Thanks for your thorough discussion regarding this. Police, more than any government agencies, need to be held accountable and closely monitored by “citizen journalists” due to their corrupt and violent tendencies!
Interesting, I just had an incident involving this in a Service Canada office. Long story short, they were openly profiling and discriminating against me in what appeared to be a wild workplace environment, and they suddenly changed their tune when I pulled out my phone and started recording. I really didn't want to do it but I have had my fill of always enduring extremely condescending lectures by the most incompetent narcissists that they can find to work in this awful places.
Is there any kind of accountability for violating the charter ? Police departments should face some kind of accountability for this very probable violation of the charter. It sounds ridiculous that the police violates the charter with impunity.
Signs are up in all Edmonton police buildings. In Edmonton Alberta, the police have also installed cell signal blockers inside the lobbies of their police stations.
It is my belief that the over riding important issue is justice in the presence of police. It has been proven too many times that not all police are trustworthy, and have lied in court to the detriment of a citizen. The law must be clear that civilians need to be able to record when in the presence of a police officer. That includes in police stations. These points are indisputable facts.
Don't know if you're a wingnut, but it seems relatively well settled that someone can be "trespassed" from a public building or facility. But the Charter trumps that if it infringes freedom of expression. You may find this case to be of interest: R. v. Semple and Héroux, 2004 ONCJ 55 canlii.ca/t/1h6b1
I'm very interested in the whole subject of our rites as outlined in our Canadian Charter. I am also referring to anywhere that denotes a public space and therefore public access. This is not just in sreference to public spaces within public buildings such as: police stations, city halls, court houses, municipal airports, and the like. I believe this rite of public space needs to be realized in private institutions as well such as: grocery stores, drug stores, malls, restaurants and the like. Just because some little arrows are put down/on the floor of a grocery store isle encouraging or demanding that I follow in the direction of those arrows doesn't mean that I am obligated to walk in that direction while getting my groceries-I'm not in prison here I'm just getting groceries. Because the store did not require me to follow those arrows when I was given free access to come into the store then I am not obligated to. The main concern that I'm having here when it comes to our rites as stated in our 'charter of rites and fre-edoms' appears to be a denial of those rites when, it comes to our courthouses. Actually or technically they are still regarded as public courthouses even if they are not called by that name very often. In Calgary, Alberta where I live this public courthouse complex is called Calgary Courts. As soon as you walk into the building you are forced to be scanned and basically searched even if you are not appearing in court You might be just getting a form or booking a small claims case. It doesn't matter, you are still required to be scanned and searched. I find that not only ludicrous but also unlawful. In otherwards it appears that they are changing a public space into a private one or at least into a secured area and a secured area cannot be regarded as a place where the public is free to go. And yet it is a public building so where can the public go where they will be unmolested and free to film. I accept the standard practice of not allowing filming or recording in court rooms and hallways in Canada (at least for now) but how can there be any public space where filming in public is allowed in a building such as the Calgary Courts where there is a courtroom or two or more on almost every floor. When it is the practice of regarding the hallways outside the courtroom as part of the courtroom itself then there isn't much room for any space to be regarded as public. And yet there are still public offices on that same floor where the public need to go inorder to carry out their legal business. Because of our rite to film in public then I also should -have the rite to film and record my interaction during my business with a court clerk at a public counter. The act of filming or recording from a public space because it is a rite cannot be deemed to be disruptive or disturbing the peace. What they did though to disturb the peace was to send 7 sherrifs to intimidate me and said I couldn't film in public. Then they stole my phone and deleted the two videos I had filmed and basically manhandled me out the front door. I'm still not done with this matter but I want to be more methodical about it and utilize more legal and lawful channels. If a lawsuit or something like that can be utilized to change the position of the courthouse in regards the rite to film in public then I will proceed with that at some point. I don't film in public to cause a stir and I don't have a Y-tube channel, it is simply to record my interaction with any government official or anyone so that if necessary I can refer to the videa at a later time to double check on the information that I recieved from the initial encounter. I will watch for your videos. And thanks for providing this information for the people we need it. My name is Colin.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS VIDEO I'M A PART TIME CITIZEN JOURNALIST THAT RECORDS POLICE AND GOVERNMENT THIS HAS HELPED CLEAR UP SOME THINGS I'VE ENCOUNTERED OVER YEARS KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK IN EDUCATING THE PUBLIC WE NEED MORE PEOPLE LIKE YOU WILLING TO HELP LOVE RESPECT FRIENDSHIP ❤️❤️🥃🥃👹👹🤠🤠
One that really amazes me is the police taking roadside breath samples for alcohol without reasonable suspicion. Several police forces have stated they will use breathalyzers on every traffic stop, and this has already been supported by the courts. How?!
Rules like this are just ridiculously redundant/superfluous. You can put any sign out in any station you want or make any rule in any constitution you want, but I can secretly record anywhere and then walk out again with them none the wiser. As if nothing ever happened. And that is the standard that everyone should be judged by. Why? Because it's common sense.
