much David. I’m a “cop watcher” and “auditor”… I exercise my right to the freedom of expression but the laws are confusing to say the least so I have been learning. Thanks again.
As a Canadian man with a camera (male photographer) I have many stories of abuse of power by cops that have nothing to do with filming/recording police. I’ve had cops demand I delete photos taken in public or face “stalking” charges. I’ve had cops order me to leave a photoshoot I arranged despite despite showing model releases because someone not even remotely involved in the shoot got paranoid about “man with camera” and so on. I’ve had cops order me to move on while doing astrophotography in the middle of the night, and while storm chasing, nothing to do with safety, just “man with camera” paranoia.
I was on a group ride with some fellow motorcycle enthusiasts and we got harrased by cops for pulling over on the side of the road and filming some ride-bys. Nothing illegal was happening, everyone stopped was legally parked and everyone riding was obeying the speed limits and traffic laws. But because we were taking pictures the cops just had to stop and object, asking if we had "permits" to film like it was some kind of unauthorized movie set or something. Tldr f the police
Thank you for this video David, I recently had a bad experience with police and found your video fascinating. One of the channels I recently subscribed to is News Now Victoria, you should do a video on his arrest and prosecution. He sued the RCMP over it.
Confiscating and accessing a citizen's camera is a violation of their property rights. Destroying images on a recording device is felony evidence tampering/destruction.
That is a good point Dan. However, we in Canada, do not have the term felony. There are summary offences, indictable offences and lastly, dual procedure offences. I know it is mostly semantics here, but the two countries are different.
2 years out of date and no updates that I can find. And it’s not ‘honourable’, it’s *marketing.* We all have to play the Law Society’s games. I promise this is recycled from a seminar for which Continuing Professional Education credits were earned. Retired Canadian lawyer here.
@@whatifschrodingersboxwasacofin It's all based on the Birth Certificate fraud and the BAR members control of our public courts and their Maritime/Admiralty 'law' system. Easily thwarted if you know their game...
I have become so internet infused with American law snd disorder, I sometimes forget where I actually live. Thank you for putting this insightful video together. It's a much needed breath of fresh air and reailty check. In passing, that NB decision was a classic shit sandwich. 😅
While walking down a path in West Edmonton, I was very annoyed to see a pickup truck driving towards me on this walking path. I took out my phone and took a video of the truck as it passed by. Then the truck stopped, backed up, and in a loud voice a beefy Sherriff asked me why I was photographing him in his truck. I told him that I didn’t appreciate seeing a truck on a walking path and also that I was going to post it online. He obviously was not expecting this pushback. That’s where it ended. i walked away.
THANK YOU! I know more about American law than my own, because I watch auditors in the US, then actually look up the law. But you don't see too many Canadian auditors. So THANK YOU for going over this!
I'm happy to finally see where someone of professional stature in the legal realm has the courage to explain the law and the publics charter rights. There ought to be more of this since the justice system is supposedly a public agency . This type of education ought be taught in the public school system along with the constitution and charter of rights n freedoms. Thank you for this.
Hypothetical: If a bystander is recording an incident of police acting unlawfully towards someone else when they notice the camera and wish to seize it as evidence, would that seizure not in itself be a form of affecting the evidence since the recording is still live? Isn't the bystander the custodian of that evidence in that instance?
Very thorough and well explained. I’ve watched a lot of merican Auditor videos so good to learn the subtle but similar legal aspects between the two countries.
This is valuable and essential information for photo journalists in Canada. Thank you for making this. I shared it to our facebook group, Law in Canada ❤
Thank you for your content as a Canadian it is much appreciated to have canadian attorneys making content so I dont go all american constitution on a cop
Yes, chaos and anarchy are preferable, oh wise one. What are you, 15? You won’t like it when I just come over to your house and take your stuff because I can. Or when I charge you $100/gal because I can. Or when your plane drops out of the sky because I didn’t feel like riveting that part properly. Omg. Please grow up. 🤦♂️
I was taking pictures at the scene of a traffic fatality where the deceased person was on the ground under a blanket. A young police officer, probably a rookie, was obviously more upset about the situation than I was. He barked orders at me that I wasn't allowed to take pictures during an accident investigation. No police tape was set up, and no obvious perimiter had been established. Even when I asked him how far back he wanted me to stand, he just told me to leave the area. When I objected, he asked me how I would feel if someone was taking pictures of my dead family member laying in the street.There was the truth and the root of his displeasure with my actions. Police are human beings. Training for every situation they face and dealing with the emotions they experience only comes after years of being on the job. As a member of the public, asserting your rights, obviously takes legal priority. There are rights and freedoms, but there is also what is right in the moment or situation. When two parties differ in opinions on that subject, it is common that people take a strong stance to defend their position. A police officer will exert his "authority", and a citizen will exert his freedoms. It becomes an ego trip on both sides. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone knew how to use self control when emotions flair?
And maybe you might feel displeasure and irritation if it was your Mom, Dad or any family member laying perished at a fatality, and some curious person thought it was necessary or appropriate to take pictures or video.. why ?
A friend of mine witness accident. Where a kid was hit and killed. Some people where taking pic of the kid . She was try to tell them stop . Until the cops came. I think people would have some common sense and compassion.
@@Sm-ne8ffthe news agencies do that type of filming all the time my friend. We have rights and our own perspectives as to what’s acceptable but at end of day we have rights and police often react with emotion If they just ignored and did there work it wouldn’t be a problem I would not care if someone film me or any of my family dead under a blanket
The second case sounds like a crooked judge. Thank you for posting this for every Canadian as things seem to be getting worse with our police forces. God bless.
Totally legal to film cops in public....and would encourage every Canadian to do so...from traffic stops to out in public pullout your phone and record ever thing, they can and do lie to the public all the time.
Sir thank you for your explanations of these critical legal areas in a time when video and photos are becoming exponentially more prolific and with greater access to worldwide content the knowledge of our rights and restrictions in our own country is a bit of knowledge no individual should ignore and can benefit from!
The US has "Prior Restraint". Is there an equivalent in Canada? We always see cops order people back so far that any content recorded is of low quality and if something occurred, that footage and sound tends to be inconclusive. Other tactics, to interact and/or consume the attention of the recording device operator, talk over content, and blocking with their body, cars, etc, used to interfere with the sightlines. Let's not forget "officer safety", even when there are several standing around, any one of them could keep the one or two 'safe' while not interfering with someone recording. Yet another, playing copyright music so it wouldn't be able to be disseminated on various popular websites and social media. There has been a lot of discussion about distance. In Arizona, they even tried to establish a minimum distance, apparently to thwart the efforts of a group of copwatchers in Tempe and surrounding areas but a judge struck that down I think. Cops even resorted to taping off areas to push back cameras for simple traffic stops and such, abusing the entitlement to cordon off an area for investigative purposes. I already know the answer to the "distance" question, "it depends", but when it comes to "reasonable distance", it's subjective. The difference between the individual who wants to get close enough to acquire content and the cops to facilitate their job. They also don't want to be recorded, be on social media, be exposed for mistakes or something more nefarious and one certainly could argue these are their actual motives. Either way, opposing perspectives and a vast difference in opinion of a "reasonable distance". The go-to charge is generally "Interference" or "Mischief" for not complying to a police 'order' to 'step back'. No jury available and these low courts favor police heavily making the process little better than a kangaroo court. Oh, and you cant record your own case, suspiciously - more of the same. Between copwatchers, auditors, and random individual's recordings, it has embolden a great many more people to do the same. SHAMING has always been a great learning tool but with the advent of available technologies of equipment, the internet and of course, social media, the more government actors resist, the more will be record. The resistance itself is valuable content. Thanks for your video, it helped me nail down some of that jello to the wall.
