Judge strikes down Doug Ford's plan to remove Toronto bike lanes as unconstitutional
A decision by Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas found that sections of the Ontario government's Bill 212, the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, violated the Charter by infringing on cyclists' rights to life and security of person. Part of the bill, which became law in November, calls for the removal of protected bike lanes on Yonge, University and Bloor Streets.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
Canada's first-past-the-post voting system is constitutional, Ontario appeal court rules
OTTAWA — A panel of three Ontario Court of Appeal judges unanimously affirmed the constitutionality of Canada's first-past-the-post electoral system in a ruling released on Monday. The system, laid out in the Canada Elections Act, sees the candidate who receives the most votes in a given riding or electoral district become the member of Parliament. Fair Voting BC and the Springtide Collective for Democratic Society argued in court that the first-past-the-post system violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms' guarantee of effective representation. The groups also said the system leads to the under-representation of women and other groups in Parliament, breaching the Charter's equality rights provision. 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. In a proportional representation system, the number of representatives a political party elects reflects the percentage of the total vote the party receives. In November 2023, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the challenge from Fair Voting BC and Springtide. It said that while a proportional representation system would be a fair alternative to the current system, it's not required by the Constitution. In its decision, the province's Court of Appeal also rejected the groups' key arguments. 'The electoral system is not in conflict with either the right to vote or the right to equality. It does not violate the Charter,' Justice Grant Huscroft said in written reasons delivered on behalf of another judge on the panel. 'The appellants' arguments that the electoral system violates the Charter are, in essence, a repackaging of failed political arguments as constitutional rights violations.' The expert evidence 'put forward in support' of those arguments, Huscroft wrote, is 'replete with highly contestable policy arguments about which reasonable disagreement abounds, not only in the academic community but amongst the public at large.' 'This evidence demonstrates the shortcomings of constitutional litigation in addressing public policy disagreements,' he added. The short answer to the argument that the electoral system violates the Charter is that Canadian citizens are free to vote for anyone they choose, and for any reason they choose, Huscroft added. 'There is no constitutional requirement that their individual choices aggregate in a way that achieves some ideal of representational diversity,' he wrote. 'Neither the political party affiliation nor the personal characteristics of the candidates who win election are relevant to the constitutionality of the electoral system.' During the 2015 election campaign, then-Liberal leader Justin Trudeau promised it would be the last federal election held under the first-past-the-post system. Once in office, however, Trudeau's government abandoned his pledge to replace the system. Fair Voting BC and Springtide argued that under the current system, small political parties do not enjoy the success they deserve, creating a disadvantage for people who vote for them. 'I do not doubt that small political parties fare poorly in Canada,' Huscroft wrote. 'They receive relatively few votes and invariably win few or no seats.' The failure of a political party cannot open the door to a claim for constitutional redress, he said. 'In short, the right to vote is a right to vote pursuant to the electoral system in operation — whatever that system is, and regardless of the electoral outcomes that may obtain,' he wrote. The appellants also argued the first-past-the-post system contributes to the under-representation of women and minorities in Parliament. Huscroft said no matter what sort of electoral system is in place, over- or underrepresentation of particular demographic groups might occur to a greater or lesser extent from time to time. He added that arguments based on degree of representation lose sight of the fundamental fact of the matter: that people are entitled to vote the way they want. 'This is the very essence of the freedom that lies at the heart of the right to vote,' he wrote. 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 .
Vancouver Sun
3 hours ago
- Vancouver Sun
B.C. group loses bid to overturn Canada's federal voting system
OTTAWA — A panel of three Ontario Court of Appeal judges unanimously affirmed the constitutionality of Canada's first-past-the-post electoral system in a ruling released on Monday. The system, laid out in the Canada Elections Act, sees the candidate who receives the most votes in a given riding or electoral district become the member of Parliament. Fair Voting B.C. and the Springtide Collective for Democratic Society argued in court that the first-past-the-post system violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms' guarantee of effective representation. The groups also said the system leads to the under-representation of women and other groups in Parliament, breaching the Charter's equality rights provision. 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. In a proportional representation system, the number of representatives a political party elects reflects the percentage of the total vote the party receives. In November 2023, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the challenge from Fair Voting B.C. and Springtide. It said that while a proportional representation system would be a fair alternative to the current system, it's not required by the Constitution. In its decision, the province's Court of Appeal also rejected the groups' key arguments. 'The electoral system is not in conflict with either the right to vote or the right to equality. It does not violate the Charter,' Justice Grant Huscroft said in written reasons delivered on behalf of another judge on the panel. 'The appellants' arguments that the electoral system violates the Charter are, in essence, a repackaging of failed political arguments as constitutional rights violations.' The expert evidence 'put forward in support' of those arguments, Huscroft wrote, is 'replete with highly contestable policy arguments about which reasonable disagreement abounds, not only in the academic community but among the public at large.' 'This evidence demonstrates the shortcomings of constitutional litigation in addressing public policy disagreements,' he added. The short answer to the argument that the electoral system violates the Charter is that Canadian citizens are free to vote for anyone they choose, and for any reason they choose, Huscroft added. 'There is no constitutional requirement that their individual choices aggregate in a way that achieves some ideal of representational diversity,' he wrote. 'Neither the political party affiliation nor the personal characteristics of the candidates who win election are relevant to the constitutionality of the electoral system.' During the 2015 election campaign, then-Liberal leader Justin Trudeau promised it would be the last federal election held under the first-past-the-post system. Once in office, however, Trudeau's government abandoned his pledge to replace the system. Fair Voting B.C. and Springtide argued that under the current system, small political parties do not enjoy the success they deserve, creating a disadvantage for people who vote for them. 'I do not doubt that small political parties fare poorly in Canada,' Huscroft wrote. 'They receive relatively few votes and invariably win few or no seats.' The failure of a political party cannot open the door to a claim for constitutional redress, he said. 'In short, the right to vote is a right to vote pursuant to the electoral system in operation — whatever that system is, and regardless of the electoral outcomes that may obtain,' he wrote. The appellants also argued the first-past-the-post system contributes to the under-representation of women and minorities in Parliament. Huscroft said no matter what sort of electoral system is in place, over- or underrepresentation of particular demographic groups might occur to a greater or lesser extent from time to time. He added that arguments based on degree of representation lose sight of the fundamental fact of the matter: that people are entitled to vote the way they want. 'This is the very essence of the freedom that lies at the heart of the right to vote,' he wrote.