Section 1 of the Charter renders our entire Charter as weak. I admire the American constitution in that there isn't a way for the Supreme Court to basically excuse Charter violations because the violation was thought to be reasonable. Liberal vs conservative judges make such decisions based on political leanings, but the Charter should be apolitical and should have rigid stances that remain consistent regardless of the political beliefs of judges. Has anyone ever attempted to abolish section 1? I would like to see it repealed. To say i have rights unless a panel of judges decides violating them is reasonable is basically saying my rights are not guaranteed. The US would have none of this and neither should Canada.
_The US would have none of this and neither should Canada._ Americans have just allowed their supreme court to grant presidents complete immunity from the law for illegal acts committed 'during work hours' (simplified for the layman).
@imacmill I agree this is problematic in many respects. But even with this in place, the US constitution is still bulletproof compared the Canadian Charter.
No different in US. If the current Supreme Court is biased, they will twist the rules to suit. Women are losing their rights because of this, as one example
Trespass to property act is for Private property, government is not private. So with this how can they be using this to Trespass anyone acting on the "Right" being exercised at the time?
Here's a case you may find interesting. The Court did not question that Toronto City Hall could be the subject of a Trespass to Property Act notice, but struck it down as unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional, not because it was "public property" but because it interfered with freedom of expression. The same would apply to a police station. R. v. Semple and Héroux, 2004 ONCJ 55 canlii.ca/t/1h6b1
Even falsely convicted are being prevented from protesting both in courthouses & court grounds. I'm falsely convicted & was told to leave Edmonton Courthouse grounds on Law Day when I showed up with my protest sign. I'll do it again if anyone wants to see what happens. False convictions are an inherent part of our legal system, so although public needs to be informed, I was told there's kids & it doesn't look good.
@@NewsNowVictoria No, but like a science experiment, I'd bet anyone would get same results, but how does muting falsely convicted serve public interest while people are marching into court to commit perjury to help "the good guys", not realizing they're causing false convictions.
This was SO interesting, David! Your explanation of the reasoning process to test these potential infringements on our rights is very clear. I really liked your examples at the end, summing up your conclusions. I suggest you do more of these. (Btw, I'm thinking hard about how municipal restrictions on drone use could be infringements on our rights, but realize they probably aren't. ...)
Thanks for your kind words, Don. If municipal restrictions have the effect of interfering with expression (which drone videography is an expressive activity), then the Charter is engaged. Protecting wildlife in a national park or a wildlife sanctuary is likely enough of a justification, but I don't think municipalities have really turned their minds to this sort of thing to be able to justify it.
@@privacylawyerYes, the videography of art would be an infringement...I'm just not so sure about what could be called the mechanism to do the videography...the flying of a device with whirling blades (as a member of the public may consider it). The fact that it is a closely regulated activity would be a good argument towards the "it's safe" angle.
Thanks for this one. I enjoy your channel. One comment... if I visit either of the two mentioned police services and if my car has a dash camera, can I no longer park on those premises?
I was trespassed from the Yarmouth Nova Scotia town hall today for filming while conducting my business I’m apparently subject to arrest if I return within the next 5 months however while I was there today i received a voter information update form as I’m required to update my information to be able to vote in the next municipal election but I need to return the form with a copy of my id before Friday September 20th or it cannot be mailed out to my home and if I miss the drop off deadline I must pick up my voter card from town hall with photo I’d but I can’t do that because I’m trespassed limiting my ability to vote not only removing me from public property
Great video! But weird jump cut at 9:20 also I would suspect your advice on how to challenge these policies will go unheeded and some “auditor” will press the issue
I recall a class re privacy and Canada recording of employees came up,, Think an energy company went through it and someone else. as the employee said they were trying to just get him fired.. Think Union won and it came out that public area can have cameras and non public cant. Vehicle cams werent out at the time to see where it fits.
I have a related question. Years ago in Ontario I was videoing my daughter from the bleachers at a public swimming lesson at the public recreational pool. I was asked to stop because I had a dslr with zoom lens. The video was to send to my daughters grandparents. There were others who were filming with cel phones who were not asked to stop. It was explained I could be tresspassed and as far as I could tell any laws preventing it would be where privacy is expected such as a change room. I pressed the operators a bit and could not get a straight answer. In the end I was told only commercial photography was not allowed because of copyright laws on the architecture and only on a scheduled visit so that the public was not included. So, I scheduled a photo shoot of the architecture to see what woould happen and I was making a doll house for my daughter so I thought I would use the results as the wall paper on her house. At the meeting they were not very accomodating and told me I could not photograph towards employees etc etc... What I could piece together at the time was that they were full of BS, except as a parent was I going to chance being banned and disrupting my daughter's good time...not a chance. I happened to be suffering depression at the time and I felt very hurt, I suppose I may have been singled out because I was a bit stressed looking, but I only believe that makes it a worse crime for them because they are hurting people who do not deserve it; already suffering. So, I wonder if you could touch on that? It may be similar to the police station issue, but has so addition restrictions about the few places where photography is not allowed. Now that it is about 20 years later, I am curious if they still have the restriction. I'm with the justice warriors on this sort of stuff because the small price of annoyance to prove a point is valuable to everyone especially those who just want to go about their day photographing their kid.
