Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

[gabe]

Cameras don't do anything for theft, though.

When I worked at a convenience store we were robbed once and had video of the thieves. Gave the video to the police and they shrugged and said "we can't be sure who this is from the video". If police aren't willing to be proactive then you can have as many headshots as you like but it won't make a lick of difference.

Ford here is taking away items that penalize car owners whilst proposing items that protect car owners. Pretty simple stuff.

Yep. LCBO is a great example of camera's not stopping theft. Even the low paid security guards in the store haven't stopped the theft. Nothing they can do. They are just human scarecrows.

My friend works at an LCBO, they get people stealing every week. They have been told by the union, just ignore it, and don't get involved

Six guys walked into an LCBO last month in Kitchener and walked out with 8 thousand dollars with of booze.

Premier calls out ‘brazen’ LCBO theft at Kitchener, Ont. store

Premier Doug Ford called the men who stole thousands of dollars of booze from an LCBO store in Kitchener, Ont. a “brazen bunch of crooks.”

www.ctvnews.ca

 

[Richard White]

Yep. LCBO is a great example of camera's not stopping theft. Even the low paid security guards in the store haven't stopped the theft. Nothing they can do. They are just human scarecrows.

That is both for legal and liability reasons.

Security guards are not police officers and cannot apprehend, arrest or detain someone in the same manner. At most, they can call police for assistance with the matter.

Additionally, most security companies don't want their staff to get involved in case the person's causing the issue have a concealed weapon.

Police are equipped to handle an EDP with a weapon. A noodly, female security guard who may only be doing security part time while studying is not.

 

[lenaitch]

That is both for legal and liability reasons.

Security guards are not police officers and cannot apprehend, arrest or detain someone in the same manner. At most, they can call police for assistance with the matter.

Additionally, most security companies don't want their staff to get involved in case the person's causing the issue have a concealed weapon.

Police are equipped to handle an EDP with a weapon. A noodly, female security guard who may only be doing security part time while studying is not.

Security guards absolutely can arrest people they find committing theft ('shoplifting'), either as citizens or agents of the property owner. it is completely a policy decision on the part of the LCBO (and possibly the security company as well). I suspect most companies with employees have a very similar policy.

 

[evandyk]

I don't think the union would disagree, since they don't want their members getting hurt, but the policy has nothing to do with the union. No big company is going to tell their employees to physically intervene in a theft. If your worker gets hurt you will pay many thousands more dollars in a disability claim than the theft is worth.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Compromise on the automated speed camera quandary. Have a police office monitor a speed camera. When it flags a speeder going 5 km/h over, the officer will send the fine by mail (once snail mail folks get back to work), no demerit points. If over 10 km/h, the police office physically has to stop the speeder and issues a speeding ticket that will cost the speeder demerit points as well. The camera would provide photo evidence of the offence.

---

To move away from snail mail, Ontario should ask for e-mail addresses and SMS (cell phone numbers) for OHIP, MTO, etc. at renewal time, for correspondence purposes.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Security guards absolutely can arrest people they find committing theft ('shoplifting'), either as citizens or agents of the property owner. it is completely a policy decision on the part of the LCBO (and possibly the security company as well). I suspect most companies with employees have a very similar policy.

Would it not be detained as opposed to arrested, as most retail places don't have a holding facility? I think a copper explained to me once that detained is where they won't let you go. Arrested is they take you somewhere where you can't get out. Or something like that...

...not that I want to test any of that theory out. >.<

 

[afransen]

Would it not be detained as opposed to arrested, as most retail places don't have a holding facility? I think a copper explained to me once that detained is where they won't let you go. Arrested is they take you somewhere where you can't get out. Or something like that...

...not that I want to test any of that theory out. >.<

Any Canadian can make a citizen's arrest. Security guards have no special authority in this regard.

 

[81-717]

Any Canadian can make a citizen's arrest.

But can one be charged with resisting citizen's arrest the same way as resisting *real* arrest? Seems dubious. "False imprisonment" is also a thing.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Any Canadian can make a citizen's arrest. Security guards have no special authority in this regard.

I am not really asking about citizen arrests per say, rather inquiring if detaining and arresting are two different things here.

 

[afransen]

But can one be charged with resisting citizen's arrest the same way as resisting *real* arrest? Seems dubious. "False imprisonment" is also a thing.

I am not a lawyer, but I would advise against trying to conduct a citizens arrest. I think most loss prevention agents are similarly directed by their employers.

 

[lenaitch]

I am not really asking about citizen arrests per say, rather inquiring if detaining and arresting are two different things here.

There are subtle legal differences depending on the circumstances, and the courts have ruled fairly extensively on them. A traffic stop is generally considered a 'detention'. Presenting yourself to a CBSA agent when entering the country would be a detention. A very general definition of 'arrest' is 'to take/get physical control'. In the scenario being discussed, the person is being arrested - that's the word used in the Criminal Code. Physically being taken someplace else has nothing to do with it; although might be necessary in order to comply with the legal requirements of release or continued detention. A citizen is only required to deliver an arrested person to a peace officer.

Any Canadian can make a citizen's arrest. Security guards have no special authority in this regard.

Actually they do - if they are acting on behalf of a property owner. A citizen can arrest anyone they find committing an indictable offence; a property owner or a person acting on their behalf can arrest anyone they find committing a criminal offence on or in relation to the property. Indictable offences are a subset of criminal offences.

