Thanks, but I'm not looking for an explanation :) I was just pointing out what an insufferable boor that guy was being, by responding to him in a similar way he spoke to the other chap. I have a thing for confronting bullies.
I 100% agree that it is permissible to videotape police, so long as you are not obstruction to the investigation or duties. You are correct in saying that there is no law preventing it, so it is legal.
With respect to section 2(b), it's a bit of a stretch to say it sanctions video recording. This section has never been used in the "filming police" by the SCC or any other court to my knowledge. It's an easy section to point to, but we need precision when citing our Charter, so that people don't misunderstand their rights. We should encourage people to read it and attempt to understand it. It says what it says, and then it is interpreted by the courts.
The Charter itself is not an authorizing legislation - it is protective. So it is incorrect to say that the Charter says you can do something - the charter prevents the state from doing something - in this case, it prevents making the laws that stop you from recording, or limiting your expression. Sounds simple, right? But hold on, even if the police were trying to stop you from recording, without any law supporting them, is that an infringement? While the equitable solution incorporates Charter values, the answer is likely "no", because in doing stopping you, the individual police officer will be guilty of an offence of mischief under s. 430 - that is, it is not the state at that point, it is a rogue officer. The other reality is that when challenging fundamental freedoms under section 2, the challenge is on legislation, so there would have to be a law that said it was illegal. Like I said, all of this is hypothetical, so a person like that guy can't just be like, "read it, dummy it says you can do it."
Also, is recording an expression? There have been cases that went on for years about the meaning of "expression" in different contexts. Now, keep in mind here, that I am not disagreeing with you, but no court has ever said that video recording is a form of "expression". There have been cases about video recording trials, and often times, the courts have said "no, you can't" (albeit for different reasons). If an issue like this ever goes before the courts, sure, ya, I can see the logic, but it has not been done yet, so you can't just be like buddy and say, "read it, idiot".
This is a nuance issue, and there is some value to discussing it. However, like most things, polemic opinions pervade, and those who speak with the most force are often not the best informed, yet they drown out reasonable people.
Thanks for attempting to be the voice of reason.