I live in the North Bay area. I am a follower of many Charter auditors. There is one of them here in North Bay. I am also a strong supporter of accountability. How do we get this policy changed to better adhere to the Charter? Can this be done without spending a whole bunch of money? Is there a support service that could help us to follow through with the process of chellenging these tyrannical policies?
You may want to contact the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to see if this is something they'd want to take on. Contact your city counsellor or the local police services board, let them know it is unconstitutional and you want it changed.
I follow Ontario Audit. He came here and went into city hall and the police station and they let him be. He had some issues in city hall where security called police. They came in and let him be. This is a good sign.
Recently, I was protesting the Chief of Police for the Niagara Regional Police Service and two SGTs pulled the old "this is private property" routine. Of course, I have a license to provide legal services in Ontario, these officers do not so I went against my own advice to clients and subscribers and I litigated with them, roadside, and ultimately they tucked tail and went away. I am still peacefully protesting the bigoted Service here in Niagara and now I am working on a test case of the City of St. Catharines bylaw on loitering.
My main question is, if these policies are a violation and are waiting for someone eith deep pockets to fight it, why dont lawyers just use their pro bono duty yo challenge charter infringement?
Many of them do. I guess this specific issue hasn't been at the top of their lists, yet. In this case, which is really similar, I know the CCLA lawyers were pro bono and I expect the lawyers for the individual charged were also pro bono. Stewart v. Toronto (Police Services Board), 2020 ONCA 255 canlii.ca/t/j6fwl
The CCTV cameras of Toronto Police 53 Division don't work! I requested them from the head quartets, and they told me that the information asked doesn't exist!?!?
Ideas for subject - at my church, we Livestream services and post them on the Internet. It's recorded from the back of the room, but there is a point where people greet each other and their faces are observable. Also events where people are on stage, including children. And the service with the time is posted on our web site. I'm concerned about the safety of women who have an abusive spouse. Also about privacy. I think we should have some signage regarding this recording. Is a church a public place or a private place? We also used to publish a church address book. Info was voluntarily provided. Would a warning be needed as well? I'd also like info on the requirement to provide ID to law enforcement. A popular topic in the States.
If only following political means was effective. Here in NS ive never had responses from kind emails, phone messages, in persin drop ins, etc etc from local council, to MLA Dave Ritcry, And to Tim Houston. The later was not just my MLA, but became Premier as well. So i dont think the proper path is useful. And I support the conservatives. So how does one get things done when they dont respond to constituents?
If an authorized person representing a public establishment revokes someone's implied license to be on the property just on a "Whim". I.E. No explanation why, then that person has to leave. Better to not give an explanation. At least that is what a B.C. Prov. court judge ruled back in the 80's that I am aware of. My two cents
Surely it should be how the video or photography is used? If it's used to dox, or defame, and shared publicly for that purpose then there are likely legal steps that could be taken; harrasement, defamation, breech of privacy(?), etc.. If citizen journalists or advocacy groups, or a public person wanted to share the video, the identifiable info can be easisly removed; license plates, faces, addresses info can all be masked. If your not willing to mask stuff out before sharing, perhaps your motives come into question. Laziness, and making up rules as they go seems to be the norm.
I am hearing impaired. This makes it extra challenging to understand speech. The quality of your voice recording isn't terrible but it isn't the absolute best. I have a personal request, please consider using a lavalier microphone when recording your videos. I like your content and I would love it if your voice came through as mellifluous as possible.
IMHO you are failing to mention sec 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 33: The Notwithstanding Clause Text of Section 33: (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter. (2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration. (3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration. (4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1). (5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4). Explanation: The "notwithstanding clause" permits the federal Parliament or any provincial legislature to temporarily override certain sections of the Charter for a period of up to five years, after which the override must be renewed to remain in effect. This includes the fundamental freedoms in Section 2 (including Section 2(b) on freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression) and legal rights sections 7 to 15
The notwithstanding clause has not been invoked with respect to the Ontario Trespass to Property Act, so it didn't come into play with respect to these policies.
@@privacylawyer It is my understanding that a "legal action" is not required, it is the right of non federal governments. (Quebec has its own "Privacy" law). IMHO the issue with 2B is its misuse and allows the infringement of sec 7 when "2B Auditors' publish the images of individuals and businesses for profit with out authorization. (copyright or model release0. There was a case in Quebec where the province found the photographer in violation of a person privacy when he/she published the image. It was upheld by the Supreme Court, as a violation of Sec 7.
The legislature has to "expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be .... " So it has to be in the Act or another Act of the legislature.
@@privacylawyerI agree if its a by law, but it could be a policy of a particular location. enacted by a city council. if everything had to be sent to a parliament for approval nothing would get done in government. If you are correct then city councils, school boards etc. should not exist,
I’m pretty sure you give up your right to privacy by being on public property. The same law that allows police to record you entering the building is the same law that allows you to record on public property. The same law that allows businesses to record outside their premises.
