Remote ID question and question for Canadians

[rjwmorrell]

As I mentioned previously, I live only a few kilometers from Rouge Urban Park......before it was created, I used to fly quite a bit in that area. That is why after the park formation I asked one of the park officials while hiking one of the trails about drones......simple answer, no flying. I didn't ask about taking off from a public local roadway.

If you look at a map of that area, the proposed (50 years ago) Pickering Airport lands abut the Rouge Urban lands quite a bit. I do fly in that area as it is either woodland or farmland and dirt roads. One day while flying, a pickup truck pulled up to me on a dead end road, and proceeded to ask me what I was doing.....I said wait a minute I need to land. Net of it all, the individual works for the property management company that "patrols" the proposed airport lands and said I could not fly in the area.

When I asked why he thought so, he said it is "private property".....I said the Pickering roads of which I was on one of them are open to the public. He said I was mistaken.

So, I contacted Transport Canada who sent me to NavCanada, who said the GPS coordinates I sent them did not preclude from flying in that area. Bumped into the property management rep again when not flying, had the NavCanada discussion and he stuck to his position that they are "private roads", although not marked as such. I said I was going to talk to the City of Pickering and a City rep confirmed they are public roadways.

Soooo, when the warm spring weather arrives, I will be back out there and if the property management guy approaches me again, I will give him my side of the research and discussions, and if he wants to press the matter, I will suggest we call a LEO to arbitrate. I have my hobby drone license and the most recent Transport Canada accreditation, and the communications from the assorted affiliated agencies.

I guess there comes a point when I get tired of blind assertions with no supporting evidence. Besides, there next to no vehicles, people or buildings in the area.....just wonderful subject matter for videos and panoramas. Also, the Markham airport is more than 5 kilometers away, and I can hear and see aircraft approaching. I guess I am getting stubborn in my old age.

Sometimes it's worthwhile to force the issue to a head, if for no other reason than to gain clarity. Nobody wants to be first, usually, but it may help with setting the precedent one way or the other.

Roads *can* be privately owned, but even then, if the public has open access to them it's hard to argue that some person in authority could exercise some exclusive control over them. Unwin Ave in Toronto is a great example. A section of the road is technically owned by the Toronto Ports Authority (or was, when i worked for the security company they contracted). But the road was open to and connected to public roads on both ends of the section, so you'd never know if you missed the small sign. At any rate it made no difference, police patrolled it and enforced HTA on it as with any other public highway, and you can bet that had any of our security guards tried to block access or order people off the road etc, that would have been fixed right quick.

 

[rjwmorrell]

We have a similar situation going on here in America as well. Unfortunately there isn't many people who understand the difference between public and private property. This often lead to big fights that often end up in court but I admit, it's mostly over how much is the property owned privately vs. publicly. However, some people believe the property is private property when the owner is "the government" and they often believe they themselves are the custodians of the property. Just ask them "who are the owners" and they will tell you [a government entity] owns it. When in reality the property is owned by the people...the public as we paid for it and we should be able to use it (within reason). It really really bugs me and in my next life, I'm going to do something about it.

Even public property can exclude access to classes of members of the public though.

Just because your tax dollars paid for CIA headquarters doesn't mean you can roam its hallways carte blanche.

 

[mavic3usa]

Even public property can exclude access to classes of members of the public though.

Just because your tax dollars paid for CIA headquarters doesn't mean you can roam its hallways carte blanche.

All public property can have restricted areas. Post a sign that says employees only beyond this point. Close a locked door, put up keycard access....need a badge to get in. Otherwise, if it's open to the public then it's open to everyone. Time place and manor meaning if the hours are open until 5pm then I can go in there and stay in there (until I commit a crime) until it closes and then I have to leave. The laws and the cases are clear on this; it's a limited public forum meaning I can't pitch a tent in there, feed my horses in the lobby, roll in a piano and play my favorite tunes (because it's disrupting) but at the same time, the building manager or the receptionist, or the security cannot trespass me because they don't like me or how I look or if I am exercising my rights. If Langley puts up a gate in the parking lot entrance and you have to show ID to drive beyond the gate, that's fine. No gate and I'm going in there because technically that's my parking lot not yours.

