[TorontoColin]

I think they certainly over-reacted, but for the record photography/filming bans are common in many private and public (government) buildings. The reasons are two-fold. Firstly, if you film someone, even accidentally, without them signing a waiver, and that video/picture makes it onto a website or youtube, the location (in this case the mall) risks a lawsuit.

Secondly, most places like this have a system in place to apply for permission to take pictures. This is typically for film/commercial scouts or commercial photographers. This procedure allows the business to document who is filming what, and ensure that any applicable fees for use of images are paid. Unfortunately, it is becoming a growing issue that professional photographers or scouts will pose as students or simply sneak pictures with cell phones and similar devices in order to bypass these procedures.

In most cases, procedure for security guards is to request the images be deleted. If you refuse (and sometimes even if you don't) the procedure is to evict you immediately in order to prevent you from capturing further images. If you continue to resist, procedure is to contact the police to have them remove you as soon as possible, as well as confiscate your camera.

Unfortunately, sometimes when they train these kids they forget to tell them that discretion should play in here too. However, I suspect he was following policy as had been given to him.

I work in a Toronto municipal government building, and we've had a rash of these types of incidents lately. They've been reminding us of the procedure we should instruct our security should take recently, which is why I know this.

 

[TorontoColin]

The problem for places like this is that they can't tell whether this is personal or commercial use. Like I said, underhanded people (typically location scouts) have been increasingly trying to pose as personal users.

In municipal buildings everyone is absolutely forbidden to photograph anyone without them first signing a waiver form, even staff. Verbal permission is not sufficient. It's almost impossible to completely enforce though.

I don't think they really need their rule to stand up in court, they have a right to evict you if they want to. That's actually probably why they used the "emotionally unstable" line. Unless you can prove it as discrimination, there's not much you can do about it. They can put whatever they want in their code of conduct, and you agree to abide by it just by entering. If you don't, they have the right to evict you.

 

[TorontoColin]

1. They have a right to videotape you because it is their property. I doubt they can legally do so secretly, but as long as they don't do that it is fine. Posting security footage online without your knowledge is possibly illegal and definitely unethical, and I would be shocked if the mall endorsed it.

2. That might make lawsuits ineffective in practice, but trust me, that doesn't lessen the concern of places like Square One who fear lawsuits.

3. It's not a law, it's a policy. Unless you can prove that they are discriminating against you without reason, they can enforce it at their discretion. Like any private property they are free to set their own policies. Like I said, it's practically impossible to actually enforce, so they instead do so at their discretion. I can guarantee you that their code of conduct includes some sort of catch-all language about this.

4. They can tell you to do whatever you want. To be honest, I'm not sure whether you would have any legal obligation to actually do what they say, but they can still ask, and they can evict you if you refuse.

5. Scanning QR codes isn't the same as taking pictures.

Like I said, they overreacted and should have used a little more discretion. Taking some time to explain their policy would have been a good idea, and probably would have avoided the whole mess.