Latest news with #Bill212
National Post
03-05-2025
- Politics
- National Post
Adam Zivo: When unelected judges invent rights to bike lanes and drug dens, something's wrong
On Wednesday, Ontario Premier Doug Ford claimed that Canada's politically appointed judiciary is overstepping its authority and that judges should be elected so that they are more responsive to the will of the people. His criticisms are absolutely warranted: judicial activism has run amok, causing demonstrable harms. Article content Article content Ford's comments were prompted by a recent legal battle over a law, Bill 212, that his government passed last November, to forcibly remove bike lanes on three major Toronto streets. Article content Article content Biking activists sued the province in December, arguing that the law violates cyclists' Section 7 Charter rights ('the right to life, liberty and security of the person'), and sought a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement until their case could be fully adjudicated in court. Article content Article content There is a clear test for granting such injunctions: (1) the request must concern a serious issue; (2) the applicant must experience 'irreparable harm' if the injunction is not granted; and (3) the benefits of the injunction must not outweigh any harm it causes to the public interest (this is known as the 'balance of convenience'). Article content When the Supreme Court established this test, though, it emphasized that there is a strong public interest in respecting the authority of the legislative and executive branches of government. Article content Nullifying duly enacted laws erodes the separation of powers, so, ideally, this should only be done after a full hearing, especially if constitutional matters are involved. Overruling Parliament via preliminary injunctions is supposed to be reserved for 'clear cases.' Article content Article content Likewise, when determining a balance of convenience, judges are supposed to assume that duly enacted laws serve the public interest as intended. If this is not actually the case, that is only to be recognized in the final ruling. Article content Article content With Bill 212, an Ontario Superior Court judge, Stephen E. Firestone, initially ruled that the activists had not met the 'heavy burden' of demonstrating that sufficient harms or 'a compelling overall public interest rationale' justified nullifying the provincial legislature's authority. Article content He argued that, while removing bike lanes may irreparably harm some cyclists, 'this is not a case where the applicants have no viable alternative means of transportation,' and that biking is a voluntary choice for the vast majority of people. Article content 'The courts' role on this interlocutory motion is not to second-guess the wisdom of the policy or to question whether it really serves the public interest. It is assumed to do so,' emphasized Firestone, correctly.
CBC
12-03-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Ontario aware bike lane removals may not reduce congestion, could make people less safe: internal documents
Social Sharing Ontario's premier and transportation minister have said for months that removing bike lanes is a necessary measure to reduce traffic in the GTA. But hundreds of pages of internal ministry documents, reports and emails show the government is aware the move may not have a meaningful impact on congestion and could increase collisions for everyone who uses roads. The heavily-redacted documents were made public as part of a court challenge to the legislation — Bill 212 would see bike lanes on Bloor Street, Yonge Street and University Avenue removed — mounted by a group of cyclists in Toronto. The documents were used in an argument for an injunction Tuesday to prevent any bike lane removal work until the court challenge is heard in full in April. The documents include a presentation on a legislative plan for a "pro-driver package" and emails between Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) staff that cast doubt on the ability to achieve bikes lanes on secondary streets as the minister publicly promised. There is also a report prepared by the engineering and urban planning firm CIMA+ for MTO that says collisions for all road users could increase by upwards of 54 per cent when bike lanes are removed, based on prior research. "There is a medium risk that the proposed change will not achieve the desired outcomes," reads a 2024 cabinet office committee briefing note. "Given that current data and research does not confirm that removing bike lanes that occupy a lane of traffic would significantly alleviate congestion." WATCH | The latest on the legal battle to prevent Ontario from removing Toronto bike lanes: The latest on the legal battle to prevent Ontario from removing Toronto bike lanes 20 hours ago Duration 2:32 The Ontario government's plan to remove bike lanes in Toronto had its day in court on Tuesday. CBC's Lane Harrison has what you need to know. An October briefing that asks what sections of the Bloor, Yonge and University lanes should be removed notes that the MTO did not own the "data required to support a decision to remove a bike lane." The cyclists mounting the court challenge say the documents reveal that MTO has privately been aware of what many critics have been saying about the legislation: that it won't solve Toronto's traffic issues, will make people unsafe, and there is no readily available network of secondary roads to replace the targeted routes. Province calls engineering report high-level At the injunction hearing Tuesday, the lawyer for the province said Ontario will have lots of documents and evidence to argue its rationale when the court challenge is heard