Ontario court halts Ford's plan to tear out Toronto bike lanes
The challenge, brought by Cycle Toronto and two individual applicants, targets the Ford government's anti-bike lane legislation, Bill 212 — the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act — and argues that removing the lanes violates Charter rights to life and security of the person, and puts cyclists' lives at risk.
The bill grants the Ford government unilateral authority to remove municipal bike lanes. One of the provisions requires the provincial transportation minister to remove bike lanes on the three major Toronto streets.
The government claims the change will alleviate traffic congestion and improve emergency response times, but no evidence has been provided to support this; meanwhile, opponents introduced government reports into evidence that suggested the bike lane removals could cause a rise in collisions without even saving any commuting time.
In April, an Ontario superior court judge granted a temporary injunction to prevent the government from removing the bike lanes while the case is being considered. In May, the Ford government sought leave to appeal the injunction. But in Tuesday's decision, the court rejected the request and upheld the injunction.
Michael Longfield, executive director of Cycle Toronto, told Canada's National Observer that the court's decision to reject the Ford government's appeal is a strong signal the case is being taken seriously.
'We're obviously very pleased about this decision,' Longfield said. 'With this legal decision, I think it's a good opportunity for the province to sort of abandon this bad faith culture war and instead collaborate with municipalities on real, data-driven solutions to give people more transportation options.'
A superior court judge said the bike lanes can't be removed until an ongoing Charter challenge is resolved.
Dakota Brasier, director of media relations for Ontario's transportation minister, said the government will continue with the design work needed to begin removing bike lanes and get some of the province's 'busiest roads moving as soon as possible.'
'While we respect the court's decision, our government was elected with a clear mandate to get people out of traffic by restoring driving lanes,' Brasier said.
Bronwyn Roe, a lawyer at Ecojustice representing the applicants, welcomed the court's decision and said the evidence clearly shows that removing heavily used, protected bike lanes on major Toronto routes would put cyclists' lives at risk.
'The government cannot be allowed to jeopardize the safety of Ontarians or violate the Charter-protected rights to life and security of the person,' Roe said in a statement.
Looking ahead, Longfield stressed the importance of a full court victory, saying it could help set a precedent for how cycling infrastructure is protected in the future. At the same time, he believed there was still time for the province to reconsider whether the legislation was truly in the public interest.
The City of Toronto estimates the cost to taxpayers for removing the bike lanes could reach $48 million, with the city having already invested $27 million in their construction. Restoring vehicle lanes will likely offer minimal improvements in travel time and undermine the public health, environmental and economic benefits of active transportation, the report warns.
Bike Share Toronto has experienced impressive growth, with memberships doubling from 18,000 in 2020 to more than 35,000 in 2023, the report notes. Total trips by bike share surged from 2.9 million in 2020 to 5.7 million in 2023.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
33 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Court to rule on appeal of challenge to Saskatchewan pronoun law
REGINA – The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal is expected to rule today on the province's appeal of a decision to allow a challenge of its school pronoun law. A judge ruled last year that the court challenge could continue, despite the government's use of the notwithstanding clause. The law, which came into force in 2023, requires parental consent if children under 16 want to change their names or pronouns at school. Lawyers for the LGBTQ+ group UR Pride brought forward the challenge, arguing the law causes irreparable harm to gender diverse youth and its case should move ahead. The government has argued its use of the notwithstanding clause to bring the law into force should end the court challenge. Nearly a dozen groups intervened in the appeal, including the government of Alberta, which argued in favour of Saskatchewan. Alberta passed a law last year requiring students 15 and younger have parental consent to change their names or pronouns. Students 16 and 17 don't need consent but their parents have to be notified. New Brunswick also had a pronoun policy but Premier Susan Holt revised it after she was elected in 2024. UR Pride amended its challenge and argues Saskatchewan's law violates Section 12 of the Charter, which is the right to be free from cruel and unusual treatment. The province cited other sections when it invoked the notwithstanding clause. Former Justice Minister Bronwyn Eyre said last year the Saskatchewan Party government wouldn't hesitate to use the notwithstanding clause again. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 11, 2025.