Thank you for making this content. There is so many videos from the US but I very much want to know what Canadian law says our rights are. The more educated you are about your rights the better we all are I believe.
You don't have the rights unless you know them. If the police tell you to move back, then tell you to go around the block at what point are you not interferring?
I saw another video of you. Very interesting and I learned a lot. Thanks. That video though was about camera around the house and to what extent we can video the privacy of my neighbours for example but with the present video, public spaces, is the street can be considered a public space and do I have the right to film my car park sing space and some of the street?
this proves that our legal system is corrupt as when in public an expectation of privacy is unreasonable, if the cop is to unprofessional to carry out their duties without harassing the person simply recording is a huge problem we have and our charter is routinely ignored at every level
Because you’re SO compliant with law enforcement put in place to protect the rest of us, riiiiiiight?? If you got beaten, you got yourself beaten. I’ve not been punched once in 60 years. 🤷🏼♂️
Thanks for the information, good to know our rights. If you are walking down the street or are a passenger in a vehicle (that has been stopped for a traffic violation), do you need to show ID if requested by the police?
I've spent a considerable part of my life working hand in glove with police in canada and i know the job, so i'm heavily conflicted in an emotional sense. that being said, the best officers wear there honor openly, and the worst ones display all the reasons they dishonor the uniform.
Thank you so very much as in North Bay Ontario Canada the Local Police Force are breaking the law regarding treatment of the Citizens of the City !! I’ve been harassed by six Police Officers who in my opinion just passed Police College and Have a very Bad Attitude to the people ! Myself I’m always Civil with the Police as I have a Brother in-law and a Nephew who’s a Mountie and another Nephew a Police Officer and Partner Police Dog and I’m proud of them as long as they Still Serve the People Not Corporate and illegal immigrants and Thug’s with Guns and not protecting our Border’s crossing not main one’s the one’s Trudeau is having Police and Medical Tent’s set up for Criminals for breaking the Canadian immigration Act never a problem with the People who are doing everything by law and their upset about the Canada Federal Government Justin Trudeau and Kristen Freeland ! Those two have done so much Crime’s Against Humanity the People of Canada and Military Veterans and Native Indians (Help Build housing and Clinics and Military Engineering to Correct their Water’s issues with Local Band Leadership and Split the Cost with Native’s and Federal and Provincial Governments as Native’s Bend Leadership receiving Large Amounts of Federal Payments and Native Casino and Pot and Cigarette’s which is all tax free wouldn’t put a Dent of the Money in Bank Account’s as even band members living on the reservation complaining to Trudeau government about the Chief’s of serval Reservations have Mansions and paying themselves large amounts and their tribe members are starving no clean water or medical or schooling both native and English education so they keep their Heritage and English for dealing with rest of the World
I’ll bet you’re just an angel, aren’t you? I’ve managed to go 60 years without a police interaction. Maybe ask yourself why you get treated the way you do. Introspection is your friend when you can’t change a system.
@@whatifschrodingersboxwasacofin Perhaps the writer is First Nations. If so, they have probably been stopped and interrogated for the suspicious activity of _breathing,_ more than once.
Would you be able to explain what type of police questions a Canadian citizen must by law answer and is it required to provide ID if you have broken no laws.
I am not a lawyer but I successfully defended myself (self represented) against a charge of “obstructing a peace officer” in an Ontario court. I would not answer any questions and did not produce my ID at the time of my arrest. You are required to answer three questions and only three questions AFTER you have been lawfully arrested AND promptly informed as to why you have been arrested! The three questions are NAME, DATE OF BIRTH, ADDRESS. After that ask for a lawyer and shut your mouth!
So… lawyer or no lawyer?? And I’d love to see this 3 question rule in writing. I must have missed that in Civil Procdure I. And in Crim Pro. It ain’t baseball.
Good question. That's a classic 4th Amendment issue south of the border but the US Constitution has no authority up here. However, I would be interested to know what - if any - section of the Canadian Charter of Rights would apply.
Its good to see a lawyer explain your rights under the law many individuals feel compelled when confronted by police to do what they are told being the law even though its your right under the charter unfortunately many citizens don't take time to understand the law or their rights when approached by police or filming the interaction if pulled of by Police. I believe are charter of rights are being eroded since Police think what they say is the law and you have to comply or they will threaten you with being arrested for what your doing that they don't agree with. My understanding if your out in public or performing your duties as a police officerI have the right to video tape any interaction while out in a public without being told I am not allowed to video tape such actions.
@@privacylawyer Life is hard already, its very hard to figure out how to navigate life. Every once in a while someone shares something that might not change the circumstance immediately, it gives hope that at least some other people at least inform others... Its a great quality, I just thought finding this when I had a question was helpful and in plenty supply. Thanks again
PIPEDA regulating commercial activity leaves a huge gap for charities. Under the Charities Act, everything a registered charity does is non-commercial, so PIPEDA does not govern or constrain the actions of charitable organizations.
Not directly related to the topic of this video, but in regards to the statement of needing to follow ‘lawful orders’ given by an officer. When it comes to ‘natural’ disaster or the like, can an officer force you to leave your home or not allow you to return to your home? For example: if there were an out of control wild fire, could the police force me to abandon my home if I feel I have the proper equipment (pumps, hoses, etc) to protect my property? I bring this up because of many 1st hand accounts I’ve heard from friends and associates regarding their experiences during the Nova Scotia wild fires that happened a month or so ago. In one instance, a lady who owns a dog boarding business had gone out for supplies and on her way back was told the area is blocked off and she would not be permitted to go into the area. She explained that there were over a dozen dogs along with several staff at the address she was returning too. She was then told that they will try to get the poeple out but can do nothing for the pets. Obviously as a human with a soul, this was not acceptable so she drove to the other route into the area and was again refused entry… she then was left with no option other than to park the car and run through the forest to get back where they were fortunate enough to reach someone with a brain and vehicles were brought in to retrieve all souls in the building. In another instance my spouses coworker and her husband were monitoring the situation closely and knew the fire was getting reasonably close to their property. They have many acres with a nice big cleaning for their house. They had been keeping the house and lawn wet to protect it from embers. They were on a well so depleting much needed city water wasn’t a concern. They were told it was a mandatory evacuation, to grab what they could in 15 minutes and get out or be removed. Then when they were finally allowed to return a week later, I offered the use of a couple of my drones to survey the property from above to ensure there was nothing smoldering that could reignite. They had been proactively told that drones could not be used in the area until further notice. (Thank God their house was spared less some melted siding on their garage. And a 3rd instance was a friend of mine who owns a construction company and several friends of his in the same industry loaded up their heavy machinery (bulldozers, graders, caterpillars, etc) to get ahead of the fires and create a fire break to prevent their businesses and the many houses in their area from being burned. They were turned away and not permitted to assist. I remember distinctly when I was a young man in NB, there was a Forrest fire near my home and not only did they call in surrounding fire departments, but they actively requested over the radio that anyone with equipment and any able bodied men over 16 to volunteer if possible… I was only 15 at the time but I lied, got my fire jacket, hard hat, mask and water tank and off I went with hundreds of others to stop this fire before it could level the town. Only one house was lost thanks to the men creating fire breaks, the young men marching with water packs and the women and kids all at their homes spraying down houses and cars to reduce the chance of them burning. Now 35 years later I simply can not fathom getting a call at work that my community is on fire and allowing anyone to prevent me from getting there to personally insure that my spouse, pets and home are protected at all costs… sorry for the long winded question, but it’s something that I have been thinking about increasingly with the NS wildfires, the west coast fires now, Maui, etc…. And I keep coming but to the horrible question, would these men have so little honor as to actually try to stop a man from saving his loved ones? And if so, how many bullets could I take before succumbing to their dishonorable actions.