in full in April. On the CIMA+ report specifically, which outlines an increased collision risk, Padraic Ryan argued the report was a high-level commentary with no original analysis. The CIMA+ work for the province is broken down into two phases, per the documents. The first phase, which is where the 54 per cent increase in collisions figure comes from, was a review of relevant research and case studies. A second phase of research, with site-specific safety analysis, is not included in the recently released batch of documents. The report says based on previous research, bike infrastructure can reduce collisions between 35 per cent to 50 per cent. It notes the increase in collisions could be reduced if less people bike on the roads where the bike lanes are removed, but cyclists may start riding on sidewalks instead — increasing risk for pedestrians. MTO staff cast doubt on replacing routes with secondary roads "I want to make sure that the bikers are safe," Premier Doug Ford said in November. "I have always believed that you don't put [bike lanes] on main arterial roads, you put them on secondary roads." Ford and Prabmeet Sarkaria, his transportation minister, have repeatedly promised that ripped out bike lanes would be replaced by bike lanes on parallel streets to give cyclists another option. A solution that has been criticized by cyclists who say routes can't be replaced on smaller roads without making someone's trip significantly longer and less direct. An issue MTO staff appear to be aware of. In an email exchange in mid-December, a MTO staffer says cyclists are sensitive to changes in trip length and will often choose the shortest route, which in a big city is often a major roadway. WATCH | Do only 1.2%of Torontonians really commute by bike? StatsCan data says no: Do only 1.2% of Torontonians really commute by bike? StatsCan data says no 4 months ago Duration 2:54 Ontario's transportation minister has defended his government's decision to rip up bike lanes on Toronto's major streets by saying just 1.2 per cent of people in the city commute by bicycle. But as CBC's Lane Harrison explains, federal data shows the number is higher in places where the targeted bike lanes already exist. "While I understand that there is messaging about the secondary roads, the extent to which that could be achieved and used in Toronto for example is an unknown/unlikely," wrote the MTO staff member. The report from CIMA+ echoes this concern, saying cyclists will likely continue using the most direct routes. It also says some major bike routes in Toronto have barriers like hills, ravines, bridges and rail lines that make a direct alternative route difficult. It says there are a limited number of north-south streets that make sense for cycling infrastructure "without impacting existing vehicle lanes" on major roads. Small businesses may suffer along routes In a news release issued in January about the plans, an Etobicoke business owner among a group suing the city for installing bike lanes in the neighbourhood said the lanes are "hurting local businesses." But ministry documents say the removal of bike lanes could be the thing to cause hurt.
CBC
11-03-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Cyclists seek injunction as Ontario bike lane removal work could start this month
Social Sharing Ontario won't begin removing bike lanes in Toronto until March 20 at the earliest — but a group of cyclists is applying for an injunction to prevent the work until their legal challenge against the plan has its day in court. The group, led by Cycle Toronto, launched a legal challenge against the province's plan to remove bike lanes on Bloor Street, Yonge Street and University Avenue in Toronto. The challenge will be heard in April, but the group wants to ensure that infrastructure isn't removed between late March and the April hearing. A hearing for the injunction that could do that is happening Tuesday at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in downtown Toronto. The group's lawyers say lawyers from the province informed them no steps to remove the bike lanes would come before March 20, something a spokesperson for the ministry of transportation confirmed. The March 20 date was first reported in The Trillium. "This won't help address traffic, and we know it'll make our roads more dangerous for people and make it so that fewer people will choose to ride a bike," said Michael Longfield, executive director of Cycle Toronto. The province fast-tracked Bill 212 in the fall, arguing that the bike lane removals are needed to reduce congestion in Toronto. Transportation Minister Prabmeet Sarkaria said the city's approach to installing bike lanes was "failed" and described the bike lane removal as "freeing up some of Toronto's most important roads," in a January news release. WATCH | Do only 1.2%of Torontonians really commute by bike? StatsCan data says no: Do only 1.2% of Torontonians really commute by bike? StatsCan data says no 4 months ago Duration 2:54 Research from cities around the world suggests that adding bike lanes to streets doesn't actually add to congestion, though adding more roads for motor vehicles does. Bruce Ryder, a professor at York University's Osgoode Hall Law School, said the applicants have a strong case for an interim injunction on the grounds of the initial application's argument that people's safety could be put at risk. "The balance of convenience in terms of the status quo favours them," said Ryder, who's not involved in the challenge. "In other words, it's better to leave the bike lanes in place for the time being until the case is fully argued," he said. Full legal challenge to be heard in April The legal challenge that will be heard in April states that the