Welcome to Canada, where we have a law for literally anything we do. Also where police will violate the law because they know it will cost you thousands of $$$ to get thrown out in court.
There are so many US RUclipsrs exercising essentially the same rights and freedoms that are outlind in the Charter and doing very good work at making the activities government officials transparent. When it comes to privacy, government workers are in the public realm and can't expect privacy as such while performing their duties such as in a police station. Their salaries and titles are also public information. When it comes to the privacy of citizens, it is the responsibility of citizens to make private their activities and not perform or expose private activities, or private information, in the public realm. Just close a door and lock it. Now they are private. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. BTW. We live in a surveillances society. There are cameras everywhere and, also, your internet activities are not private. You are being watched. Big Brother has come to roost.
@@prairie745 Yeah...I've seen a few. The only problem I ave with auditing here in Canada is that the LAW/Charter can be a bit flimsy when it comes to the courts. The USA Constitution seems to be more rock solid. I belive that if there were more canadian auditors, these inconsistencies in own own charter would be called out and then firmed up. Although the Carter is broader in scope, it tends to have a few holes in it. The Bill of Rights, now superceded by the Charter tends to be more rigid and helps to address inconsistencies in the newer Charter. A good example is the right to travel freely within Canada without harassment or molestation by any government agent. Case in point. The Ontario RIDE program which randomly stops innocent motorists to see if the driver is potentially a DUI suspect. This is no different than the police showing up at your door at any time and investigating you for any crime without any reasonable suspicion of a crime and demanding answers with the threat of arrest and or seizure of property as is the case with the RIDE program where the police WILL seize you, your drivers license and place you under arrest if you do not comply and answer their demands. I disagree with this program based solely on what the Bill of Rights says about my rights and freedoms. The Charter is weak on the matter. Unfortunately the Supreme Court of Canada upholds the right of Ontario police agencies to maintain this program. Several states in the USA have dropped similar programs based on their unconstitutional nature.
@@prairie745 I've seen a few Canadian auditors and generally I don't watch them because I am fearful for their defeat as I believe it is more likely than in the USA. I figure it this way. If someone is to engage in auditing, one had better have the time and financial resources for lawyers etc as well as a fair justice system. Let's not forget what the self-serving psychopath Trudeau did in early 2022. What a travesty of justice. So, I tend to watch more of the US stuff for sure. It is more satisfying from a legal standpoint and educational as it closely mirrors what is "supposed" to happen in Kanada-Stan.
Awesome Video David. Thanks for what you are doing,. We have been challenging these signs all over Ontario. please have a look at how the Hamilton Police reacted to us challenging these signs as well as imaginary/invisible signs they have installed. Station 20. would love to hear your opinion on the things they attempted. I think they may have committed a crime or 2. ruclips.net/user/liveL3o0a-nUyHo
Maybe you should be involved in a high stakes case and worried about your identity being divulged. Bet you would have a whole different outlook if people were out to kill you because they got your image from someone inside the police station. And what about just plain old common courtesy. People like to remain anonymous.
@@prairie745 No expectation of common sense and common courtesy neither. “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
You're one of the only ones clarifying this sort of thing for Canadians. Thank you for that.
ruclips.net/video/fTlhI9sskH0/видео.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
easy fix FIX your Constitution
Thanks for your thorough discussion regarding this. Police, more than any government agencies, need to be held accountable and closely monitored by “citizen journalists” due to their corrupt and violent tendencies!
🎉🎉🎉
Interesting, I just had an incident involving this in a Service Canada office. Long story short, they were openly profiling and discriminating against me in what appeared to be a wild workplace environment, and they suddenly changed their tune when I pulled out my phone and started recording. I really didn't want to do it but I have had my fill of always enduring extremely condescending lectures by the most incompetent narcissists that they can find to work in this awful places.
ruclips.net/video/fTlhI9sskH0/видео.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
Is there any kind of accountability for violating the charter ? Police departments should face some kind of accountability for this very probable violation of the charter. It sounds ridiculous that the police violates the charter with impunity.
That depends on how much money you want to spend.
ruclips.net/video/fTlhI9sskH0/видео.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
ruclips.net/video/fTlhI9sskH0/видео.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
I LOVE that you made this video. This is a big topic right now. Great timing!
Agreed 👍
@ButthurtImmigrant love your videos dude!
Signs are up in all Edmonton police buildings. In Edmonton Alberta, the police have also installed cell signal blockers inside the lobbies of their police stations.
Funny how that is illegal for you to do...