Global News
3 days ago
- Global News
Group threatens N.S. with legal action over ‘grossly disproportionate' woods ban
A national advocacy group is threatening Nova Scotia with legal action over its decision to restrict travel in the woods, a policy that Premier Tim Houston said was necessary to blunt a brutal wildfire season. The Canadian Constitutional Foundation, which supports legal challenges across the country generally relating to Charter rights, is behind the legal threat, which claims Nova Scotia has overstepped. The group said it supports a provincial burn ban, but Houston's prohibition on hiking, camping, fishing and picnicking in the woods is a step too far. 'We're creating a culture where we value safety above any other value, including our fundamental freedoms, our freedom to move around our communities,' Christine Van Geyn, the CCF's litigation director, told Global News. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'And when you put safety, when you describe everything as a safety issue, it means everything can be controlled.' Story continues below advertisement The CCF has formally written to Houston's government, urging it to rescind the travel restriction or face legal action. A petition in support of removing the ban gained more than 2,000 signatures in just 24 hours. 'I've heard from a few people about their ability to actually access work,' Van Geyn said. 'So some people will take a route where they don't have access to transit, and they might not have a vehicle. So they take their bikes through a forested trail to get to work.' At the same time, Nova Scotia's tip line to report people breaking the rules has been overwhelmed with calls. The fine for those caught in the woods is $25,000. That fine, the CCF said, is 'grossly disproportionate.' In a statement, Nova Scotia's Department of Natural Resources defended its prevention measures and said they were allowed under the Forests Act. 'We are making decisions that are in the best interest of Nova Scotians. Our province is the second most densely populated in the country,' the statement read. 'That means wildfire is a greater risk to our people and our communities.'
Vancouver Sun
3 days ago
- Vancouver Sun
Alberta appeals court's injunction against new transgender health-care rules for kids
EDMONTON — The Alberta government has appealed an injunction granted by the courts that prevents the implementation of restrictions around health care for transgender minors in the province. In late June, Justice Allison Kuntz concluded that the new rules, which passed late last year but were not fully in effect, raised serious Charter concerns that needed to be hashed out in court. She granted an injunction until those issues could be settled. 'The evidence shows that there is a benefit to the public in issuing the injunction because it will allow this marginalized group to continue receiving medical care from trusted doctors and a broader team of health professionals thereby avoiding the adverse consequences the Ban will have on them,' Kuntz wrote in her decision. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. On July 25, the provincial government appealed the injunction to the Alberta Court of Appeal, arguing that Kuntz had erred in pausing the restrictions. Last year, the Alberta government passed legislation that sought to ban doctors from providing treatment such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy to those under the age of 16 and enacted a total ban on gender-reassignment surgery for minors in the province. In response to the changes, Egale Canada, an LGBTQ advocacy group, along with the Skipping Stone Foundation and five transgender youth, sued the Alberta government and sought a pause on the new rules until the courts could decide on their constitutionality. At the time the injunction was issued, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith vowed to fight on. 'The court had said that they think that there will be irreparable harm if the law goes ahead. I feel the reverse,' Smith said on her radio program, Your Province, Your Premier, the day after Kuntz's decision was issued. Asked about the decision to appeal Kuntz's ruling, Heather Jenkins, a spokesperson for Alberta Justice Minister Mickey Amery, said in an emailed statement that the legislation was passed to 'protect children and youth when making life-altering and potentially irreversible adult decisions about their bodies. 'Alberta's government will continue to vigorously defend our position in court,' Jenkins wrote. Amery was not made available for an interview. Bennett Jensen, the director of legal at Egale Canada, said the advocacy group respects the right of the government to appeal the decision, but that the province was seeking to interfere with 'the relationship between doctors and patients by seeking to ban medically necessary, evidence-based care for an already marginalized group of youth.' 'We urge the Government to focus on the real challenges facing Alberta's health care system. This is not one of them,' said Jensen in an emailed statement. Last December, Smith had said that using the Notwithstanding Clause — which would allow the law to stand irrespective of what the courts concluded — is also an option before the government, although Smith maintains that the government can win in court and won't pre-emptively use the notwithstanding clause to shield its rules from court scrutiny. The medical treatment of transgender minors has become a major policy debate since the release of the Cass Review the U.K. in April 2024, which disputed some of the evidence surrounding the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors. The Alberta government moved to enact the most stringent restrictions in Canada on health care for transgender minors last fall. 'Prematurely encouraging or enabling children to alter their very biology or natural growth, no matter how well intentioned and sincere, poses a risk to that child's future that I, as premier, am not comfortable with permitting in our province,' Smith said last November. The Alberta Medical Association has spoken out against the United Conservative government's restrictions, arguing that the treatment options provided — including the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy — follow the standards of care set out by the Canadian Paediatric Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics. 'Governmental interference by legislating medical therapy options is inappropriate, unethical and represents serious government overreach into the practice of medicine and patient/family rights to autonomy in their health care decisions,' the group's pediatrics section wrote in a statement last November . Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
