Well I guess the CCTV right in front can sort of act as a deterrent.....IF its functional and recording
1) Those record on a closed loop. Footage is overwritten somewhat frequently if not saved. Probably somewhere around 48-72 hours. Tweets back to me from TTC indicate that they had not been aware of this--I don't know how long it's been open, but if they don't know about the problem, they can't save the CCTV loop.
2) Let's say it's only open for 1 service day. Call that 20 hours for simplicity. As for the number of people likely to enter without paying their fare, who don't have a valid metropass, let's call that 10 per hour, which I think is seriously lowballing the desire for fare evasion even at a secondary entrance of a less-used station in a well-off neighbourhood like this. That's 200 per day. Even assuming it's only one day, and assuming the TTC were aware of it and cared to save CCTV, that's 200 people who they have to definitively identify, beyond any reasonable doubt, based on CCTV footage. That seems unlikely given the quality of CCTV.
3) They have to prove, based on CCTV, that those people did not have a valid metropass at the time of travel. This is virtually impossible, there is no way to prove they did not. I know By-Law No. 1 prohibits even metropass holders from, say, walking in through a bus bay, but I don't know if there's necessarily a technicality that would make entering through such a faregate with a metropass, just not swiping it, illegal. That would depend on the wording of a by-law, and then the offense goes down to something like unauthorized entrance vs. failure to pay fare, if they can't prove you didn't hold a metropass in your pocket. And a judge is probably going to throw it out altogether if it's a "metropass holder" who simply walked in through an open gate instead of swiping. This is allowed at many places in the TTC by flashing it towards a collector...
So, in the end, I don't think CCTV is a way to actually prosecute anyone for evasion. A deterrent? I think anyone who'd likely walk in here wouldn't be deterred by a camera in a corner, but I suppose there's no way to know for sure.
At any rate, not great.
EDIT: Actually, the only reference I could find to this in bylaw 1 is: "3.3 No person shall enter or leave TTC property except through a designated entrance or exit, as the case may be."
The faregates are undoubtedly a designated entrance. If one has failed and is fully open, that certainly looks inviting--I don't think the argument could possibly be made that "the faregate failed and defaulted to open, so it's no longer an entrance"...if it defaulted to closed and someone hopped it, of course, but once it's open, I don't think that would be an issue.
So it looks like this wouldn't even be enforceable.