It is my belief that the over riding important issue is justice in the presence of police. It has been proven too many times that not all police are trustworthy, and have lied in court to the detriment of a citizen. The law must be clear that civilians need to be able to record when in the presence of a police officer. That includes in police stations. These points are indisputable facts.
ruclips.net/video/fTlhI9sskH0/видео.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
File a complaint with JCCF.
www.jccf.ca/
THANK YOU 🎉 🇨🇦
The perceived ownership of public property is disturbing.😮 apparently I'm a wingnuts!😮
Don't know if you're a wingnut, but it seems relatively well settled that someone can be "trespassed" from a public building or facility. But the Charter trumps that if it infringes freedom of expression. You may find this case to be of interest: R. v. Semple and Héroux, 2004 ONCJ 55 canlii.ca/t/1h6b1
🎉🎉🎉
I'm very interested in the whole subject of our rites as outlined in our Canadian Charter. I am also referring to anywhere that denotes a public space and therefore public access. This is not just in sreference to public spaces within public buildings such as: police stations, city halls, court houses, municipal airports, and the like. I believe this rite of public space needs to be realized in private institutions as well such as: grocery stores, drug stores, malls, restaurants and the like. Just because some little arrows are put down/on the floor of a grocery store isle encouraging or demanding that I follow in the direction of those arrows doesn't mean that I am obligated to walk in that direction while getting my groceries-I'm not in prison here I'm just getting groceries. Because the store did not require me to follow those arrows when I was given free access to come into the store then I am not obligated to.
The main concern that I'm having here when it comes to our rites as stated in our 'charter of rites and fre-edoms' appears to be a denial of those rites when, it comes to our courthouses. Actually or technically they are still regarded as public courthouses even if they are not called by that name very often. In Calgary, Alberta where I live this public courthouse complex is called Calgary Courts. As soon as you walk into the building you are forced to be scanned and basically searched even if you are not appearing in court You might be just getting a form or booking a small claims case. It doesn't matter, you are still required to be scanned and searched. I find that not only ludicrous but also unlawful. In otherwards it appears that they are changing a public space into a private one or at least into a secured area and a secured area cannot be regarded as a place where the public is free to go. And yet it is a public building so where can the public go where they will be unmolested and free to film.
I accept the standard practice of not allowing filming or recording in court rooms and hallways in Canada (at least for now) but how can there be any public space where filming in public is allowed in a building such as the Calgary Courts where there is a courtroom or two or more on almost every floor. When it is the practice of regarding the hallways outside the courtroom as part of the courtroom itself then there isn't much room for any space to be regarded as public. And yet there are still public offices on that same floor where the public need to go inorder to carry out their legal business. Because of our rite to film in public then I also should -have the rite to film and record my interaction during my business with a court clerk at a public counter.
The act of filming or recording from a public space because it is a rite cannot be deemed to be disruptive or disturbing the peace. What they did though to disturb the peace was to send 7 sherrifs to intimidate me and said I couldn't film in public. Then they stole my phone and deleted the two videos I had filmed and basically manhandled me out the front door. I'm still not done with this matter but I want to be more methodical about it and utilize more legal and lawful channels. If a lawsuit or something like that can be utilized to change the position of the courthouse in regards the rite to film in public then I will proceed with that at some point. I don't film in public to cause a stir and I don't have a Y-tube channel, it is simply to record my interaction with any government official or anyone so that if necessary I can refer to the videa at a later time to double check on the information that I recieved from the initial encounter.
I will watch for your videos. And thanks for providing this information for the people we need it. My name is Colin.
This is just excellent. Thank you for taking the time to make these well-researched videos.
ruclips.net/video/fTlhI9sskH0/видео.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
Leaving my obligatory algorithm comment.
I do enjoy this content and thus I have liked and sappacaribed.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS VIDEO
I'M A PART TIME CITIZEN JOURNALIST THAT RECORDS POLICE AND GOVERNMENT
THIS HAS HELPED CLEAR UP SOME THINGS I'VE ENCOUNTERED OVER YEARS
KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK IN EDUCATING THE PUBLIC WE NEED MORE PEOPLE LIKE YOU WILLING TO HELP
LOVE RESPECT FRIENDSHIP
❤️❤️🥃🥃👹👹🤠🤠
☮💜🌻
Thanks for your kind words.
MY OLD CHANNEL NAME IS
BIG RED OGRE IT HAS MORE VIDEOS THAN THIS ONE
HAD SOME CRAZY ENCOUNTERS WITH TORONTO POLICE
LOVE RESPECT FRIENDSHIP
❤️❤️🥃🥃👹👹🤠🤠
🎉🎉🎉
Excellent information!
Thanks for the video 👍
ruclips.net/video/fTlhI9sskH0/видео.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
One that really amazes me is the police taking roadside breath samples for alcohol without reasonable suspicion. Several police forces have stated they will use breathalyzers on every traffic stop, and this has already been supported by the courts. How?!
Because driving is a privilege. Not a right.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Rules like this are just ridiculously redundant/superfluous. You can put any sign out in any station you want or make any rule in any constitution you want, but I can secretly record anywhere and then walk out again with them none the wiser. As if nothing ever happened. And that is the standard that everyone should be judged by. Why? Because it's common sense.
Very good info👍
A great video on this topic. Thank you.
Section 1 of the Charter renders our entire Charter as weak. I admire the American constitution in that there isn't a way for the Supreme Court to basically excuse Charter violations because the violation was thought to be reasonable. Liberal vs conservative judges make such decisions based on political leanings, but the Charter should be apolitical and should have rigid stances that remain consistent regardless of the political beliefs of judges.
