Privacy debate: Cameras, speeding and Charter rights

Law360 Canada (September 16, 2025, 11:51 AM EDT) --

John L. Hill

Two recent news stories in Ontario have sparked public debate about how much privacy citizens should have.

Hamilton homeowner Dan Myles was ordered to comply with a bylaw and remove 10 home security cameras that had been in place for seven years and may have helped police solve crimes. The cameras, it is claimed, infringe on the public’s privacy expectations if recordings are made of incidents outside the owner’s property.

In Toronto, there is criticism of speed cameras on city streets. There seems to be an organized effort to remove 16 speed enforcement cameras. Ontario Premier Doug Ford warned that if municipalities do not eliminate the automated speed devices, he will.

An appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal can clarify how Canadian courts interpret our privacy expectations in criminal cases (R. v. Unrau, 2025 ABCA 239).

Paul Unrau appealed his convictions on three counts of narcotic possession and one count of possession of stolen property. His main argument challenged the trial judge’s decision during a voir dire to allow an Information to Obtain a search warrant, which appeared to violate s. 8 of the Charter (the right against unreasonable search and seizure).

Unrau was arrested following a police investigation into suspected drug trafficking from his ground-floor apartment, Unit 101, between Oct. 17, 2019, and Feb. 6, 2020. Complaints from tenants about unregistered guests and heavy foot traffic prompted the property manager to issue warnings and cooperate with the police. Acting on this information, officers conducted surveillance and made three warrantless entries into the apartment building. The first was on Oct. 23, 2019. An officer entered through an unlocked lobby and a broken hallway door, observing Unit 101 with a security camera. Then, on Dec. 11, 2019, after entering the building, a police officer saw a known drug user briefly visit Unit 101. Finally, on Jan. 20, 2020, the officer entered again, observing visitors coming in and out of Unit 101.

Additional surveillance was carried out from the parking lot, where officers observed patterns consistent with drug trafficking. It was not until Feb. 7, 2020, that police obtained a search warrant based on the accumulated observations. The search recovered drugs, leading to Unrau’s arrest.

The Unrau appeal aimed to determine whether unlawful warrantless entries infringe upon s. 8 of the Charter rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy in the locked or semi-locked common areas of his apartment building? The broken hallway lock and the unlocked lobby door complicated the analysis.

Further, did police observation of Unit 101’s hallway from vantage points in the open-air parking lot engage s. 8 privacy rights?

If s. 8 rights were breached, the validity of the search warrant could be challenged, and any evidence found could be ruled inadmissible.

Section 8 of the Charter protects an individual’s right to be left alone (R. v. Bykovets, 2024 SCC 6; R. v. Reeves, 2018 SCC 56). Courts must take a purposive approach in interpreting s. 8 that recognizes the protection of privacy as a prerequisite to individual security, self-fulfillment and autonomy (R. v. Spencer, 2014 SCC 43).

A search occurs, according to Bykovets, when the state intrudes upon a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Reasonableness involves several factors: (1) the subject matter of the search; (2) the claimant’s interest in the subject matter; (3) the claimant’s personal expectation of privacy; and (4) whether that expectation was objectively reasonable.

The Appeal Court paid little attention to differences in the information gathered about activity in and around Unit 101 (R. v. Yu, 2019 ONCA 942). As in the Yu decision, the focus of the search was “information about the appellants’ residency and their comings and goings.”

The court held that tenants in multi-unit apartments generally do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in common areas such as lobbies or hallways, especially when access is not reliably controlled (e.g., broken locks, unlocked doors).

While the Alberta Court of Appeal showed great deference for the trial judge’s decision, the reasoning used in dismissing the appeal can help homeowners who want to keep their security cameras or video doorbell cameras despite municipal bylaws or municipalities that view speed cameras as necessary tools to manage traffic flow.

John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books), was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.