 

[rjwmorrell]

What's the difference between a sign telling you that you may not go into some place or do some activity, even in a public building or work, and a security guard verbally telling you the same thing?

Why prefer to listen to one over the other?

Because I can assure you in my jurisdiction, Ontario, Canada, there is effectively no difference and both have the equal weight of law.

You may be able to argue some human rights code or other unfairness if you are singled out for some illogical reason. But if a guard tells you "you can't fly drones here" it's the same as if there was a sign saying the same thing, at least where I live.

 

[EricJT]

What's the difference between a sign telling you that you may not go into some place or do some activity, even in a public building or work, and a security guard verbally telling you the same thing?

Why prefer to listen to one over the other?

Because I can assure you in my jurisdiction, Ontario, Canada, there is effectively no difference and both have the equal weight of law.

You may be able to argue some human rights code or other unfairness if you are singled out for some illogical reason. But if a guard tells you "you can't fly drones here" it's the same as if there was a sign saying the same thing, at least where I live.

Not sure if I spelled it out in my original post but the "guard" is an employee of the property management company that is tasked with that federal land....to do what, I haven't a clue.

The dirt road that I was flying from borders farm fields with no buildings. The road itself has a sign part way in heading north saying "End of City Road" (Pickering) and continues for about a kilometre north until another sign says the same thing going in the southbound direction.

I know in winter an individual who lives near that section plows it with his pickup truck....not the City or the property management company.

There are absolutely no signs restricting public access and the times the property management employee has seen me taking panoramas with my DSLR and tripod, no comments or interaction....only when flying my drone.

So with good weather again, more than likely I will be back out there again.

If he confronts me, I will suggest we call LE to sort it out. In my original post I failed to mention that the first time he said as he was about to leave that he didn't work after 4pm or on weekends....nudge,nudge, wink, wink.

As an aside, I had prostate surgery a month ago so I am ready for a pissing contest!

 

[rjwmorrell]

Not sure if I spelled it out in my original post but the "guard" is an employee of the property management company that is tasked with that federal land....to do what, I haven't a clue.

The dirt road that I was flying from borders farm fields with no buildings. The road itself has a sign part way in heading north saying "End of City Road" (Pickering) and continues for about a kilometre north until another sign says the same thing going in the southbound direction.

I know in winter an individual who lives near that section plows it with his pickup truck....not the City or the property management company.

There are absolutely no signs restricting public access and the times the property management employee has seen me taking panoramas with my DSLR and tripod, no comments or interaction....only when flying my drone.

So with good weather again, more than likely I will be back out there again.

If he confronts me, I will suggest we call LE to sort it out. In my original post I failed to mention that the first time he said as he was about to leave that he didn't work after 4pm or on weekends....nudge,nudge, wink, wink.

As an aside, I had prostate surgery a month ago so I am ready for a pissing contest!

I should have quoted him but my reply was actually not intended for you, it was for mavic3usa.

 

[EricJT]

I should have quoted him but my reply was actually not intended for you, it was for mavic3usa.

Ah, thx.

 

[mavic3usa]

What's the difference between a sign telling you that you may not go into some place or do some activity, even in a public building or work, and a security guard verbally telling you the same thing?

Why prefer to listen to one over the other?

Because I can assure you in my jurisdiction, Ontario, Canada, there is effectively no difference and both have the equal weight of law.

You may be able to argue some human rights code or other unfairness if you are singled out for some illogical reason. But if a guard tells you "you can't fly drones here" it's the same as if there was a sign saying the same thing, at least where I live.

I don't know the laws/rules/regulation in Canada so I can't tell you the difference. Only that, here in America, if there is no law then it isn't enforceable by law enforcement. Yes you can post anything you want on a sign but the citizens only have to obey the laws, not the policies. There is a difference between something being the law and something being "the force of law." Not sure exactly what you mean by that so maybe you can provide an example. I think we are mostly in agreement and probably talking about some edge case as the difference.