I do wonder if the police can seize your phone really early and the whole interaction because they thought that maybe they were too violent and they wanted to seize your phone to check the five seconds that they caught them or what have you, I had a future date, and now you don’t have your phone and they could get back to kicking in the head on whomever it is that they’re violating
Any place that the common public are allowed to wander, photos can be taken quite legally. Areas where photos can't be taken is in areas that have signs saying the area is private or states the area is not an area where Cameras are allowed to take pictures. It must be said on a written sign in full view of the person in the area where pictures by the photographer is being taken, has to obey to what that sign says. Under law, a clearly written sign must be seen in areas where pictures can't be taken. No signs, pictures can be freely taken.
TOTALLY LEGAL, here in Ontario a few years back it went to court and the cops lost. you can record them in their official duties as long as you don't interfere in "LEGAL" activities.
a PD is paid for by public taxes and in turn the citizens property aka public property. Meaning you have every right to film any authorized public areas
Tresspassing doesn't have anything to do with filming. If it is tresspassing, it is tresspassing regardless of whether filming is being done or not, no?
@@DirtyMikeTM The term "public property" is an oxy moron. If it is public, it isn't "property". And if it is "property", it isn't public. Property means sole ownership of something where the owning party decides how it is used, maintained, etc. Public is something that is not owned by a single party. So, since government claims ownership of the "public" land and "public property" within some form of boundary - be it municipal or otherwise - and decides what is done and how it is maintained, then it is privately owned by the government corporation. The whole public ownership, public property thing is an illusion people believe. This illusion then allows for "property taxes" to be levied. If your property is taxed by a king or queen, then it isn't your property, right? Same thing with government property tax.
The police record you in your own home. I do not consider police officers in Canada to have any human rights or consider them human beings. They are a publicly-funded street gang and a terrorist organization.
Some like the SPVM say body cams cost too much. Pardon? More like it would be too expensive to weed out the bad apples from the service before even considering full disclosure.
Re: 24:51 what regulates the conditions an owner of the private property could put on entry? What if they demand to take off your clothes before entering a store? Or give them your camera for storage?
Am 73 y.o and idont have a clue what my civil rights are.I evicted my ex girl friend the cops came and threw me in jail on a assault charge.The charge was dropped but was kicked out of my place for 3yrs .Cost me a lot of money in lawyer fees to get my place back.Where is the justice in that?
Sitting in a quiet police station, going idly through someone's phone and deleting the photographs on it, is not "making a split second decision in the heat of the moment".
I have questions about police officers interfering with photography e.g. shinning a flashlight into a camera lens at night or officers standing 6 inches away from a photographer so as to block his angle of view. Are these types of behaviour charter violations? Are there practical remedies?
I had a motion detect camera on a surveyor style tripod collecting traffic data because the city was making claims of what I knew was exaggerating traffic to support their bike route grant. The camera was on the side of the city street, a city manager phoned me and told me they would remove my camera if they saw it on "city property? on the grass edge on the side of a city street. One would find surveyors typical equipment in similar locations in the scope of their work,,,, I am sure no city employee would be phoning them to say they would remove their equipment. Did the city have the right to take my camera?
You expect the city to remove surveyors’ equipment from city property? Do you know what surveyors do on road allowances? For our purposes, they protect the delineation of government (ie public) and private property. It is crucial for retaining value in real estate holdings, most people’s greatest asset. Or do you want the government just hacking off the front 20’ of your yard. See, some things add or retain value for society. And some things are just fluff, like inherently unreliable home-made ‘evidence’. You want a study? Commission a study. Otherwise you’ve just got home video. You don’t see the difference between surveyors and your stuff being on city property?? Are you ok?
The charter does not regularly change, neither does a public space, Cops need to remember, they are in our public, it is not thiers, It's ours... There can be no privacy in public unless you make it, yet plain view dictates that privacy, Law enforcement does not own public spaces, All of them, inside and out. Cops have no qualified Immunity in Canada, All are bound to law, including the PM..
Jurisprudence and legal reasoning change. Why are you only looking at the parts you cherry pick? Here’s a thought: the Crown owns public spaces. Law enforcement is a branch of the Crown. Now, what were you on about? Edit: worry less about inches and more about IQ
@@devilsoffspring5519 There is no qualified immunity, thats american, read the charter, then continiue to the criminal code, somewhere through that you will learn the law, for all.
A caveat is when you are encountering the military police on military property, then a statute called the Defence Area Access Control Regulations takes over and the photos can be erased as you need permission to take photos on base property. Usually not enforced unless it's something more sensitive...but a caveat nevertheless
Another caveat is that this video is 2 years old with no signs of having been updated while the courts are pumping out jurisprudence. Be careful what you read on the internet. Retired Canadian lawyer here.
