**Hamilton, ON – Warning Letter Sent Over Residential Security Camera Ban**

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has announced that a warning letter has been sent to the City of Hamilton regarding its ban on residential security cameras. The letter states that the city’s Fortification Bylaw is unconstitutional and must be amended or repealed.

On August 15, 2025, Hamilton resident Daniel Myles was ordered to remove all ten of his outdoor security cameras under the city’s Fortification Bylaw. The bylaw, which was passed in 2010, prohibits cameras capable of recording anything beyond a homeowner’s property line. This prohibition also extends to modern technology such as doorbell cameras.

Mr. Myles, who resides on MacNab Street North, installed the cameras to protect himself and his neighbourhood from crime. His efforts have received strong community support, including backing from neighbours and the local Our Lady of All Souls Roman Catholic Church. The church credits Mr. Myles’ cameras with helping solve the murder of parishioner Mario Bilich and with reducing thefts in the area.

The Hamilton Police Service has contacted Mr. Myles more than 40 times over the years to obtain footage from his cameras for use as evidence in various cases. One officer described the footage as “like gold” in securing convictions.

Constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir commented on the case, stating, “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.”

Mr. Myles emphasized the importance of his security devices, saying, “My cameras are regularly used by police to fight crime, including helping find justice for the Bilich family.”

The warning letter outlines that Hamilton’s Fortification Bylaw is unconstitutional because it infringes on the Charter-protected right to freedom of expression, guaranteed under section 2(b). Furthermore, the bylaw’s prohibition is unrelated to its stated purpose of ensuring safe entry and exit from properties and is overly broad, making it unjustifiable.

Currently, the City of Hamilton is reconsidering the bylaw in light of these issues.

For media inquiries, please contact: [email protected]

*In this video, constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir provides a brief overview of the case.*
*Photo: Porch cameras installed by Dan Myles (Courtesy of Dan Myles)*
https://canadafreepress.com/article/171533