government's reasoning for removing bike lanes is arbitrary, alleging Premier Doug Ford and Minister Sarkaria have not shown evidence to support their characterizations of the lanes. It also argues the removal is a violation of section seven of the Charter and Rights of Freedoms, saying the removal deprives cyclists of life and security of the person. The city has said ripping up the lanes would cost about $48 million — a figure Ford has publicly disputed — while increasing driver travel time during construction and having a minimal impact once completed. Sarkaria has frequently said 1.2 per cent of people in Toronto commute by bike, though census data shows that number is higher in several areas where bike lanes actually exist. Though in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, where the debate around bike lanes has been perhaps most intense, statistics line up with Sarkaria's messaging. "Removing these bike lanes makes sense for our community and it cannot be done soon enough," the area's former MPP Christine Hogarth said in a January news release. Hogarth was defeated by Liberal Lee Fairclough in the February election. Legal experts say challenge has merits When it comes to the legal challenge that will be heard in earnest in April, some in the legal field feel Cycle Toronto's arguments have merits. David Schneiderman, a professor of law at the University of Toronto who's not involved in the legal challenge, said the challenge's argument has some merits when it comes to the argument that the decision to remove bike lanes is not being done with sufficient evidence that it will reduce congestion. WATCH | Toronto's mayor critical of bike lane removal: Mayor Chow calls Ontario's plan to remove bike lanes 'arbitrary' 4 months ago Duration 1:26 The Ontario government is planning to remove three sections of bike lanes in Toronto. At a news conference on Friday, Mayor Olivia Chow emphasized there have been several studies done in recent years that support the existing bike lanes. "That would be of interest to a judge, and a judge would say, 'show me the money,'" Schneiderman said. "[Courts] don't like governments behaving arbitrarily without any evidence just because they don't like something or someone." Ryder, from Osgoode Hall, said while the interim injunction has a good chance, the hearing for the challenge itself will be more difficult. "It will be the claimant's burden to establish that the government is putting their lives at risk. And it will also be the claimant's burden to establish that they're not doing so for a good reason or a sufficiently strong reason," he said.
Yahoo
01-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Lawmakers look to build artificial intelligence framework for Montana
The Montana Senate is seen during the Wednesday, February 12, 2025 session. (Nathaniel Bailey for the Daily Montanan) Montana lawmakers are trying to use this session to build a framework for the usage of artificial intelligence in the state. Lawmakers discussed two AI bills on Friday. Senate Bill 212, brought by Sen. Daniel Zolnikov, R-Billings, would establish the Right to Compute Act, which seeks to protect the individual use AI, and allow the state to restrict it in limited circumstances. It received unanimous approval on second reading, putting it one vote from Senate passage. The Montana Legislature is also taking a close look at the use of AI by health insurance companies, as Rep. Jill Cohenour, D-Helena had a hearing in the House Business and Labor Committee for House Bill 556. Cohenour has several other AI bills, including HB 514, which deals with name, image and likeness rights. The bill passed the Senate on a 97-1 vote on Friday afternoon. Cohenour also has House Bill 513, which would expand and create penalties for use of real and digitally fabricated sexually explicit images. Zolnikov is co-sponsoring all three of Cohenour's House bills. Zolnikov said SB 212 bill provides a framework for using emerging artificial intelligence technology in the state. The bill's intent is not to fully ban artificial intelligence, and Zolnikov said he wants Montana to avoid 'falling in the trap of supporting big tech versus open (source).' It's an attempt to create tech legislation that seeks to avoid freezing out small innovators and anyone else that wants to use artificial intelligence for their own purposes. And even then, there's nothing in the bill explicitly prohibiting or even discouraging a larger company that uses artificial intelligence from setting up shop in Montana, or even the state itself using it . Still, with anything new, problems can arise, and Zolnikov's bill keeps the state's ability to create regulatory language as time passes and the issue evolves. Cohenour's bills address some of these exact situations. 'There's a new world,' Zolnikov said in an interview. 'Let's open the door and then start restricting in a narrow, detailed way, not like other states that are basically trying to ban everything.' Zolnikov's bill preserves the 'right to compute,' with the bill text stating, 'Any restrictions placed by the government on the ability to privately own or make use of computational resources for lawful purposes must be limited to those demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest.' Additionally, the bill would make any 'critical infrastructure facility' that uses artificial intelligence to run its systems have a risk management policy to fall back on if there are issues. Critical infrastructure facility is a defined term that includes things like electric substations, wastewater treatment plants, dams and oil refineries. Cohenour's AI bills fit into the framework of Zolnikov's bill, addressing some of the 'narrow' issues legislators are looking to fix. On Friday, House Bill 556, which would legislate the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare decisions, got a hearing in the House Business and Labor Committee. 