[lhorie]

> shoppers were made aware of the activity through decals

Indeed there's a huge glaring problem here: many of these malls have branded entrances (Shoppers Drug Mart, Best Buy, etc) through which a large portion of consumers walk into the mall, and these alleged decals are not present in those entrances. Here's an example [1]. Frankly I don't see said decals even in the non-branded entrances[2]

They're going to have a very hard time convincing the commissioner that people were in fact aware of these decals AND any "privay policy" therein. A simple survey would easily show that people are completely clueless about it (anecdote: I used to frequent CF malls quite a bit when I was in Toronto and never saw anything of the sort, even despite being the type of person that might actually read random stuff posted at entrances).

[1] https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7788812,-79.3447734,3a,75y,1...

[2] https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7789409,-79.3444783,3a,75y,1...

[black_puppydog]

Sorry but if you're taking their argument at face value that decals might be the way to go here and everything would be fine if only they were there, then they've basically won.

Don't get side tracked.

[lhorie]

My take is that the claim that "shoppers were made aware of the activity through decals" fails on multiple levels: whether said decals were actually there, whether they would be capable of capturing nuances of scope if they were (e.g. there's different expectations between a mall entrance, the Shoppers entrance and the LCBO entrance), whether people noticed the alleged decals if they were there, whether they could be reasonably expect to understand it (e.g. non-english speakers), whether people could infer that legalese existed if they did understand it, whether they were capable of understanding the actual terms (e.g. tech illiterates), whether it is reasonable to expect that people would consciously agree to whatever terms are laid out in the legalese, whether all people captured by face recognition necessarily were actually aware of the terms, etc. It just doesn't stick on so many levels.

[mynegation]

For non-Canadians here: Shoppers is pharmacies and LCBO is provincially-controlled liquor store that has near monopoly on hard liquor sales.

[koolba]

“Near monopoly”? Outside of duty free, where else can you buy booze (not beer) besides the LCBO?

[mynegation]

You can buy hard liquor in artisanal distilleries like Spirit of York or few in Niagara region. And talking about “not beer”, wine has been available in grocery stores for a while now.

[buildbot]

Doesn’t this vary by province? BC has quite a few non- bc liquor stores, at least in Vancouver.

[shadowprofile77]

Every single one of those private liquor stores buys its stock through the BC Liquor Distribution Branch of British Columbia, so yes, the monopoly is still very much there, just hidden behind a few facades. I suspect something similar is the case in other provinces too.

[kortilla]

A bar

[buran77]

Any consent that isn't explicit should have no legal value. A "decal" on a door is about as useful as a size 2 font fine print, or an audio disclaimer played back at 5 times the speed.

This implicit agreement can be used to obtain quite literally anything without the other party ever knowing.

[black_puppydog]

In that case I think we're in agreement. :)

[smitty1110]

Disclaimer: IANAL, caveat lector.

Taking the argument at face value is probably not the right conclusion [1]. The linked court case establishes what we would call in American law Informed Consent. If you can't read disclaimer at the door until you are in camera range, is that really informed consent? And if the disclaimer does not actually list the policy in question, but refers you to a website to read it, can it be considered sufficient? A quote from the ruling is relevant here - "The more onerous the exclusion clause the more explicit the notice must be". Now, this case was related to legal liabilities related to injury in a ski resort, but it's the closet thing I've found. I suspect a judge won't take long to rule in favor of the plaintiff.

[1] - https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2020/2020bcca78/2020bc...

[zapdrive]

The decals might be installed on the inside doors that lead from shoppers drug Mart to the the mall.

[gruez]

The streetview images are dated may 2019, but the article says

>CF suspended its use of cameras back in 2018 [...]

[amelius]

Even if there were large signs, people would just not care.