To be clear on my previous comments, I often find security guards say things and signs posted that are *not* lawful but whomever posted the sign would love to have it enforced by law enforcement. On public property (not on private property) unless I am breaking the law, I don't have to obey it.....however, there are exceptions to everything and there may be rare cases where a police officer can give a lawful order that you'll need to obey [for now]. For example, if I walk into city hall and the sign on the front door says no cellphone usage inside and the city doesn't have a code for that (meaning it's a city hall policy), I'm using my cellphone inside if I wish. Only in the restricted areas or the areas where the public are not allowed can they control these things. If the general public is allowed then me and my cellphone are allowed. I once saw a city hall that had a sign posted that said "No protesting" and I laughed. Again, not sure how it works in countries that are not free.

 

[Robert Prior]

What's the difference between a sign telling you that you may not go into some place or do some activity, even in a public building or work, and a security guard verbally telling you the same thing?

Honestly, I would trust the sign more. I've had plenty of security guards tell me I couldn't do something that in fact I could do.

See my comment #20 above for one reason why…

 

[rjwmorrell]

Honestly, I would trust the sign more. I've had plenty of security guards tell me I couldn't do something that in fact I could do.

See my comment #20 above for one reason why…

Having been that security guard before and can say with some level of confidence that it doesn't matter really whether an activity was permitted at any point, once an owner or occupier, or agent for the owner of occupier (I.e. security guard) tells you that you can't do something, the Trespass to Property Act considers that notice of a prohibited activity, and you can then be trespassed.

Many, many times I apprehended trespassers even when no signage was present, after merely telling them they had to stop an activity or had to leave, and they failed to do either.

 

[rjwmorrell]

I don't know the laws/rules/regulation in Canada so I can't tell you the difference. Only that, here in America, if there is no law then it isn't enforceable by law enforcement. Yes you can post anything you want on a sign but the citizens only have to obey the laws, not the policies. There is a difference between something being the law and something being "the force of law." Not sure exactly what you mean by that so maybe you can provide an example. I think we are mostly in agreement and probably talking about some edge case as the difference.

To be clear on my previous comments, I often find security guards say things and signs posted that are *not* lawful but whomever posted the sign would love to have it enforced by law enforcement. On public property (not on private property) unless I am breaking the law, I don't have to obey it.....however, there are exceptions to everything and there may be rare cases where a police officer can give a lawful order that you'll need to obey [for now]. For example, if I walk into city hall and the sign on the front door says no cellphone usage inside and the city doesn't have a code for that (meaning it's a city hall policy), I'm using my cellphone inside if I wish. Only in the restricted areas or the areas where the public are not allowed can they control these things. If the general public is allowed then me and my cellphone are allowed. I once saw a city hall that had a sign posted that said "No protesting" and I laughed. Again, not sure how it works in countries that are not free.

In Ontario (the other 9 provinces have their own similar legislation) the Trespass to Property Act gives wide latitude to an owner/occupier of premises to control entry to and activities upon their property.

Public building are usually covered under separate legislation. During the G8/G20 summit in Toronto, one such Act was revised and new regulations published that gave law enforcement autbority to restrict access and activities within a certain proximity to public works, and the definition of public works even included the security barriers put up around the summit locations.

Back to the trespass Act example, an occupier may give notice orally or in writing (or by signage or by colour coded marking system set out in section 7) of a prohibited activity or of prohibited entry. The act also gives the occupier authority to arrest a person who is doing a prohibited activity. A person can be prosecuted under the Provincial Offences Act, which for the convenience of our Americans would be similar to a "violation" and is not considered a criminal matter (less than a misdemeanor). While there is no jail time, you can be made to pay fines, and obviously banned from property.

 

[mavic3usa]

In Ontario (the other 9 provinces have their own similar legislation) the Trespass to Property Act gives wide latitude to an owner/occupier of premises to control entry to and activities upon their property.

Public building are usually covered under separate legislation. During the G8/G20 summit in Toronto, one such Act was revised and new regulations published that gave law enforcement autbority to restrict access and activities within a certain proximity to public works, and the definition of public works even included the security barriers put up around the summit locations.

