Ontario’s highest court ruled on Friday that the province can proceed with removing 19 kilometers of protected bike lanes in Toronto, clearing the way for the policy despite legal challenges. The decision, issued by the Ontario Court of Appeal, overturned a previous ruling by the Superior Court of Justice that had deemed the plan an unconstitutional threat to cyclist safety. The appeal court’s unanimous verdict emphasized that governments retain the authority to alter or abolish policies, even if such changes contradict expert recommendations. The case centered around a 2024 provincial law aimed at eliminating bike lanes along key thoroughfares including Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue. A coalition of cyclists, including a bike courier and a university student, filed a lawsuit arguing the measure posed an unacceptable risk to public safety. In a 2025 ruling, Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas agreed, stating the government had ignored evidence suggesting the plan would fail to reduce traffic congestion and might exacerbate the problem. He further noted that the harm inflicted on cyclists was disproportionate to the stated goal of saving drivers “a few minutes of travel time.” Justice Grant Huscroft, writing for the Appeal Court, sharply criticized Schabas’s reasoning, calling it flawed and politically influenced. Huscroft asserted that the lower court had misinterpreted the law and ventured into policymaking rather than judicial review. The ruling stressed that constitutional validity, not wisdom, was the sole concern of the judiciary. “Policy is for politics,” Huscroft wrote, reinforcing the argument that legislative decisions, even if controversial, fall outside the scope of judicial oversight. Premier Doug Ford’s government celebrated the decision as a win, framing it as a necessary adjustment to urban planning priorities. Transportation Minister Prabmeet Sarkaria reiterated the administration’s stance that bike lanes should be reserved for secondary roads, emphasizing that they should not come at the cost of vehicular infrastructure on heavily trafficked routes. The ruling was swiftly endorsed by officials, who framed it as a reaffirmation of governmental autonomy in shaping transportation policy. Cycle Toronto, the advocacy group representing cyclists, acknowledged the loss but maintained that the underlying issues remain unresolved. Executive Director Michael Longfield highlighted that over the past decade, 28 cyclists have died and 380 others have sustained serious injuries in Toronto, primarily on streets lacking protected bike lanes. He accused the government of prioritizing short-term political gains over long-term public safety, describing the policy as both misguided and dangerous. “Ripping out bike lanes will put people’s lives at risk,” he warned, adding that the legislation fails to address core transportation challenges. The Appeal Court’s decision also addressed the broader implications of the ruling, distinguishing the removal of bike lanes from more severe legal penalties. Huscroft explicitly rejected comparisons to extreme measures such as life imprisonment or exposure to violent crime, asserting that traffic regulation, however contentious, does not meet the threshold of “draconian” punishment. This distinction underscored the court’s view that the policy, while controversial, falls within the realm of permissible governance. As the government moves forward with implementing the revised plan, advocates for safer cycling infrastructure continue to push for alternative solutions. The debate reflects a growing divide between policymakers focused on optimizing road space and community groups advocating for pedestrian and cyclist-friendly design. With the legal path now cleared, the focus shifts to how the policy will be executed and whether new measures will emerge to address concerns raised by critics.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.
Become a Supporter
CA