A London Ontario lawyer told my dad and I people are allowed to take pictures and videos of people in a public place and don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Which was mentioned in this video, but if you're on your own property and can see into your neighbors yard. There have been cases where it has been considered unlawful to record people that the court claims have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Personally I don't consider it to be a reasonable expectation of privacy when anyone is clearly visible to another person, without them (the potential cameraman) having to go to great lengths to magically see whatever someone might not want recorded. But if I look out my window and see my neighbors doing stuff, or if a security camera around my house for that matter picks up some activities. Is that unlawful. I consider the interior of a house or apartment, or an office space controlled by someone else, like spaces where one might have a reasonable expectation of privacy especially is the change room, or the bathroom and for that reason they don't allow pictures or cameras in those places. However, if I am at the public library and can clearly see people and the recording isn't of a sexual nature, and not up someone's skirt. But rather just a general recording of what one might observe while wondering around the library. Certainly the library can set limits on taking photos and videos while being inside the library. But some libraries allow use of Internet and while someone is using their laptop or camera phone to say video chat the images captured or visible to the other person are similar to publishing a photo or something. And if there is a prohibition it makes sense if someone gets arrested. But if there isn't anything clearly stated as you enter any establishment regarding taking photos or video recording. I question the validity of any argument about it being an unlawful recording. As long as it isn't done In bathroom, or bedroom of someone's house. But if you see 2 people dancing for example and record their dance. Is it unlawful to do so. Even if they don't want a recording or their dance done in their private house. The other person can see view the dance. Which is not the same as taking Inappropriate photos or videos of someone on the toilet, or in the shower, or changing their clothes. So, to me the concept of privacy and the right to record something should relate to whatever anyone can clearly see without going behind enemy lines so to speak. Even at the mall that may be private property, but it is open to the public and has common areas that everyone has access to. Then there are washrooms, or private offices and storage areas that aren't generally accessible to the general public. So, those areas of a private property would come with a reasonable expectation of privacy. But the common pathway in and around the mall that leads to the food court and the stores etc. is accessible to everyone permitted to enter the mall. If someone wants to not be see by anyone else and not caught on video or no photos of them they could stay inside always, but that is a bit unreasonable one might argue. But again if someone is clearly visible to another person unobstructed view and it isn't in a change room and not in a toilet area. Then what's the problem? Like the corridor of mall that leads you around the mall is to me the common or public area and so is the food court. So those areas should not be off limits for photos and videos. Unless clear signage stating the prohibition on taking photos and videos while being in the mall. If that warning is not clearly displayed where everyone can see it. Then how can a anyone know it is prohibited beforehand.
Given that a city hall and in particular council meetings are about the epitome of "in Public", How is it that Pickering Ontario can prevent via bylaw the public from recording open Council meetings run by publicly paid council, in a publically funded building, secured by publicly funded police??????
Even if it's a "public" building, there may be rules posted that would have to be taken into account. In every courtroom I've been in, filming is prohibited while court is in session.
Yes, but it would have to be for a legitimate purpose. Collecting information including video is a Charter protected activity, but can be subject to reasonable limitations that can be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. They'd have to have a good reason. For example, a public hospital could likely justify a policy of no recording in the general waiting room to protect the privacy of other patients.
That last part where it is incidental to arrest eradicates all the rest because it is legal for an officer to lie to a citizen even though it is not legal the other way around. They can fabricate a reason on the spot and bypass all the rest.
Fine in theory but it doesnt work. I watched police trying to arrest a guy and was recording it. A police officer told me I was obstructing so I moved farther away (at least 15 meters) and continued, Next thing I knew the cop had gone behind me and than tackled me to the sidewalk. They placed me under arrest and then sat me on the curb. When the commanding officer came he removed the cuffs and handed me a free lunch card at a nearby restaurant and then let me go with no charges. I filed a complaint and was told the police officer had the right to do what he did. There were witnesses and I was shocked. The investigator dismissed them as all being uncredible. They ruled that because the officer "felt" I may have been obstructing that alone gave him probable cause, and with that they dismissed the complaint. This happened in Vancouver and at that point I realized that I have these paper rights that mean nothing. The investigator was a police officer. The whole system is rigged and stacked against anyone filing a complaint so film at your own peril.
They might have 2 years ago when this was recorded. Dude’s not interested in updating what he gives you to rely upon. Sounds dangerous to me, as a retired lawyer. But maybe he makes enough to pay out over and above what his professional insurer will pay for negligence. I dunno. I’ve never rendered out of date legal advice on the assumption that it would always apply. 🤷🏼♂️
Alberta has abandoned the Canadian Bill of Rights in order to falsely make cases for the Alberta non withstanding clause. There is no acting force to protect or enforce our rights. Welcome to Alberta.
Thank you for the Canadian-relevant legal content
Finally a clear and concise Canadian applicable explanation of our rights. Thank you.
Um, it’s over 2 years old. The law is not a static thing. Retired Canadian lawyer here.
Thanks so much David.
I’m a “cop watcher” and “auditor”… I exercise my right to the freedom of expression but the laws are confusing to say the least so I have been learning.
Thanks again.
HAY DIDNT I SEE YOU ON THE YOU TUBE?
Why did Sure Eye Can Audits charged in Timmins Ontario Canada 🇨🇦 for filming in Public.
You found it
Frauditurds antagonize people to make money on youtube. They don't care about anyone's rights.
Watch you all the time. TRUCK 🍁 YEAH
As Canadians, we need to be more informed on our rights, very informative hope to see more, thank you
More true than most realize,
Most people dont even understand what a right is, in contrast to a privilege.
As a Canadian man with a camera (male photographer) I have many stories of abuse of power by cops that have nothing to do with filming/recording police. I’ve had cops demand I delete photos taken in public or face “stalking” charges. I’ve had cops order me to leave a photoshoot I arranged despite despite showing model releases because someone not even remotely involved in the shoot got paranoid about “man with camera” and so on. I’ve had cops order me to move on while doing astrophotography in the middle of the night, and while storm chasing, nothing to do with safety, just “man with camera” paranoia.
File formal complaint with the city police dept. Abuse of civil liberties & freedom of expression.
@@arricammarques1955 been there, done that, when police investigate themselves, rarely do they find themselves in the wrong.
@@arricammarques1955 yeah, doesn’t quite work that way in Canada unfortunately.
@@arricammarques1955 oh cmon, the crown doesn't aknowledge that you have liberties at all.
I was on a group ride with some fellow motorcycle enthusiasts and we got harrased by cops for pulling over on the side of the road and filming some ride-bys. Nothing illegal was happening, everyone stopped was legally parked and everyone riding was obeying the speed limits and traffic laws. But because we were taking pictures the cops just had to stop and object, asking if we had "permits" to film like it was some kind of unauthorized movie set or something.
Tldr f the police
I love cameras. They are a cop's kryptonite.
Not even close....they investigate themselves...untill u simples learn about F masons , Shrinnys ect . Ur way behind the 8 ball sorry ..GD luck thou
Thank you for this video David, I recently had a bad experience with police and found your video fascinating. One of the channels I recently subscribed to is News Now Victoria, you should do a video on his arrest and prosecution. He sued the RCMP over it.
Confiscating and accessing a citizen's camera is a violation of their property rights. Destroying images on a recording device is felony evidence tampering/destruction.
Yes, more or less, though the term "felony" is not used in Canada, though there are roughly equivalent distinctions to "felony" crimes here in Canada.
That is a good point Dan. However, we in Canada, do not have the term felony. There are summary offences, indictable offences and lastly, dual procedure offences. I know it is mostly semantics here, but the two countries are different.
'tort'
no felonys in Canada
You're first mistake is to consider yourself a 'citizen'. You are a man or woman or a Canadian. Full stop
Thank you for taking the time to help the public - very honourable.
2 years out of date and no updates that I can find.
And it’s not ‘honourable’, it’s *marketing.*
We all have to play the Law Society’s games.
I promise this is recycled from a seminar for which Continuing Professional Education credits were earned.