Back to the trespass Act example, an occupier may give notice orally or in writing (or by signage or by colour coded marking system set out in section 7) of a prohibited activity or of prohibited entry. The act also gives the occupier authority to arrest a person who is doing a prohibited activity. A person can be prosecuted under the Provincial Offences Act, which for the convenience of our Americans would be similar to a "violation" and is not considered a criminal matter (less than a misdemeanor). While there is no jail time, you can be made to pay fines, and obviously banned from property.

Well, that's too bad; sorry to hear it. Nothing like that in America, not even close. We have too much dishonesty in this country for something like that to work. It would be abused to no end. The mall is private property but it's open to the public and yet, in many places at least a limited public forum when it comes to the common areas or the public gathering spaces. Same with public accommodations. There's a reason why pretty much everything except for private residents doesn't enjoy such broad powers afforded by your Act. In America, everybody has to follow the law, no exceptions.

 

[Robert Prior]

Having been that security guard before and can say with some level of confidence that it doesn't matter really whether an activity was permitted at any point, once an owner or occupier, or agent for the owner of occupier (I.e. security guard) tells you that you can't do something, the Trespass to Property Act considers that notice of a prohibited activity, and you can then be trespassed.

Many, many times I apprehended trespassers even when no signage was present, after merely telling them they had to stop an activity or had to leave, and they failed to do either.

So a security guard can just make up rules and people have no choice but to obey or risk trespass? What is someone's recourse if the rules are being applied incorrectly (or are non-existent)?

And I assume that there must be limits on who is considered an agent of the owner/occupier for different purposes. I know as a teacher I had no authority to trespass people from the property. Neither did the administration — they had to call the police. I'll have to bring this up with my lawyer friend during our next walk.

Edit to add: I'm not saying you're wrong in terms of what the Trespass to Property Act allows. I'm curious about the legal landscape, hence my questions (which I'll also be asking my friend). If you're in the GTA I'd happily buy you a beer while discussing the issue, because there must be some limitations on what activities can be restricted.

 

[Robert Prior]

Public building are usually covered under separate legislation. During the G8/G20 summit in Toronto, one such Act was revised and new regulations published that gave law enforcement autbority to restrict access and activities within a certain proximity to public works, and the definition of public works even included the security barriers put up around the summit locations.

That was extremely controversial (as was a lot of what happened during the G20), and those new regulations were repealed afterwards. The Act in question was a wartime measure that wasn't repealed after WWII.

The Ontario ombudsman's report is interesting reading:

Regulation 233/10, passed to enhance security during the G20 summit, should never have been enacted. It was likely unconstitutional. The effect of Regulation 233/10, now expired, was to infringe on freedom of expression in ways that do not seem justifiable in a free and democratic society. Specifically, the passage of the regulation triggered the extravagant police authority found in the Public Works Protection Act, including the power to arbitrarily arrest and detain people and to engage in unreasonable searches and seizures. Even apart from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the legality of Regulation 233/10 is doubtful. The Public Works Protection Act under which it was proclaimed authorizes regulations to be created to protect infrastructure, not to provide security to people during events. Regulation 233/10 was therefore probably invalid for having exceeded the authority of the enactment under which it was passed.

https://www.ombudsman.on.ca/Files/sitemedia/Documents/Investigations/SORT%20Investigations/g20final1-en.pdf

And speaking of interesting reading, I found this book interesting as well:

Excessive Force : Toronto's Fight to Reform City Policing

DescriptionAlok Mukherjee was the civilian overseer of the Toronto police between 2005 and 2015, during the most tumultuous decade the force had ever faced. In this provocative and highly readable collaboration with Tim Harper, former Toronto Star national affairs columnist, Mukherjee reveals...

douglas-mcintyre.com

 

[EricJT]

Well, I must apologize for my lack of due diligence. Upon a much more thorough dive into the Canadian federal government's website regarding the proposed Pickering airport lands, I found a brief mention buried in the verbiage that does state the lands are indeed private property. So I guess I won't press my luck and fly there any more.