Wellesley councillors back onboard camera policy in split vote

By Galen Simmons

The Township of Wellesley’s committee of the whole has voted 3-2 to recommend council adopt a new onboard mobile surveillance systems policy governing the use of dash cameras in township fleet vehicles, despite concerns raised about employee privacy.

The policy, presented by CAO Rik Louwagie at the committee’s Feb. 24 meeting, would formalize the use of both forward-facing and driver-facing cameras in corporate vehicles as part of the township’s broader risk-management strategy.

“This report is recommending forward- and driver-facing cameras to be installed in all township vehicles,” Louwagie said. “The fleet action plan is now a requirement from the Waterloo Municipal Insurance Pool, and what that means is they’re looking for policies that reduce liability and improve available evidence in the case of claims against the municipality. This policy provides protection for employee privacy and outlines when and how camera footage can be used.

“Audio is not being recommended as part of this even though the cameras have that physical capability. We have not determined any benefit to audio recording. … Approving this policy would provide added risk protection for the municipality.”

While Wellesley already monitors fleet vehicles using GPS and telematics data – including speed, braking, idling and location – this system does not provide visual evidence of road conditions, environmental factors or driver behaviour in the event of a claim, collision or complaint.

The proposed policy outlines strict limits on how footage can be used and accessed. Cameras would not be monitored on a regular basis and footage would only be reviewed in cases involving a claim, collision, complaint or where management has reasonable grounds to believe misconduct or a breach of health and safety protocols has occurred. Access to recordings would be restricted to designated personnel and subject to Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act requirements.

The policy also states the township’s intent is not to use the cameras to monitor the daily work of employees or infringe on privacy rights.

Despite those safeguards, some councillors raised concerns during the meeting about the inclusion of a driver-facing camera in addition to a forward-facing camera, questioning whether the added layer of surveillance was necessary and expressing unease about the potential impact on employee privacy and trust.

“If it isn’t a big benefit at this point – if we don’t have a lot of accidents – and we know that a lot of the drivers are not in favour of it, would it make sense at this point to have the outward-facing cameras and maybe we hold off on the driver-facing ones until it’s an issue, until something happens – maybe more accidents or whatever – and bring it forward at that time?” Coun. Lori Sebben asked.

“I think everyone agrees the forward-facing camera is definitely a benefit to have; I’m not in favour of the driver-facing camera,” added Coun. Claude Hergott. “I think it’s going to deter good candidates in the future from applying, possibly, and it may encourage some of the current staff to look elsewhere if they’re not comfortable with the camera.”

The CAO and other councillors pointed to the risk-management benefits outlined in the report, including protection against fraudulent or disputed claims, improved litigation outcomes, enhanced accountability and the potential to encourage safer driving behaviour. Staff also noted that insurance representatives are supportive of both forward- and driver-facing cameras as part of the township’s fleet action plan.

“I don’t understand why we would wait for something to happen before you implement something,” Mayor Joe Nowak said. “I think you want to pre-empt it. I can understand where it’s something different and it’s something new, and I can understand where some of the staff may feel a little bit uneasy with it, but from my understanding, in my discussions with staff … they’re willing to accept it.”

Louwagie also suggested some staff or potential future hires may appreciate the added legal protection offered to drivers through the installation of driver-facing cameras.

“I think we have good staff; I think they do what they’re supposed to do,” Coun. Shelley Wagner said. “I don’t know that we’d lose anybody because of this because they’re already doing what they’re supposed to do. … And if somebody’s not, this just makes them a little more honest.”

To help affected staff feel comfortable with the new cameras, Louwagie said the township will review the new policy line by line with drivers and show them exactly how and when footage is collected, as well as what that footage would look like.

The cost of operating the cameras was approved as part of the 2026 operating budget, with no additional capital expense required as the devices are supplied through the township’s existing GPS provider.

If adopted by council, the policy would take effect following staff communication sessions with employees, and the township’s previously approved electronics monitoring policy would be amended to reference the new onboard surveillance policy for specific operating details.

Council is expected to consider final approval at an upcoming meeting.