("A government can't kill people for no reason? When will this judicial madness end?!" Image: Globe and Mail.)
Our David v. Goliath battle continues as we return to the courthouse this week on Wednesday, January 28, not only to defend protected bike lanes in Toronto, but to defend Charter rights and government accountability in Ontario.
Last year, Cycle Toronto and our co-applicants, represented by lawyers from Ecojustice and Paliare Roland, won a historic legal challenge that the Ontario government’s attempts to remove the protected bike lanes on Bloor, Yonge, and University under Bill 212 violated Canadians’ Charter rights under Section 7.
The court ruled that government decisions that increase risk to people, particularly vulnerable road users like cyclists, are unconstitutional when not made in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Internal documents confirmed the government’s own experts advised that the legislation would not achieve the claimed effect of reducing congestion in downtown Toronto. An FOI request further revealed that the province spent $270,000 on external lawyers beyond Crown attorneys in the case.
Now, the Province is appealing that decision.
What happens next could determine not just the future of these protected bike lanes and the thousands of people who depend on them, but whether the courts will continue to act as a safeguard when Charter rights are at stake.
From the start our opposition to this legislation was about respecting local democracies and evidence-based decision making.
This obsession with bike lanes isn’t about traffic congestion. It is part of a cynical political strategy that ignores expert evidence, diverts public resources away from real transportation solutions, and deliberately fuels a bad-faith culture war.
Let’s be clear. Cycle Toronto v. Ontario did not create a constitutional right to bicycle lanes, nor limit any level of government from making road and traffic decisions including installing and removing bike lanes.
But when governments make decisions that those laws are not arbitrary (i.e., bike lanes do not cause traffic congestion) or reckless (i.e., removing them will put people’s lives at risk) in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Or as Andrew Coyne wrote in the Globe & Mail more succinctly:
It simply requires that before a government takes the extraordinary step of ordering the removal of lanes that have already been built – an action guaranteed to cost some lives and put many more in peril – it ought at least to have some basis in evidence or logic for doing so.
We’re optimistic. This time we’re on defence, and the facts are on our side.
But there is still significant work ahead outside the courtroom.
Ontario’s more recent Bill 60, which blocks municipalities from installing bike lanes if they remove vehicle travel lanes, will remain in effect regardless of the verdict. Toronto City Council is considering possible cuts to the city’s 10-year Cycling Capital Budget.
We will only win in the long run through organizing and collective action. Can we count on you to become a Cycle Toronto member today?