Retired Canadian lawyer here.
@@whatifschrodingersboxwasacofin It's all based on the Birth Certificate fraud and the BAR members control of our public courts and their Maritime/Admiralty 'law' system. Easily thwarted if you know their game...
Great videos. I've been dying for a Canadian version of this content, thanks for making it.
Don’t rely on it. It’s more than 2 years old. The courts have been in session in the interim. 🤦♂️
I have become so internet infused with American law snd disorder, I sometimes forget where I actually live. Thank you for putting this insightful video together. It's a much needed breath of fresh air and reailty check.
In passing, that NB decision was a classic shit sandwich. 😅
While walking down a path in West Edmonton, I was very annoyed to see a pickup truck driving towards me on this walking path. I took out my phone and took a video of the truck as it passed by. Then the truck stopped, backed up, and in a loud voice a beefy Sherriff asked me why I was photographing him in his truck. I told him that I didn’t appreciate seeing a truck on a walking path and also that I was going to post it online. He obviously was not expecting this pushback. That’s where it ended. i walked away.
THANK YOU! I know more about American law than my own, because I watch auditors in the US, then actually look up the law. But you don't see too many Canadian auditors. So THANK YOU for going over this!
Thanks so much for this series of videos. It’s a valuable service.
I'm happy to finally see where someone of professional stature in the legal realm has the courage to explain the law and the publics charter rights. There ought to be more of this since the justice system is supposedly a public agency .
This type of education ought be taught in the public school system along with the constitution and charter of rights n freedoms. Thank you for this.
Hypothetical: If a bystander is recording an incident of police acting unlawfully towards someone else when they notice the camera and wish to seize it as evidence, would that seizure not in itself be a form of affecting the evidence since the recording is still live? Isn't the bystander the custodian of that evidence in that instance?
👌👌 Very informative and welcomed. I am surprised that you don't have much more thumbs up on this.
Probably because it’s so out of date and so context-specific. Just a guess.
Very thorough and well explained. I’ve watched a lot of merican Auditor videos so good to learn the subtle but similar legal aspects between the two countries.
This is valuable and essential information for photo journalists in Canada. Thank you for making this. I shared it to our facebook group, Law in Canada ❤
These corrupt abusive cops need to be suspended without pay or fired, I have seen way to much Police brutality over the last four years now
Thank you for your content as a Canadian it is much appreciated to have canadian attorneys making content so I dont go all american constitution on a cop
Gee always open to interpretation,legal system enslaves humanity
Yes, chaos and anarchy are preferable, oh wise one. What are you, 15? You won’t like it when I just come over to your house and take your stuff because I can. Or when I charge you $100/gal because I can. Or when your plane drops out of the sky because I didn’t feel like riveting that part properly.
Omg. Please grow up. 🤦♂️
the great escape clause for authority
Awesome video! Very informative and clear.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thanks for the detailed Canadian centric commentary on the matter!
I was taking pictures at the scene of a traffic fatality where the deceased person was on the ground under a blanket. A young police officer, probably a rookie, was obviously more upset about the situation than I was. He barked orders at me that I wasn't allowed to take pictures during an accident investigation. No police tape was set up, and no obvious perimiter had been established. Even when I asked him how far back he wanted me to stand, he just told me to leave the area. When I objected, he asked me how I would feel if someone was taking pictures of my dead family member laying in the street.There was the truth and the root of his displeasure with my actions. Police are human beings. Training for every situation they face and dealing with the emotions they experience only comes after years of being on the job. As a member of the public, asserting your rights, obviously takes legal priority. There are rights and freedoms, but there is also what is right in the moment or situation. When two parties differ in opinions on that subject, it is common that people take a strong stance to defend their position. A police officer will exert his "authority", and a citizen will exert his freedoms. It becomes an ego trip on both sides. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone knew how to use self control when emotions flair?
And maybe you might feel displeasure and irritation if it was your Mom, Dad or any family member laying perished at a fatality, and some curious person thought it was necessary or appropriate to take pictures or video.. why ?
because they want to and its there right and feelings dont trump rights @@Sm-ne8ff
A friend of mine witness accident. Where a kid was hit and killed. Some people where taking pic of the kid . She was try to tell them stop . Until the cops came. I think people would have some common sense and compassion.
read the SOVEREIGN MANUAL. Legal does not pertain to living humans
@@Sm-ne8ffthe news agencies do that type of filming all the time my friend.
We have rights and our own perspectives as to what’s acceptable but at end of day we have rights and police often react with emotion
If they just ignored and did there work it wouldn’t be a problem
I would not care if someone film me or any of my family dead under a blanket
The second case sounds like a crooked judge. Thank you for posting this for every Canadian as things seem to be getting worse with our police forces. God bless.
Awesome content! I hope your channel blows up!
Thank you for this, I got everything I wanted to learn and more!
Totally legal to film cops in public....and would encourage every Canadian to do so...from traffic stops to out in public pullout your phone and record ever thing, they can and do lie to the public all the time.
Sir thank you for your explanations of these critical legal areas in a time when video and photos are becoming exponentially more prolific and with greater access to worldwide content the knowledge of our rights and restrictions in our own country is a bit of knowledge no individual should ignore and can benefit from!
Great video. Are you allowed to record or take pictures in public libraries, police stations, bus stations, courts, hospitals? Thanks, Tom.
Very much appreciated.
The US has "Prior Restraint".
Is there an equivalent in Canada?
We always see cops order people back so far that any content recorded is of low quality and if something occurred, that footage and sound tends to be inconclusive. Other tactics, to interact and/or consume the attention of the recording device operator, talk over content, and blocking with their body, cars, etc, used to interfere with the sightlines. Let's not forget "officer safety", even when there are several standing around, any one of them could keep the one or two 'safe' while not interfering with someone recording. Yet another, playing copyright music so it wouldn't be able to be disseminated on various popular websites and social media.
There has been a lot of discussion about distance. In Arizona, they even tried to establish a minimum distance, apparently to thwart the efforts of a group of copwatchers in Tempe and surrounding areas but a judge struck that down I think. Cops even resorted to taping off areas to push back cameras for simple traffic stops and such, abusing the entitlement to cordon off an area for investigative purposes.
I already know the answer to the "distance" question, "it depends", but when it comes to "reasonable distance", it's subjective. The difference between the individual who wants to get close enough to acquire content and the cops to facilitate their job. They also don't want to be recorded, be on social media, be exposed for mistakes or something more nefarious and one certainly could argue these are their actual motives. Either way, opposing perspectives and a vast difference in opinion of a "reasonable distance".
The go-to charge is generally "Interference" or "Mischief" for not complying to a police 'order' to 'step back'. No jury available and these low courts favor police heavily making the process little better than a kangaroo court. Oh, and you cant record your own case, suspiciously - more of the same.
Between copwatchers, auditors, and random individual's recordings, it has embolden a great many more people to do the same. SHAMING has always been a great learning tool but with the advent of available technologies of equipment, the internet and of course, social media, the more government actors resist, the more will be record. The resistance itself is valuable content.
