City of Hamilton removes “unenforceable” security camera rules from local bylaw

Hamilton city councillors voted to remove rules regarding security cameras from a local bylaw after a report from city staff said that the rules were outdated, unenforceable, and open to a Charter challenge.

City council approved an amendment to By-law 10-122, the Fortification By-law, that removes video surveillance equipment from the bylaw’s definition of “excessive protective elements.” 

The bylaw dates to 2010, when the city was dealing with heavily fortified properties, most notably a Hells Angels clubhouse. 

The bylaw targeted features that could keep paramedics, firefighters and police from getting in or out, such as reinforced fencing, heavy steel doors, and surveillance systems capable of monitoring beyond a property’s boundary.

“The intent of the fortification bylaw was never to be a camera bylaw,” Rob Lalli, the city’s chief building official, told councillors. 

He said the bylaw was meant to deal with clubhouses that were excessively fortifying their property and keeping EMS from attending. 

“It now appears that it’s morphed into something more than that,” he added.

When the bylaw was drafted in 2009 and 2010, Lalli said, there were no camera doorbells or other low-cost, mass-market cameras. 

“Now everybody, or every second person, has some type of surveillance camera at their property.”

The city’s own numbers show that shift. Building Division data in the staff report shows complaints rising from roughly 11 in 2012 to about 171 in 2023, most of them involving cameras and neighbour disputes. 

Staff said the bylaw was increasingly being used against cameras that captured areas beyond property lines, even though it was never meant to regulate reasonable personal security measures.

Enforcement has been its own problem. The report calls camera prosecutions complex and resource-intensive, with significant challenges in getting a conviction, and notes that past Provincial Offence charges have failed. 

Investigators have to establish a camera’s position, its field of view and what it captures incidentally, and those details are hard to prove. 

Staff also warned that “the current provisions regulating cameras are legally vulnerable and difficult to enforce and are susceptible to Charter challenges related to freedom of expression.”

The review gained urgency in August 2025, when the city ordered MacNab Street North resident Dan Myles to remove 10 cameras from his home.

The Calgary-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms then wrote to the city arguing the camera restrictions violated freedom of expression under the Charter.

Staff expect the change to have positive operational impacts, including reduced staff time, lower legal costs and less risk of Charter litigation. 

They say it also returns the bylaw to its core purpose of addressing physical fortification that affects emergency access. 

A scan of comparable municipalities found most don’t regulate residential cameras this way. 

Staff argue that concerns about privacy, harassment or inappropriate monitoring are better handled under existing federal and provincial law, including civil remedies and the Criminal Code.

Instead, Hamilton plans to follow Toronto’s lead. 

Toronto has no camera bylaw but provides guidance online, and Hamilton will create a similar webpage on best practices for installing cameras, limiting their impact on neighbours and resolving disputes. 

Lalli outlined the steps available to residents. 

They can talk to their neighbour and ask that the camera be repositioned or certain features turned off. 

If that fails, they can try community mediation. They can seek independent legal advice if they believe a camera is interfering with their privacy or enjoyment of their property. 

They can also contact Hamilton Police Service if a camera appears to be used for criminal activity, harassment, intimidation or other public safety concerns.

Not everyone is satisfied. 

The newly formed Hamilton Privacy Alliance delegated to council, asking for a separate bylaw dedicated to cameras and privacy. 

The group has also raised concerns about cameras with sophisticated features such as thermal imaging and facial recognition.

Lalli left that door open. 

He told councillors that if they direct staff to pursue some other type of camera bylaw “then we can do so.”