Has anyone ever attempted to abolish section 1? I would like to see it repealed.
To say i have rights unless a panel of judges decides violating them is reasonable is basically saying my rights are not guaranteed. The US would have none of this and neither should Canada.
I agree 💯%!!!
_The US would have none of this and neither should Canada._
Americans have just allowed their supreme court to grant presidents complete immunity from the law for illegal acts committed 'during work hours' (simplified for the layman).
@imacmill I agree this is problematic in many respects. But even with this in place, the US constitution is still bulletproof compared the Canadian Charter.
No different in US. If the current Supreme Court is biased, they will twist the rules to suit. Women are losing their rights because of this, as one example
Trespass to property act is for Private property, government is not private. So with this how can they be using this to Trespass anyone acting on the "Right" being exercised at the time?
Here's a case you may find interesting. The Court did not question that Toronto City Hall could be the subject of a Trespass to Property Act notice, but struck it down as unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional, not because it was "public property" but because it interfered with freedom of expression. The same would apply to a police station. R. v. Semple and Héroux, 2004 ONCJ 55 canlii.ca/t/1h6b1
@@privacylawyer This is great, once again I Thankyou 🌻
🎉🎉🎉
ruclips.net/video/fTlhI9sskH0/видео.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
Even falsely convicted are being prevented from protesting both in courthouses & court grounds. I'm falsely convicted & was told to leave Edmonton Courthouse grounds on Law Day when I showed up with my protest sign. I'll do it again if anyone wants to see what happens. False convictions are an inherent part of our legal system, so although public needs to be informed, I was told there's kids & it doesn't look good.
Did you record it???
@@NewsNowVictoria No, but like a science experiment, I'd bet anyone would get same results, but how does muting falsely convicted serve public interest while people are marching into court to commit perjury to help "the good guys", not realizing they're causing false convictions.
This was SO interesting, David! Your explanation of the reasoning process to test these potential infringements on our rights is very clear. I really liked your examples at the end, summing up your conclusions. I suggest you do more of these. (Btw, I'm thinking hard about how municipal restrictions on drone use could be infringements on our rights, but realize they probably aren't. ...)
More like probably are
Thanks for your kind words, Don. If municipal restrictions have the effect of interfering with expression (which drone videography is an expressive activity), then the Charter is engaged. Protecting wildlife in a national park or a wildlife sanctuary is likely enough of a justification, but I don't think municipalities have really turned their minds to this sort of thing to be able to justify it.
@@privacylawyerYes, the videography of art would be an infringement...I'm just not so sure about what could be called the mechanism to do the videography...the flying of a device with whirling blades (as a member of the public may consider it). The fact that it is a closely regulated activity would be a good argument towards the "it's safe" angle.
Thanks for this one. I enjoy your channel. One comment... if I visit either of the two mentioned police services and if my car has a dash camera, can I no longer park on those premises?
ruclips.net/video/fTlhI9sskH0/видео.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
I was trespassed from the Yarmouth Nova Scotia town hall today for filming while conducting my business I’m apparently subject to arrest if I return within the next 5 months however while I was there today i received a voter information update form as I’m required to update my information to be able to vote in the next municipal election but I need to return the form with a copy of my id before Friday September 20th or it cannot be mailed out to my home and if I miss the drop off deadline I must pick up my voter card from town hall with photo I’d but I can’t do that because I’m trespassed limiting my ability to vote not only removing me from public property
Awesome video! Thank you
Here in North Bay. They have these no recording signs with trespass law at polive station and other buildings.
Great video! But weird jump cut at 9:20 also I would suspect your advice on how to challenge these policies will go unheeded and some “auditor” will press the issue
Why the brackets?
ruclips.net/video/fTlhI9sskH0/видео.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
Thankyou for this 👍👍
Yes!
I recall a class re privacy and Canada recording of employees came up,, Think an energy company went through it and someone else. as the employee said they were trying to just get him fired.. Think Union won and it came out that public area can have cameras and non public cant. Vehicle cams werent out at the time to see where it fits.
ruclips.net/video/fTlhI9sskH0/видео.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
Always interesting, David!
I have a related question. Years ago in Ontario I was videoing my daughter from the bleachers at a public swimming lesson at the public recreational pool. I was asked to stop because I had a dslr with zoom lens. The video was to send to my daughters grandparents. There were others who were filming with cel phones who were not asked to stop. It was explained I could be tresspassed and as far as I could tell any laws preventing it would be where privacy is expected such as a change room. I pressed the operators a bit and could not get a straight answer. In the end I was told only commercial photography was not allowed because of copyright laws on the architecture and only on a scheduled visit so that the public was not included. So, I scheduled a photo shoot of the architecture to see what woould happen and I was making a doll house for my daughter so I thought I would use the results as the wall paper on her house. At the meeting they were not very accomodating and told me I could not photograph towards employees etc etc... What I could piece together at the time was that they were full of BS, except as a parent was I going to chance being banned and disrupting my daughter's good time...not a chance. I happened to be suffering depression at the time and I felt very hurt, I suppose I may have been singled out because I was a bit stressed looking, but I only believe that makes it a worse crime for them because they are hurting people who do not deserve it; already suffering. So, I wonder if you could touch on that? It may be similar to the police station issue, but has so addition restrictions about the few places where photography is not allowed. Now that it is about 20 years later, I am curious if they still have the restriction. I'm with the justice warriors on this sort of stuff because the small price of annoyance to prove a point is valuable to everyone especially those who just want to go about their day photographing their kid.