Thanks for your video, it helped me nail down some of that jello to the wall.
Thank you for making this content. There is so many videos from the US but I very much want to know what Canadian law says our rights are. The more educated you are about your rights the better we all are I believe.
You don't have the rights unless you know them. If the police tell you to move back, then tell you to go around the block at what point are you not interferring?
I saw another video of you.
Very interesting and I learned a lot.
Thanks.
That video though was about camera around the house and to what extent we can video the privacy of my neighbours for example but with the present video, public spaces, is the street can be considered a public space and do I have the right to film my car park sing space and some of the street?
Please do one on News Now Victoria arrest.
The hyphenated cop should be getting out of prison in the next couple years. Oops, sorry. I was hoping for justice.
this proves that our legal system is corrupt as when in public an expectation of privacy is unreasonable, if the cop is to unprofessional to carry out their duties without harassing the person simply recording is a huge problem we have and our charter is routinely ignored at every level
Thank you for the info. TRUCK 🍁 YEAH
Cops don't like camera's because they can't get away from beating you
Because you’re SO compliant with law enforcement put in place to protect the rest of us, riiiiiiight??
If you got beaten, you got yourself beaten. I’ve not been punched once in 60 years. 🤷🏼♂️
Thanks for the information, good to know our rights. If you are walking down the street or are a passenger in a vehicle (that has been stopped for a traffic violation), do you need to show ID if requested by the police?
I've spent a considerable part of my life working hand in glove with police in canada and i know the job, so i'm heavily conflicted in an emotional sense. that being said, the best officers wear there honor openly, and the worst ones display all the reasons they dishonor the uniform.
Thank you so very much as in North Bay Ontario Canada the Local Police Force are breaking the law regarding treatment of the Citizens of the City !! I’ve been harassed by six Police Officers who in my opinion just passed Police College and Have a very Bad Attitude to the people ! Myself I’m always Civil with the Police as I have a Brother in-law and a Nephew who’s a Mountie and another Nephew a Police Officer and Partner Police Dog and I’m proud of them as long as they Still Serve the People Not Corporate and illegal immigrants and Thug’s with Guns and not protecting our Border’s crossing not main one’s the one’s Trudeau is having Police and Medical Tent’s set up for Criminals for breaking the Canadian immigration Act never a problem with the People who are doing everything by law and their upset about the Canada Federal Government Justin Trudeau and Kristen Freeland ! Those two have done so much Crime’s Against Humanity the People of Canada and Military Veterans and Native Indians (Help Build housing and Clinics and Military Engineering to Correct their Water’s issues with Local Band Leadership and Split the Cost with Native’s and Federal and Provincial Governments as Native’s Bend Leadership receiving Large Amounts of Federal Payments and Native Casino and Pot and Cigarette’s which is all tax free wouldn’t put a Dent of the Money in Bank Account’s as even band members living on the reservation complaining to Trudeau government about the Chief’s of serval Reservations have Mansions and paying themselves large amounts and their tribe members are starving no clean water or medical or schooling both native and English education so they keep their Heritage and English for dealing with rest of the World
Best run-on sentences I have ever seen!! ❤❤❤
@@James-xu3vcI think it is a world record!
I’ll bet you’re just an angel, aren’t you? I’ve managed to go 60 years without a police interaction. Maybe ask yourself why you get treated the way you do. Introspection is your friend when you can’t change a system.
@@whatifschrodingersboxwasacofin Perhaps the writer is First Nations. If so, they have probably been stopped and interrogated for the suspicious activity of _breathing,_ more than once.
What about, for example, publicly accessible areas of public government waiting areas? I.e. BC service centres
i used to have respect for our law enforcement
Mr. Fraser I want to thank you sir for an excellent explanation, I was confused now no more! Eh
Would you be able to explain what type of police questions a Canadian citizen must by law answer and is it required to provide ID if you have broken no laws.
The best counter to that request is ... am I being detained?
I am not a lawyer but I successfully defended myself (self represented) against a charge of “obstructing a peace officer” in an Ontario court. I would not answer any questions and did not produce my ID at the time of my arrest. You are required to answer three questions and only three questions AFTER you have been lawfully arrested AND promptly informed as to why you have been arrested! The three questions are NAME, DATE OF BIRTH, ADDRESS. After that ask for a lawyer and shut your mouth!
@@James-xu3vcand what if the answer is yes, James?? Omg. 🤦♂️
So… lawyer or no lawyer?? And I’d love to see this 3 question rule in writing. I must have missed that in Civil Procdure I. And in Crim Pro.
It ain’t baseball.
Good question. That's a classic 4th Amendment issue south of the border but the US Constitution has no authority up here. However, I would be interested to know what - if any - section of the Canadian Charter of Rights would apply.
Its good to see a lawyer explain your rights under the law many individuals feel compelled when confronted by police to do what they are told being the law even though its your right under the charter unfortunately many citizens don't take time to understand the law or their rights when approached by police or filming the interaction if pulled of by Police. I believe are charter of rights are being eroded since Police think what they say is the law and you have to comply or they will threaten you with being arrested for what your doing that they don't agree with. My understanding if your out in public or performing your duties as a police officerI have the right to video tape any interaction while out in a public without being told I am not allowed to video tape such actions.
Very learning experience thank you...
Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate it.
@@privacylawyer Life is hard already, its very hard to figure out how to navigate life. Every once in a while someone shares something that might not change the circumstance immediately, it gives hope that at least some other people at least inform others... Its a great quality, I just thought finding this when I had a question was helpful and in plenty supply. Thanks again
PIPEDA regulating commercial activity leaves a huge gap for charities. Under the Charities Act, everything a registered charity does is non-commercial, so PIPEDA does not govern or constrain the actions of charitable organizations.
Just found your channel. Subscribed and with notifications on. 👍
Excellent informative video!! Many Thanks.
Canadians are still being harrased and arrested for public photography. Just search auditors in Canada.
