Hub Podcasts Hamilton man ordered to remove home security cameras likely had rights violated
Sep 10, 2025
Christine Van Geyn, litigation director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation, dives into the contentious case of a Hamilton homeowner ordered to remove ten security cameras under a municipal bylaw. She argues this regulation misapplies laws, potentially infringing on individual rights. The discussion highlights the clash between outdated surveillance laws and modern privacy expectations, examines the perceptions of crime versus statistics in Canada, and addresses the ethical dilemmas surrounding homeowners' need for security in a digital age.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Bylaw Limits Are Narrow
- The Hamilton bylaw bans surveillance only when it is designed to view or listen beyond a property's perimeter or when lenses are hidden and aimed at others.
- Christine Van Geyn says the cameras described likely capture incidental footage and therefore probably fall outside the bylaw's proper scope.
Homeowner Shared Crime Footage
- The homeowner says his cameras helped police with evidence for three homicides and dozens of break-ins and assaults.
- He has uploaded footage to social media and the police have asked to use his recordings multiple times.
Don't Apply For Unnecessary Exemptions
- You should not be forced to apply for an exemption if the bylaw does not apply to your commercially available security cameras.
- Christine Van Geyn expects the city will have to withdraw or rethink such an order rather than require bureaucratic exemptions.