Toronto Sun
6 hours ago
- Toronto Sun
Saskatchewan pronoun consent law case can proceed following appeal court ruling
The policy was later replaced by a law known as the Parents' Bill of Rights (PBR), or Bill 137, which requires students under the age of 16 to obtain parental or guardian consent for school staff to 'use the pupil's new gender-related preferred name or gender identity.' In his Feb. 16, 2024 decision, Court of King's Bench Justice Michael Megaw granted amendments, which allowed UR Pride to target the law that followed the policy, as well as to tack on a further constitutional challenge. Notwithstanding clause and argument The PBR uses what's known as the notwithstanding clause, which allows it to stand regardless of whether it violates certain sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely guarantees to life, liberty and personal security (Section 7), as well as equality (Section 15(1)). Private lawyers from the firm MLT Aikins representing the government argued in September 2024 that, given the invocation of the notwithstanding clause, the court no longer had jurisdiction to weigh in on whether the law violates sections of the Charter listed within the law's text. They argued the case should have been dismissed for being moot and suggested the addition of a further constitutional challenge was an attempt to get around the government's lawful actions, amounting to an abuse of process. UR Pride disputed the government's positions and argued there is nothing precluding the court from declaring whether the law violates certain constitutional rights. The majority and the dissent The majority decision, written by SKCA Chief Justice Robert Leurer and representing the opinion of four of five judges who ruled on the case, dismissed the government's appeal in all but one area. The decision says the portions of UR Pride's action seeking to have the policy, which preceded the law, declared unconstitutional 'must be struck for mootness.' But the majority ruled the Court of King's Bench has the jurisdiction to decide whether the PBR (specifically, what is now Section 197.4 of the Education Act and concerns 'Consent for change to gender identity') limits rights under sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter and to issue a declaration to that end. Further, the SKCA majority decision concludes UR Pride may also seek a declaration that the section of law is of 'no force and effect' based on a violation of Section 12 of the Charter, which protects Canadians from cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Within the text of the PBR, Section 12 is not listed among the sections of the Charter that the law can operate in spite of. UR Pride's late addition of a challenge that the law violates this section is what the government argued was an abuse of process. The majority decision is careful to note that it is not concluding the provincial law limits of any of the aforementioned rights — that issue was not one the appeal judges were tasked with deciding. Further, it states that while the lower court has the power to examine whether the law limits rights under sections 7 and 15(1), 'there is no finding contained in this judgement that it will or should do so.' The dissenting decision, held by and written by SKCA Justice Neal Caldwell, concluded he would grant an order declaring that 'the courts are without jurisdiction to determine or declare' whether the provincial law violates sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter. Further he would deny UR Pride the ability to amend its action to 'claim declaratory relief' in respect to Section 12. Reactions Reacting to the decision, a spokesperson sent an emailed statement on behalf the government. ' Our government will always protect parents' rights to be involved in their children's education, which is why we introduced Bill 137, The Parents' Bill of Rights . Those parental rights were enshrined using the notwithstanding clause of the Charter and that law remains in effect,' the statement reads. ' We are still reviewing the decision to determine next steps. As the matter remains before the Courts, we will not comment further.' A statement sent out on behalf of several Saskatchewan NDP opposition MLAs suggested the government had wasted ' thousands and thousands of taxpayer dollars' fighting the case. ' Instead of continuing this witch hunt and forcing taxpayers to foot the bill, the Sask. Party should repeal Bill 137 and focus on what really matters to Saskatchewan people: fixing healthcare, stopping crime, and lowering costs for families,' the NDP statement reads. Egale Canada, a LGBTQ+ rights organization providing legal support to UR Pride, circulated a statement saying it was pleased with the outcome of the appeal. ' The Court of Appeal's decision upholds the rule of law in Canada and, in particular, reinforces the critical role of the courts in determining the constitutionality of government action.'