You are 💯 right 😢
Not directly related to the topic of this video, but in regards to the statement of needing to follow ‘lawful orders’ given by an officer. When it comes to ‘natural’ disaster or the like, can an officer force you to leave your home or not allow you to return to your home? For example: if there were an out of control wild fire, could the police force me to abandon my home if I feel I have the proper equipment (pumps, hoses, etc) to protect my property? I bring this up because of many 1st hand accounts I’ve heard from friends and associates regarding their experiences during the Nova Scotia wild fires that happened a month or so ago. In one instance, a lady who owns a dog boarding business had gone out for supplies and on her way back was told the area is blocked off and she would not be permitted to go into the area. She explained that there were over a dozen dogs along with several staff at the address she was returning too. She was then told that they will try to get the poeple out but can do nothing for the pets. Obviously as a human with a soul, this was not acceptable so she drove to the other route into the area and was again refused entry… she then was left with no option other than to park the car and run through the forest to get back where they were fortunate enough to reach someone with a brain and vehicles were brought in to retrieve all souls in the building. In another instance my spouses coworker and her husband were monitoring the situation closely and knew the fire was getting reasonably close to their property. They have many acres with a nice big cleaning for their house. They had been keeping the house and lawn wet to protect it from embers. They were on a well so depleting much needed city water wasn’t a concern. They were told it was a mandatory evacuation, to grab what they could in 15 minutes and get out or be removed. Then when they were finally allowed to return a week later, I offered the use of a couple of my drones to survey the property from above to ensure there was nothing smoldering that could reignite. They had been proactively told that drones could not be used in the area until further notice. (Thank God their house was spared less some melted siding on their garage. And a 3rd instance was a friend of mine who owns a construction company and several friends of his in the same industry loaded up their heavy machinery (bulldozers, graders, caterpillars, etc) to get ahead of the fires and create a fire break to prevent their businesses and the many houses in their area from being burned. They were turned away and not permitted to assist. I remember distinctly when I was a young man in NB, there was a Forrest fire near my home and not only did they call in surrounding fire departments, but they actively requested over the radio that anyone with equipment and any able bodied men over 16 to volunteer if possible… I was only 15 at the time but I lied, got my fire jacket, hard hat, mask and water tank and off I went with hundreds of others to stop this fire before it could level the town. Only one house was lost thanks to the men creating fire breaks, the young men marching with water packs and the women and kids all at their homes spraying down houses and cars to reduce the chance of them burning. Now 35 years later I simply can not fathom getting a call at work that my community is on fire and allowing anyone to prevent me from getting there to personally insure that my spouse, pets and home are protected at all costs… sorry for the long winded question, but it’s something that I have been thinking about increasingly with the NS wildfires, the west coast fires now, Maui, etc…. And I keep coming but to the horrible question, would these men have so little honor as to actually try to stop a man from saving his loved ones? And if so, how many bullets could I take before succumbing to their dishonorable actions.
Excellent educational material...thank you.
I think the Freedom Convoy was a great example of our Rights under the Charter.
You said "I think" then said somehting nobody who was thinking g properly would say. Have a smart friend explain it to you
@@jiml9856 You’d be happy in North Korea.
@@jiml9856 read between the lines, Jim. I don’t think you got it.
@@jiml9856 I think you misunderstood his being a crybaby for a legitimate opinion on recording in public.
While it might have been legal on some levels it was a farce that embaradded the country on the world stage
Thanks and cheers!
I do wonder if the police can seize your phone really early and the whole interaction because they thought that maybe they were too violent and they wanted to seize your phone to check the five seconds that they caught them or what have you, I had a future date, and now you don’t have your phone and they could get back to kicking in the head on whomever it is that they’re violating
Could you pls discuss qualified immunity?? And everything we need to know, including who gives it to the police??😊
Yes, lawyer are here to give you free legal advice. Sheesh. You don’t see us asking you for free burgers, do you?
canadian police do not have qualified immunity.
@@daktarioskarvannederhosen2568 they have super on steroids qualified immunity
@@daktarioskarvannederhosen2568oh yes they do …. They get away with all sorts of illegal actions the average citizen would do years in jail for.
Any place that the common public are allowed to wander, photos can be taken quite legally. Areas where photos can't be taken is in areas that have signs saying the area is private or states the area is not an area where Cameras are allowed to take pictures. It must be said on a written sign in full view of the person in the area where pictures by the photographer is being taken, has to obey to what that sign says. Under law, a clearly written sign must be seen in areas where pictures can't be taken. No signs, pictures can be freely taken.
how far back, is it up to the police to decide what is a reasonable distance that is the main question
TOTALLY LEGAL, here in Ontario a few years back it went to court and the cops lost. you can record them in their official duties as long as you don't interfere in "LEGAL" activities.
They interfere with other people's personal lives all the time. Fuck 'em.
What about filming in the public lobby of the PD . I'm finding that police services in ontario have taken the opinion that it is tresspassing
a PD is paid for by public taxes and in turn the citizens property aka public property. Meaning you have every right to film any authorized public areas
Tresspassing doesn't have anything to do with filming. If it is tresspassing, it is tresspassing regardless of whether filming is being done or not, no?
@@DirtyMikeTM The term "public property" is an oxy moron. If it is public, it isn't "property". And if it is "property", it isn't public. Property means sole ownership of something where the owning party decides how it is used, maintained, etc. Public is something that is not owned by a single party. So, since government claims ownership of the "public" land and "public property" within some form of boundary - be it municipal or otherwise - and decides what is done and how it is maintained, then it is privately owned by the government corporation. The whole public ownership, public property thing is an illusion people believe. This illusion then allows for "property taxes" to be levied. If your property is taxed by a king or queen, then it isn't your property, right? Same thing with government property tax.
The police record you in your own home. I do not consider police officers in Canada to have any human rights or consider them human beings. They are a publicly-funded street gang and a terrorist organization.
Some like the SPVM say body cams cost too much.
Pardon?
More like it would be too expensive to weed out the bad apples from the service before even considering full disclosure.
yet they can put cameras up to film us so what is the difference.
Re: 24:51 what regulates the conditions an owner of the private property could put on entry? What if they demand to take off your clothes before entering a store? Or give them your camera for storage?
We have summary and indictable as I recall.
Yeah the constitution is the absolute law of the land, unless you need an Oakes test on the legality of C19 measures...
I thought only politicians and cops had rights in Canada
24:30 does this apply to dash cams or other cameras either directly under my control or not?
Do Canadian Law Enforcement Officers have Qualified Immunity?
Good question!
Well presented.
Am 73 y.o and idont have a clue what my civil rights are.I evicted my ex girl friend the cops came and threw me in jail on a assault charge.The charge was dropped but was kicked out of my place for 3yrs .Cost me a lot of money in lawyer fees to get my place back.Where is the justice in that?
Thank you.
Thank you sir
Psssssttt…. Your thanks is 2 years overdue. Just as this video is 2 years out of date. 😳
Sitting in a quiet police station, going idly through someone's phone and deleting the photographs on it, is not "making a split second decision in the heat of the moment".
I have questions about police officers interfering with photography e.g. shinning a flashlight into a camera lens at night or officers standing 6 inches away from a photographer so as to block his angle of view. Are these types of behaviour charter violations? Are there practical remedies?
short answer, yes
I had a motion detect camera on a surveyor style tripod collecting traffic data because the city was making claims of what I knew was exaggerating traffic to support their bike route grant. The camera was on the side of the city street, a city manager phoned me and told me they would remove my camera if they saw it on "city property? on the grass edge on the side of a city street. One would find surveyors typical equipment in similar locations in the scope of their work,,,, I am sure no city employee would be phoning them to say they would remove their equipment. Did the city have the right to take my camera?
I think that the city would have wide latitude to remove equipment installed on their property. They'd probably call it a hazard.
You expect the city to remove surveyors’ equipment from city property? Do you know what surveyors do on road allowances? For our purposes, they protect the delineation of government (ie public) and private property. It is crucial for retaining value in real estate holdings, most people’s greatest asset. Or do you want the government just hacking off the front 20’ of your yard. See, some things add or retain value for society.