 

[Richard White]

I am not a lawyer, but I would advise against trying to conduct a citizens arrest. I think most loss prevention agents are similarly directed by their employers.

The whole reason that security guards are now licensed is because many years ago, security staff and retail staffers at a Loblaws tried to detain a shopfliter in 1999.

Security staff and store employees chased the person into the parking lot, pinned him down and he later died.

See here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/man-...h-security-guard-and-store-employees-1.176238

The reality is, the average person is not trained to apprehend someone safely or legally. Doing so runs the risk of using excessive force and the incident turning into a homicide or wrongful death case.

When I did security, we were always told NOT to apprehend people without proper training, certifications and paperwork. Essentially, we needed alot more training and qualifications than you would find in a bank, retail or condo security guard.

We were told to observe and report, not engage.

Who knows, that person stealing baby formula may have a knife inside his jacket and by attempting to apprehend him you could get stabbed or killed. Similarly, if you apprehend someone and end up injuring or killing them you could be held criminally responsible.

The security guards you see escorting brinks trucks, carrying handcuffs, etc have specalized training to ensure they do not use excessive force and follow the letter of the law. .

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1973449304787612149

 

[DSCToronto]

20-plus mayors urge Doug Ford to compromise on speed camera ban

“A total ban on (automated speed enforcement) would reverse years of progress on safety,” said a letter sent to Ford and Transportation Minister Prabmeet Sarkaria on Thursday.

www.thestar.com

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

These are the bike lanes Doug Ford’s government wants to take out first, according to internal documents​

From https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/these-are-the-bike-lanes-doug-fords-government-wants-to-take-out-first-according-to/article_dc7b80b7-365f-4e4b-941b-f9fc5200067d.html

Premier Doug Ford’s government is focused on removing less than a kilometre of bike lanes on Bloor and Yonge streets, internal documents show.
Briefing documents prepared by Transportation Ministry staff, and obtained by the Star via a freedom of information request, show the Ontario government is prioritizing the removal of bike lanes on Bloor Street West, between Resurrection and Clissold roads, and on Yonge Street, between Millwood Road and Merton Street.
Those streets, listed as “priority removal sections” of bike lanes, cover a combined 900 metres.

The two documents do not outline how the sections of targeted bikeways fit into the Ford government’s broader plans for the full 22 kilometres of Bloor, Yonge and University bike lanes. A spokesperson for Prabmeet Sarkaria, Ontario’s minister of Transportation, did not respond to the Star’s questions about the documents by publication deadline.

The briefing documents are dated May 13, 2025, just a few weeks after Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas granted cycling advocates a temporary injunction that prevented the Ford government from moving ahead with bike lane removals. Schabas would later rule in July that the Ford government’s effort to remove bike lanes was unconstitutional. The government launched its appeal a month later.

Removing 900 metres of bike lanes in isolation would have a minimal impact on both traffic congestion — the Ford government’s stated reason for their removal — and cycling ridership, experts told the Star.

The targeted sections are on the edges of the bike lane network, where cycling ridership is relatively low, explained Matti Siemiatycki, director of U of T’s Infrastructure Institute.

The impact of removing a combined 900 metres of bike lanes is “likely to be small,” Siemiatycki said, but added, “we’d want to see the data because there could be site-specific bottlenecks.”

The cost of removals were included as part of the documents, but were redacted to protect the economic interests of the government.

A report from city staff pegged the cost of removing all of the Bloor, Yonge and University bike lanes at $48 million — a cost the province had said it will cover. Ford has dismissed that cost estimate as “hogwash.”
The documents also indicate that the government may reinstate on-street parking on Yonge Street, in the 400-metre section where the bike lane would be removed.
The Bloor Street West section of bike lanes targeted for removal is in the heart of Etobicoke, just west of a collection of local businesses that have been especially vocal about bike lanes and who have gone as far as suing the city and city staff over their installation.

The premier and his government campaigned on removing bike lanes in Toronto’s downtown core during February’s election. The provincial government argued that road space dedicated to cyclists was taking away road space from drivers and cyclists should instead be diverted to “secondary roads.”
Bike lane users Eva Stanger-Ross and Narada Kiondo and Cycle Toronto filed a Charter challenge with the Superior Court in December, arguing that the new law “puts lives at risk.”

As the court proceedings dragged on throughout the spring and summer, Mayor Olivia Chow sought to find a compromise with the province.

Government documents released as part of injunction hearing warned that removing the bike lanes may not ease congestion, and instead could increase the risk of collisions and negatively affect businesses.

While the government’s appeal of Schabas’s ruling is underway, it cannot remove the bike lanes on Bloor, University and Yonge streets.

Schabas found that parts of the Ford government’s bike lane legislation violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it put people at risk. The decision did not guarantee a right to bike lanes, but instead protected cycling infrastructure on the three targeted roads.

“The government has the right to make decisions about roads and traffic infrastructure,” Schabas wrote in his decision, “but where the government takes action that puts people at risk, and does so arbitrarily, its actions may be restrained by the Charter.”

Just days after Schabas’s decision in August, Ford railed against the judge, denouncing the ruling as “the worst case of trampling on people’s rights I’ve ever, ever seen in the courts. Ever.”

“This judge has been attacked by every single person right across the country for this ridiculous decision,” Ford said.