Latest news with #JusticePaulSchabas
Yahoo
31-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ontario court strikes down Ford government's plan to remove Toronto bike lanes
An Ontario court has deemed the province's plan to remove three major Toronto bike lanes unconstitutional. The judge ruled Wednesday that Cycle Toronto and others "have established that removal of the target bike lanes will put people at increased risk of harm and death, which engages the right to life and security of the person." In December, lawyers for the Toronto cycling advocacy group and other cyclists asked the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to strike down parts of a law empowering the province to remove the 19 kilometres of protected bike lanes on Yonge Street, Bloor Street and University Avenue, and replace them with vehicle lanes. The province has been pushing for the removals as a solution to Toronto's traffic congestion, but cyclists and advocates say bike lanes are crucial for public safety and that removing them won't solve traffic concerns. Justice Paul Schabas concluded Wednesday that the bike lane removals will not reduce congestion. In his written decision, Schabas highlighted expert evidence "which establishes that bicycle lanes, and in particular separated or protected bicycle lanes, reduce motor vehicle traffic congestion by providing an alternative method of transportation that is safer for all users of the roads." WATCH | Cyclists protested bike lane removals earlier this year: "The evidence shows that restoring lanes for cars will not result in less congestion, as it will induce more people to use cars and therefore any reduction in driving time will be short-lived, if at all, and will lead to more congestion," said Schabas in his decision. In a statement, a spokesperson for Transportation Minister Prabmeet Sarkaria said the government will appeal the decision. "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," Dakota Brasier told CBC News. Premier Doug Ford commented on the decision as he left an event in Brampton Wednesday afternoon. "I believe, and the people of Ontario believe, that they elect parties to make decisions — they don't elect judges," he told CBC News. 6 cyclists killed in Toronto last year Schabas also wrote in his decision that removing the target bike lanes and replacing them with lanes for cars will make these roads less safe for cyclists and for other road users, resulting in an increased likelihood of collisions, injuries, and death. Six cyclists were killed in Toronto last year, all on roads without protected bike lanes. There have been no fatalities involving cyclists this year, according to Toronto police data. Data from the 2021 Statistics Canada census suggests the number of people commuting on bicycles in areas of Toronto where bike lanes are located is far above one per cent, with the exception of the federal riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, where the debate over the Bloor bike lane has been arguably most intense. The executive director of Cycle Toronto told CBC Toronto that they are "over the moon" with the judge's decision. "It's great news for Toronto. It's great news for anyone who supports local democracy and local decision-making, and for anyone who rides a bike in the city. This victory is yours," said Michael Longfield. He said Premier Ford should be focusing on more important issues other than bike lanes. "What Torontonians, what Ontarians need from their premier is for him to be focusing on really important matters like trade, education, health care, and not obsessing over trying to be the mayor of Toronto and meddling in 19 kilometres of bike lanes," said Longfield. Ford made removing the bike lanes a campaign issue during the snap election he called and won in February. He and Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow had been negotiating a compromise for months, with the mayor conveying that she believed there was a solution that would keep the bike lanes and add an extra lane of traffic in each direction on the three roads. Etobicoke business group welcomes appeal A coalition of business owners and locals in Etobicoke was disappointed with the decision Wednesday. Cody MacRae, founder of Balance on Bloor — a non-profit group of residents and business people that wants bike lanes removed from the Etobicoke section of the street in favour of a lane for motorized traffic — said he's happy the province is appealing. "I think it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever," he said in an interview. "For the judge to say it doesn't cause congestion, I would welcome him to come to Bloor Street in Etobicoke and take a look at it." MacRae said, says the stretch of bike lanes is barely used, while motorists are left idling with one less lane available to them. Balance on Bloor argues that's impacting business in the area, he said. Toronto mayor says bike lanes keep people safe Toronto city council voted in November to oppose the province's plans to override the city's authority and remove the lanes. In a statement Wednesday, a spokesperson for Chow said the city and its elected council should be the ones making decisions about municipal infrastructure. "The City is reviewing the court decision and the impact on our ongoing discussions with the province," said Zeus Eden. The city is tackling the root causes of congestion by hiring traffic agents, speeding up construction, and improving subways, streetcars, and buses so more people take public transit, Eden said. A city report in November estimated the cost of removing the targeted bike lanes in Toronto at $48 million. You can read the full decision in the document below:
CTV News
30-07-2025
- Politics
- CTV News
Ontario court strikes down Ford government's plan to tear up Toronto bike lanes as unconstitutional
A cyclist rides in a bike lane on University Avenue in Toronto on Friday, December 13, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Laura Proctor Ontario's Superior Court of Justice has blocked a plan by the provincial government to rip up bike lanes in Toronto, calling it unconstitutional. In a ruling handed down Wednesday Justice Paul Schabas sided with Cycle Toronto, which brought the suit, and found that the Ford government's decision to remove bike lanes installed by the city violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Ford government introduced the legislation back in November, saying the bike lanes were contributing to gridlock and making it harder for emergency vehicles to get around. Among other things, the law required the removal of newer bike lanes on stretches of Bloor Street, University Avenue and Yonge Street. Cycling advocates argued that the removal of the bike lanes would make them less safe, a position the judge agreed with. 'In this case, the evidence is clear that restoring lanes of motor vehicle traffic by removing the bike lanes, or reconfiguring them so that they are no longer physically separated from cars, will lead to more accidents, injuries and deaths,' Schabas wrote in his ruling. The Ford government did not immediately comment on the decision. More details to come…
National Post
18-06-2025
- Politics
- National Post
Opinion: Chief Justice Richard Wagner forgets that criticizing judges is part of democracy
Article content If legal commentators are permitted to scrutinize the reasoning of judges, then it is entirely legitimate for elected officials to do so, as well. After all, the rule of law mandates that each branch of the state remains within its allocated bounds. Where a court exceeds its proper constitutional role, or is in danger of doing so, then elected officials have a right, and a constitutional duty, to contest these uses of official power. Article content Consider the case that provoked Premier Ford's comments, which involved a court challenge to his government's decision to remove bike lanes in some Toronto neighbourhoods. Whether or not their removal was appropriate, it is hard to conceive of bike lanes as a 'fundamental right' contemplated by the framers of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At best, the question is one of urban planning: a dispute over transit infrastructure, about which reasonable people can disagree. It is entirely consistent with Canada's constitutional order that these questions of policy should be left to the politically accountable government of Ontario. In discharging its unique constitutional role in our democracy, Queen's Park is entitled to assert its priorities over those of cycling advocates. Article content Unfortunately, none of these considerations prevented Justice Paul Schabas of the Superior Court of Ontario from issuing a preliminary injunction, effectively stopping the government from implementing its priorities. In so doing, Justice Schabas summarily dismissed the elected branches' constitutional function, asserting that 'the government does not have a monopoly on the public interest.' Instead, the learned judge contended, it was for the court to exercise its own judgment as to which public interests the government could and could not pursue. Article content Next, consider the numerous cases in which Canadian courts have struck down mandatory minimum sentences as unconstitutional, or departed significantly from public sentiment in sentencing criminal offenders. In one emblematic case, the Supreme Court of Canada declared a six-month mandatory minimum for child luring to be 'cruel and unusual punishment' contrary to the Charter, claiming that it would 'shock the conscience of an informed public.' More recently, the Provincial Court of British Columbia has been criticized for a decision to impose no jail time upon an offender who possessed what the court characterized as a 'relatively modest' collection of child pornography. In these circumstances, it is entirely unsurprising that officials and informed citizens should raise questions about the intelligent exercise of judicial power. Article content Article content A constitutional democracy that prizes our courts as forums of reason cannot have it both ways. It cannot profess public confidence in the judiciary, while insisting that judicial decisions be shielded from public criticism. Central to judicial responsibility is the task of offering reasoned justifications for one's decisions. Those reasons are an invitation to the public to examine and critically appraise the cogency of a judge's decision-making. Article content There is little reason to think, then, that elected officials are acting inappropriately, much less unconstitutionally, in expressing reasoned disagreement with judicial rulings, or in proposing solutions to perceived problems with those decisions. To the contrary, such criticism is precisely what the rule of law requires, and bearing it with composure is a constitutional duty of the judicial role. Article content