And some things are just fluff, like inherently unreliable home-made ‘evidence’. You want a study? Commission a study. Otherwise you’ve just got home video. You don’t see the difference between surveyors and your stuff being on city property?? Are you ok?
The charter does not regularly change, neither does a public space, Cops need to remember, they are in our public, it is not thiers, It's ours... There can be no privacy in public unless you make it, yet plain view dictates that privacy, Law enforcement does not own public spaces, All of them, inside and out. Cops have no qualified Immunity in Canada, All are bound to law, including the PM..
Jurisprudence and legal reasoning change. Why are you only looking at the parts you cherry pick?
Here’s a thought: the Crown owns public spaces. Law enforcement is a branch of the Crown. Now, what were you on about?
Edit: worry less about inches and more about IQ
Wrong, police in Canada have near total immunity, not just qualified immunity because Canada has no Second Amendment.
@@devilsoffspring5519 There is no qualified immunity, thats american, read the charter, then continiue to the criminal code, somewhere through that you will learn the law, for all.
A caveat is when you are encountering the military police on military property, then a statute called the Defence Area Access Control Regulations takes over and the photos can be erased as you need permission to take photos on base property. Usually not enforced unless it's something more sensitive...but a caveat nevertheless
Another caveat is that this video is 2 years old with no signs of having been updated while the courts are pumping out jurisprudence. Be careful what you read on the internet. Retired Canadian lawyer here.
The blogger was/is a journalist.
True 💯
well done.. thank you
Thank you
Are you actively accepting clients or offering referrals for similar rights cases?
A London Ontario lawyer told my dad and I people are allowed to take pictures and videos of people in a public place and don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Which was mentioned in this video, but if you're on your own property and can see into your neighbors yard. There have been cases where it has been considered unlawful to record people that the court claims have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Personally I don't consider it to be a reasonable expectation of privacy when anyone is clearly visible to another person, without them (the potential cameraman) having to go to great lengths to magically see whatever someone might not want recorded. But if I look out my window and see my neighbors doing stuff, or if a security camera around my house for that matter picks up some activities. Is that unlawful. I consider the interior of a house or apartment, or an office space controlled by someone else, like spaces where one might have a reasonable expectation of privacy especially is the change room, or the bathroom and for that reason they don't allow pictures or cameras in those places. However, if I am at the public library and can clearly see people and the recording isn't of a sexual nature, and not up someone's skirt. But rather just a general recording of what one might observe while wondering around the library. Certainly the library can set limits on taking photos and videos while being inside the library. But some libraries allow use of Internet and while someone is using their laptop or camera phone to say video chat the images captured or visible to the other person are similar to publishing a photo or something. And if there is a prohibition it makes sense if someone gets arrested. But if there isn't anything clearly stated as you enter any establishment regarding taking photos or video recording. I question the validity of any argument about it being an unlawful recording. As long as it isn't done In bathroom, or bedroom of someone's house. But if you see 2 people dancing for example and record their dance. Is it unlawful to do so. Even if they don't want a recording or their dance done in their private house. The other person can see view the dance. Which is not the same as taking Inappropriate photos or videos of someone on the toilet, or in the shower, or changing their clothes. So, to me the concept of privacy and the right to record something should relate to whatever anyone can clearly see without going behind enemy lines so to speak.
Even at the mall that may be private property, but it is open to the public and has common areas that everyone has access to. Then there are washrooms, or private offices and storage areas that aren't generally accessible to the general public. So, those areas of a private property would come with a reasonable expectation of privacy. But the common pathway in and around the mall that leads to the food court and the stores etc. is accessible to everyone permitted to enter the mall.
If someone wants to not be see by anyone else and not caught on video or no photos of them they could stay inside always, but that is a bit unreasonable one might argue. But again if someone is clearly visible to another person unobstructed view and it isn't in a change room and not in a toilet area. Then what's the problem? Like the corridor of mall that leads you around the mall is to me the common or public area and so is the food court. So those areas should not be off limits for photos and videos. Unless clear signage stating the prohibition on taking photos and videos while being in the mall. If that warning is not clearly displayed where everyone can see it. Then how can a anyone know it is prohibited beforehand.
Given that a city hall and in particular council meetings are about the epitome of "in Public", How is it that Pickering Ontario can prevent via bylaw the public from recording open Council meetings run by publicly paid council, in a publically funded building, secured by publicly funded police??????
Great video! What about filming in a public courthouse for my own personal information gathering?
Even if it's a "public" building, there may be rules posted that would have to be taken into account. In every courtroom I've been in, filming is prohibited while court is in session.
@@privacylawyer What about other public buildings? Like City Hall, or similar? Can they restrict filming in public areas like Lobbies?
Yes, but it would have to be for a legitimate purpose. Collecting information including video is a Charter protected activity, but can be subject to reasonable limitations that can be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. They'd have to have a good reason. For example, a public hospital could likely justify a policy of no recording in the general waiting room to protect the privacy of other patients.
Jezterman how are you, so good to see you 🌻
19:50 can I leave a camera on a mount and leave the area?
That last part where it is incidental to arrest eradicates all the rest because it is legal for an officer to lie to a citizen even though it is not legal the other way around. They can fabricate a reason on the spot and bypass all the rest.
Fine in theory but it doesnt work. I watched police trying to arrest a guy and was recording it. A police officer told me I was obstructing so I moved farther away (at least 15 meters) and continued, Next thing I knew the cop had gone behind me and than tackled me to the sidewalk. They placed me under arrest and then sat me on the curb. When the commanding officer came he removed the cuffs and handed me a free lunch card at a nearby restaurant and then let me go with no charges. I filed a complaint and was told the police officer had the right to do what he did. There were witnesses and I was shocked. The investigator dismissed them as all being uncredible. They ruled that because the officer "felt" I may have been obstructing that alone gave him probable cause, and with that they dismissed the complaint. This happened in Vancouver and at that point I realized that I have these paper rights that mean nothing. The investigator was a police officer. The whole system is rigged and stacked against anyone filing a complaint so film at your own peril.
Can i upload a police in public video to youtube and profit from it or do i need a commerial filming permit?
I guess these laws don't apply in Calgary...?
They might have 2 years ago when this was recorded. Dude’s not interested in updating what he gives you to rely upon. Sounds dangerous to me, as a retired lawyer. But maybe he makes enough to pay out over and above what his professional insurer will pay for negligence. I dunno. I’ve never rendered out of date legal advice on the assumption that it would always apply. 🤷🏼♂️
question can talking be considered obstruction ?
Well done.
Alberta has abandoned the Canadian Bill of Rights in order to falsely make cases for the Alberta non withstanding clause.
There is no acting force to protect or enforce our rights.
Welcome to Alberta.
Very informative
If possibly out of date. The law changes in 2 years. Courts are sitting every day.
To bad courts arnt held to the same abuse of authority
Why hasnt Canada opened all body cam footage to public like USA does
Trying to stop someone taking video is the same as telling someone to close their eyes and cover their ears
Is it illegal to film inside of a police station in Canada?
No, it's not. But the police sergeants don't know that and that may get you arrested as it was the case with me