Success!

For the past two years, Rebel News has chronicled the plight of Dan Myles. The Hamilton resident’s house has no fewer than 10 video cameras recording the comings and goings of people in the neighbourhood. Alas, some of those people are nefarious characters indeed.

Of note, the Hamilton Police Service has no problem with Dan’s videography. In fact, the cops are thankful. The police have solved crimes over the years thanks to Dan’s video evidence – including homicide cases.

Go Ad Free

But for some reason, the City of Hamilton doesn’t like those cameras. Which is bizarre, because should you choose to visit Hamilton City Hall, several industrial-grade 360-degree surveillance cameras abound. But never mind…

And so it was that some two years ago Hamilton Bylaw ordered Dan to take down his cameras. Dan refused.

Yet, why is the city so concerned, especially when it is enduring its worst crime wave in history?

Apparently, it’s all about “privacy.” The cameras record the sidewalks and the streets as well as the front yardage of some properties. But with the exception of one neighbour (the person who complained to bylaw), homeowners in the neighbourhood have no problem with the video surveillance.

And yet, Hamilton Bylaw stubbornly maintains that Dan’s cameras are offside.

The city based its case on 2010 legislation known as the Fortification Bylaw. This bylaw prohibits homeowners from using cameras capable of recording beyond their property line. The bylaw was prompted by the presence of a Hells Angels clubhouse in Hamilton at the time. Apparently, the city didn’t want the Hells Angels tipped off should law enforcement stage a raid.

But get this: Dan says during his tussle with the city, he found out that the city’s own lawyer some 16 years ago said the bylaw was not constitutional. Still, the city proceeded. Besides, if the city had to fight the constitutionality of the bylaw, it had plenty of funds to do so – taxpayer funds, that is.

But it’s bizarre. Does Hamilton Bylaw realize there are surely thousands of doorbell cameras and dashcams in Hamilton? When does the door-to-door crackdown on those cameras begin?

In any case, at one point the city ordered Dan to take down the cameras – or bylaw would trespass on his property and do so themselves, billing Dan for this “service,” of course.

At one point, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) got involved. Lawyers funded by the Justice Centre sent a legal warning letter to the City of Hamilton arguing that the Fortification Bylaw’s prohibition on residential security cameras violated the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression under section 2(b).

Constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir stated: “This bylaw goes well beyond what is necessary to protect safety or privacy. The reality is that almost everyone with a doorbell camera will be violating this excessive prohibition. The right to freedom of expression includes the right to record, which should especially include recording public spaces, like streets and sidewalks.”

The warning letter argued that the prohibition was unrelated to the bylaw’s stated purpose of ensuring safe entry to and exit from properties and was far broader than necessary to achieve that objective.

After receiving the legal warning letter, Hamilton City Council voted to review the Fortification Bylaw rather than continue defending its prohibition on residential security cameras.

And now comes word from Dan that the city is finally bending the knee, that it will no longer go after him or his cameras. Victory!

But there is an epilogue: Dan is now going on offence. He has retained a lawyer to draft a class action civil lawsuit against the City of Hamilton for all the residents it has harassed for using video cameras similar to Dan’s.

This story is not over yet. Stay tuned.