Do photography/videography bans in police stations and "public" buildings violate the Charter? 

You're one of the only ones clarifying this sort of thing for Canadians. Thank you for that.

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.

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!

I LOVE that you made this video. This is a big topic right now. Great timing!

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.

THANK YOU 🎉 🇨🇦

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.

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?!

This is just excellent. Thank you for taking the time to make these well-researched videos.

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.

Excellent information! Thanks for the video 👍

The perceived ownership of public property is disturbing.😮 apparently I'm a wingnuts!😮

Leaving my obligatory algorithm comment. I do enjoy this content and thus I have liked and sappacaribed.

All Calgary Police Departments have ( NO PHOTOGRAPHY SIGNS on the Doors

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.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

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.

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.

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?

In Alberta they will charge you for giving the police the finger isn't this also a violation of section 2?

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

A great video on this topic. Thank you.

Permission to photograph in a public library? This goes against charter of rights.

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?

Awesome video! Thank you

Very good info👍

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. ...)

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

Yes they do public is public period they film us twenty four seven !

but they have cameras in all these places!!!

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!?!?

Always interesting, David!

Thankyou for this 👍👍

Thank you , I 👍and Subbed , please keep making informative videos .

Thanks again for the civics lesson

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

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.

Saumur makes it clear, essential liberties cannot be infringed using trespass on crown land.

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?

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’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.

You know how you know he is a good lawyer? That view isn’t cheap.

So, my camera is a problem? If one has an identic mind would they be jailed for what their eyes can see?

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

calling out the wing nuts as they are. Good work !

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

Haha cops worried about being on video!! What a joke..

I subscribed ☝️🇨🇦☝️

Check-out Durham Region's conduct policy.

Yes, they do

There are so many US RU-vidrs 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.

Officer safety = Cowardice

Maybe you should be involved in a high stakes case and worried about your identity being divulged. Bet you would have a whole different outlook if people were out to kill you because they got your image from someone inside the police station. And what about just plain old common courtesy. People like to remain anonymous.