By Abdul Matin Sarfraz
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Canada’s National Observer
Transportation advocates are celebrating after an Ontario judge has ruled that the Ford government’s plan to remove bike lanes from three major Toronto roads is unconstitutional, citing risks to public safety and a lack of evidence to support the province’s claims.
In a decision released Wednesday, Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas said the plan violates Charter rights, which protects the right to life and security of the person.
In an interview with Canada’s National Observer, Michael Longfield, executive director of Cycle Toronto, said the decision is “a huge victory” in their long legal fight.
“Today’s decision is a historic victory for Torontonians and everyone who rides a bike in our city,” Longfield said. “The facts, and now the law, are both clear that bike lanes are part of the solution to tackling traffic and congestion, and that ripping them out will put people’s lives at risk.”
Last year, the Ford government passed legislation — Bill 212 — to remove bike lanes on Bloor Street, Yonge Street and University Avenue, arguing it would help reduce traffic congestion.
The ruling follows months of legal battles brought by Cycle Toronto and two individual applicants, arguing removing the lanes would put cyclists at greater risk and violate their Charter rights.
In a decision released Wednesday, Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas said the plan violates Charter rights, which protects the right to life and security of the person.
The court agreed, and Schabas said injuries and deaths could result from taking out protected lanes and those harms are far too great compared to the small or non-existent traffic benefits.
The judge said the evidence showed removing bike lanes would likely make traffic worse by encouraging more people to drive, something advocates have argued since the legislation was released. “The impugned provision will also have a serious and disproportionate impact on children and on low-income individuals who must ride bicycles as an economical means of transportation, or for their work,” Schabas wrote in his decision.
The ruling found the law was “arbitrary” and not based on solid evidence. The government had been warned by its own experts that the plan wouldn’t work to reduce traffic.
Longfield hopes the ruling will push the province to respect local decision-making and public input in future transportation planning.
“Ripping out bike lanes that were put in through proper city processes won’t fix congestion — it puts people’s lives at risk,” he added. “That’s true whether it’s in Toronto or anywhere in Ontario.”
In response to the ruling, a spokesperson for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation said the government plans to appeal. “We were elected by the people of Ontario with a clear mandate to restore lanes of traffic and get drivers moving by moving bike lanes off of major roads to secondary roads,” the statement read. “To deliver on that mandate, we will be appealing the court’s decision.”
Earlier this year, the court granted a temporary injunction blocking the government from removing the lanes while the case was under review. In May, the government tried to appeal that injunction, but the court rejected the request.
Lindsay Beck, a lawyer at Ecojustice who represented the applicants, said the ruling sends an important message that governments cannot ignore public safety without facing constitutional consequences.
“The decision makes clear that where government action arbitrarily causes harm, the rights protected by section 7 of the Charter are engaged,” Beck said in a statement. “That’s exactly what the government did when it enacted legislation to remove protected bike lanes in the face of its own expert evidence that doing so won’t alleviate congestion and will put lives at risk.”