'I've interacted with a couple of the insurance folks, and I asked for a little bit of information from them, and they're all running away from me now,' Cohenour said in an interview Thursday. 'So this is going to be really fascinating tomorrow. I'm sure I'm going to get dog piled on, but really, AI and algorithms should not be determining what kind of healthcare somebody gets. And that's what that bill is all about.' Cohenour's prediction was accurate. BlueCross BlueShield Montana came out strongly in opposition to the bill. The insurance company argued it was not using artificial intelligence to deny medical care, only to approve it. 'BCBSMT may use automated approval technology to approve utilization review requests but never to deny,' BlueCross BlueShield Montana spokesperson Bryan Campen wrote in an emailed response to the Daily Montanan. 'Requests not automatically approved are reviewed by a clinician.' Following the shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, there was a hurricane of anger directed at health insurance providers by the public. One source of that emotion has been artificial intelligence denying claims, and Boston's NPR affiliate reported on a lawsuit filed against UnitedHealthcare alleging exactly that. Class action lawsuits have also been filed against Humana and Cigna for using artificial intelligence to deny insurance claims. While it doesn't appear BlueCross BlueShield Montana has been sued over the issue, Blue Shield of California has. A lawsuit filed last year claimed Blue Shield of California was using a 'unlawful and fraudulent Artificial-Intelligence ('AI') powered prior authorization and review system of their insureds' insurance claims.' Drew Cziok, the director of government relations for BlueCross BlueShield of Montana, spoke against Cohenour's bill, saying it was 'vague.' 'For us, AI augments human judgment,' Cziok said. 'It helps approve services faster. So sometimes this means as soon as everything is submitted, an automated system is able to review a claim and approve it on the spot.' The bill also makes AI software available for inspection by regulatory agencies. 'They should have procedures. They should open their books to make sure we aren't introducing bias when algorithms learn on their own,' Cohenour said on Friday morning. 'That is scary stuff.' The Committee did not take executive action on the bill on Friday. Cohenour's other two bills also deal with some of the narrow issues Zolnikov's legislation allows the state to regulate. House Bill 514, dealing with a person's name, image and likeness, was broadly popular in the House, passing the chamber with just one vote against it. NIL has been most commonly associated with college athletics. Courts have allowed for college athletes to be paid, saying they own their name, image and likeness and should be able to profit off of it. Cohenour's House Bill 514 would extend that legal protection to all Montanans. 'A lot of states are starting to bring this stuff forward, and we all feel like we need to get in front of it,' Cohenour said. 'I mean, it's developing so fast that we're way behind the eight ball.' The Helena representative's other bill strengthens the state's Privacy In Communications laws. It defines 'digitally fabricated,' which is stated in the proposed bill as, 'using technical means, such as artificial intelligence, to create media that realistically misrepresents an identifiable individual as engaging in conduct in which the identifiable individual did not engage.' Breaking the law would be a misdemeanor on first offense, punishable by a $500 fine, six months in county jail, or both. A subsequent offense would be a felony. It also seeks to protect against 'sextortion' which the Federal Bureau of Investigation says it has seen a rise in, specifically amongst minors. This is something Cohenour is concerned about. It has broad bipartisan support and Democratic Minority Leader Rep. Katie Sullivan, D-Missoula, House speaker Pro Tem Rep. Katie Zolnikov, R-Billings, and Senate President Pro Tempore Sen. Kenneth Bogner, R-Miles City, are all co-sponsors. 'Basically the (updates to the) privacy and communication law allows for you to bring an action against somebody that might do a real picture or an AI generated picture, to be able to say that that's also a crime,' Cohenour said. Other bills, including Senate Bill 452 brought by Sen. Daniel Emrich, R-Great Falls, would require, 'disclosures of the use of artificial intelligence by manufacturers of online media.' That bill had a committee hearing on Saturday morning. Additionally, Sen. Janet Ellis, D-Helena, introduced Senate Bill 25, which would outlaw the usage of AI by candidates or political parties within 60 days of an election, unless the media is clearly marked as generated by an artificial intelligence program. That bill passed the Senate's State Administration committee on an 8-1 vote. Sen. Laura Smith, D-Helena, also had legislation move forward to outlaw so-called 'AI deep fakes,' which the proposed bill, Senate Bill 413, refers to as 'synthetic media.' SB 413 moved out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in a unanimous vote.
CBC
27-11-2024
- Politics
- CBC
Windsor council defers debate over provincial bill for weeks hours before it becomes law
City administration weren't able to give council a verbal update on the impacts of Bill 212 because they haven't had discussions with the province while the majority of councillors apparently had not read the legislation despite a month's notice about debate.