All Calgary Police Departments have ( NO PHOTOGRAPHY SIGNS on the Doors
Thank you , I 👍and Subbed , please keep making informative videos .
I live in the North Bay area. I am a follower of many Charter auditors. There is one of them here in North Bay. I am also a strong supporter of accountability. How do we get this policy changed to better adhere to the Charter? Can this be done without spending a whole bunch of money? Is there a support service that could help us to follow through with the process of chellenging these tyrannical policies?
You may want to contact the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to see if this is something they'd want to take on. Contact your city counsellor or the local police services board, let them know it is unconstitutional and you want it changed.
I follow Ontario Audit. He came here and went into city hall and the police station and they let him be. He had some issues in city hall where security called police. They came in and let him be. This is a good sign.
Recently, I was protesting the Chief of Police for the Niagara Regional Police Service and two SGTs pulled the old "this is private property" routine. Of course, I have a license to provide legal services in Ontario, these officers do not so I went against my own advice to clients and subscribers and I litigated with them, roadside, and ultimately they tucked tail and went away. I am still peacefully protesting the bigoted Service here in Niagara and now I am working on a test case of the City of St. Catharines bylaw on loitering.
In Alberta they will charge you for giving the police the finger isn't this also a violation of section 2?
Yup. You may find this case to be of interest: R v Wells, 2016 ABPC 171 canlii.ca/t/gsjtw
My main question is, if these policies are a violation and are waiting for someone eith deep pockets to fight it, why dont lawyers just use their pro bono duty yo challenge charter infringement?
Many of them do. I guess this specific issue hasn't been at the top of their lists, yet. In this case, which is really similar, I know the CCLA lawyers were pro bono and I expect the lawyers for the individual charged were also pro bono. Stewart v. Toronto (Police Services Board), 2020 ONCA 255 canlii.ca/t/j6fwl
The CCTV cameras of Toronto Police 53 Division don't work! I requested them from the head quartets, and they told me that the information asked doesn't exist!?!?
ruclips.net/video/fTlhI9sskH0/видео.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
Ideas for subject - at my church, we Livestream services and post them on the Internet. It's recorded from the back of the room, but there is a point where people greet each other and their faces are observable. Also events where people are on stage, including children. And the service with the time is posted on our web site. I'm concerned about the safety of women who have an abusive spouse. Also about privacy. I think we should have some signage regarding this recording. Is a church a public place or a private place? We also used to publish a church address book. Info was voluntarily provided. Would a warning be needed as well?
I'd also like info on the requirement to provide ID to law enforcement. A popular topic in the States.
Thanks again for the civics lesson
If only following political means was effective. Here in NS ive never had responses from kind emails, phone messages, in persin drop ins, etc etc from local council, to MLA Dave Ritcry, And to Tim Houston. The later was not just my MLA, but became Premier as well.
So i dont think the proper path is useful. And I support the conservatives. So how does one get things done when they dont respond to constituents?
If an authorized person representing a public establishment revokes someone's implied license to be on the property just on a "Whim". I.E. No explanation why, then that person has to leave. Better to not give an explanation. At least that is what a B.C. Prov. court judge ruled back in the 80's that I am aware of. My two cents
Yes they do public is public period they film us twenty four seven !
I subscribed ☝️🇨🇦☝️
Saumur makes it clear, essential liberties cannot be infringed using trespass on crown land.
calling out the wing nuts as they are. Good work !
but they have cameras in all these places!!!
Permission to photograph in a public library? This goes against charter of rights.
Surely it should be how the video or photography is used?
If it's used to dox, or defame, and shared publicly for that purpose then there are likely legal steps that could be taken; harrasement, defamation, breech of privacy(?), etc..
If citizen journalists or advocacy groups, or a public person wanted to share the video, the identifiable info can be easisly removed; license plates, faces, addresses info can all be masked. If your not willing to mask stuff out before sharing, perhaps your motives come into question.
Laziness, and making up rules as they go seems to be the norm.
So, my camera is a problem? If one has an identic mind would they be jailed for what their eyes can see?
Haha cops worried about being on video!! What a joke..
Check-out Durham Region's conduct policy.
I am hearing impaired. This makes it extra challenging to understand speech. The quality of your voice recording isn't terrible but it isn't the absolute best. I have a personal request, please consider using a lavalier microphone when recording your videos. I like your content and I would love it if your voice came through as mellifluous as possible.
IMHO you are failing to mention sec 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Section 33: The Notwithstanding Clause
Text of Section 33:
(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.
(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.
(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).
