Loblaw began testing body-worn cameras for managers and security personnel at two Saskatoon stores in September 2024. The retailer said the pilot was intended to reduce violent encounters, while the unusual use of police-associated technology in grocery stores raised questions about privacy, evidence and worker safety.
Two Saskatoon locations joined the pilot
The cameras were introduced at the Confederation Real Canadian Superstore and a Shoppers Drug Mart on 22nd Street. Two Calgary stores were also participating.
The trial did not equip every cashier, stock worker or customer-service employee.
Managers and security received training
Loblaw said its asset-protection staff, security personnel and on-duty managers would be trained to use the devices. The company hoped a visible recording system would discourage aggression and provide a record when incidents occurred.
A camera can document events but cannot physically protect a worker.
Businesses reported more theft and vandalism
A Canadian Federation of Independent Business survey found 74 per cent of its Saskatchewan members believed crime had increased in their area. The most frequently cited concerns included shoplifting and vandalism.
That member survey reflected business perceptions and should not be treated as a complete police crime-rate measure.
Shoppers offered mixed reactions
Some customers said cameras and visible security made them feel safer at the stores. Others doubted the devices would address the decline they perceived in the shopping environment.
Those views illustrated why the pilot needed measured results rather than anecdote alone.
Clear activation rules were essential
A sound policy should specify whether cameras record continuously or only during an incident, how employees signal activation, and when audio is captured. Broad routine surveillance would create different privacy risks from event-based recording.
Customers and staff should receive understandable notice.
Data retention required safeguards
Recordings can contain faces, conversations, payment activity and information about children or vulnerable people. Access controls, short default retention, secure storage and documented deletion reduce the chance of misuse.
Footage retained for an incident should have an audit trail and a defined legal purpose.
Worker rights also mattered
Employees wearing cameras should know whether recordings can be used for discipline, performance monitoring or law-enforcement requests. Consultation with workers and unions can separate a safety tool from constant managerial surveillance.
Training should include de-escalation and when to disengage, not just how to press record.
Police access was not automatic
Private businesses must handle requests for footage under applicable privacy and legal rules. A recording may help investigate an offence, but its existence does not prove context, identity or guilt.
People shown in footage retain the presumption of innocence.
The pilot needed transparent evaluation
Useful measures included violent incidents, injuries, calls to police, complaints, employee confidence, privacy breaches and whether conflict moved elsewhere. Comparing comparable periods and stores would be more informative than highlighting a few dramatic clips.
Body cameras could be one layer in a safety programme that also includes adequate staffing, environmental design, trained security and support for people in crisis. The Saskatoon test was therefore best understood as an experiment whose safety benefit and privacy cost both needed evidence before any wider rollout.