Explanation:
The "notwithstanding clause" permits the federal Parliament or any provincial legislature to temporarily override certain sections of the Charter for a period of up to five years, after which the override must be renewed to remain in effect. This includes the fundamental freedoms in Section 2 (including Section 2(b) on freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression) and legal rights sections 7 to 15
The notwithstanding clause has not been invoked with respect to the Ontario Trespass to Property Act, so it didn't come into play with respect to these policies.
@@privacylawyer It is my understanding that a "legal action" is not required, it is the right of non federal governments. (Quebec has its own "Privacy" law). IMHO the issue with 2B is its misuse and allows the infringement of sec 7 when "2B Auditors' publish the images of individuals and businesses for profit with out authorization. (copyright or model release0. There was a case in Quebec where the province found the photographer in violation of a person privacy when he/she published the image. It was upheld by the Supreme Court, as a violation of Sec 7.
The legislature has to "expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be .... " So it has to be in the Act or another Act of the legislature.
@@privacylawyerI agree if its a by law, but it could be a policy of a particular location. enacted by a city council. if everything had to be sent to a parliament for approval nothing would get done in government. If you are correct then city councils, school boards etc. should not exist,
@@privacylawyer ruclips.net/video/p00TDqbSjSE/видео.html An example of the use of sec 2b
I’m pretty sure you give up your right to privacy by being on public property. The same law that allows police to record you entering the building is the same law that allows you to record on public property. The same law that allows businesses to record outside their premises.
Yes, they do
Welcome to Canada, where we have a law for literally anything we do. Also where police will violate the law because they know it will cost you thousands of $$$ to get thrown out in court.
ruclips.net/video/fTlhI9sskH0/видео.htmlsi=g845a39t7D7nlzWb
There are so many US RUclipsrs exercising essentially the same rights and freedoms that are outlind in the Charter and doing very good work at making the activities government officials transparent.
When it comes to privacy, government workers are in the public realm and can't expect privacy as such while performing their duties such as in a police station. Their salaries and titles are also public information.
When it comes to the privacy of citizens, it is the responsibility of citizens to make private their activities and not perform or expose private activities, or private information, in the public realm. Just close a door and lock it. Now they are private.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public.
BTW. We live in a surveillances society. There are cameras everywhere and, also, your internet activities are not private.
You are being watched. Big Brother has come to roost.
There are Canadian auditors as well doing some good work up here 👍
@@prairie745 Yeah...I've seen a few. The only problem I ave with auditing here in Canada is that the LAW/Charter can be a bit flimsy when it comes to the courts. The USA Constitution seems to be more rock solid. I belive that if there were more canadian auditors, these inconsistencies in own own charter would be called out and then firmed up. Although the Carter is broader in scope, it tends to have a few holes in it. The Bill of Rights, now superceded by the Charter tends to be more rigid and helps to address inconsistencies in the newer Charter. A good example is the right to travel freely within Canada without harassment or molestation by any government agent. Case in point. The Ontario RIDE program which randomly stops innocent motorists to see if the driver is potentially a DUI suspect. This is no different than the police showing up at your door at any time and investigating you for any crime without any reasonable suspicion of a crime and demanding answers with the threat of arrest and or seizure of property as is the case with the RIDE program where the police WILL seize you, your drivers license and place you under arrest if you do not comply and answer their demands. I disagree with this program based solely on what the Bill of Rights says about my rights and freedoms. The Charter is weak on the matter. Unfortunately the Supreme Court of Canada upholds the right of Ontario police agencies to maintain this program. Several states in the USA have dropped similar programs based on their unconstitutional nature.
@@Ian-iu2tl I totally agree with you on the DUI stuff. How many 🇨🇦 'Auditors'/copwatchers do you follow, just asking
@@prairie745 I've seen a few Canadian auditors and generally I don't watch them because I am fearful for their defeat as I believe it is more likely than in the USA. I figure it this way. If someone is to engage in auditing, one had better have the time and financial resources for lawyers etc as well as a fair justice system. Let's not forget what the self-serving psychopath Trudeau did in early 2022. What a travesty of justice. So, I tend to watch more of the US stuff for sure. It is more satisfying from a legal standpoint and educational as it closely mirrors what is "supposed" to happen in Kanada-Stan.
Officer safety = Cowardice
Awesome Video David. Thanks for what you are doing,.
We have been challenging these signs all over Ontario.
please have a look at how the Hamilton Police reacted to us challenging these signs as well as imaginary/invisible signs they have installed. Station 20.
would love to hear your opinion on the things they attempted. I think they may have committed a crime or 2.
ruclips.net/user/liveL3o0a-nUyHo
You know how you know he is a good lawyer? That view isn’t cheap.
Maybe you should be involved in a high stakes case and worried about your identity being divulged. Bet you would have a whole different outlook if people were out to kill you because they got your image from someone inside the police station. And what about just plain old common courtesy. People like to remain anonymous.
No expectation of 'privacy' out in public
@@prairie745 No expectation of common sense and common courtesy neither.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
@@ordinarycitizen-v5n exactly!! 🤣😂