A group of cyclists from Toronto appeared in Ontario’s highest court on Wednesday to uphold their successful opposition to the province’s proposal to remove three sections of the city’s bike lanes. The cyclists, including a bike messenger and a college student, have contended that the untested plan to eliminate protected bike lanes poses an unconstitutional threat to their safety. The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard the province’s appeal of the case on the same day.
The province contended that the initial court ruling would essentially establish a right to bike lanes, a claim rejected by the Superior Court justice in July. Justice Paul Schabas determined that the government persisted with the plan despite its own advisors and external experts largely concurring that it would not achieve the intended objective of alleviating traffic congestion and might even exacerbate the situation. The judge emphasized that even if the proposed benefits were accepted at face value, the potential harm to cyclists would far outweigh the goal of saving some drivers a few minutes of travel time.
Schabas highlighted that removing the bike lanes or altering them to be no longer separated would likely result in more accidents, injuries, and fatalities. He pointed out that the government acknowledged this risk by including an immunity clause in the legislation to shield itself from liability. Premier Doug Ford’s administration passed a law in 2024 to eliminate 19 kilometers of protected bike lanes on Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue in Toronto.
A 2024 report by Toronto city staff suggested that the risk of cyclist injury on a main street with parked cars and lacking cycling infrastructure is approximately nine times higher than on a protected bike lane. The report also revealed that over the past decade, 28 individuals have died and 380 have sustained serious injuries while cycling in Toronto, with about two-thirds of these incidents occurring on streets without safe bike lanes.
Regarding the province’s attempt to amend the legislation during the legal proceedings, Schabas criticized it as essentially evading his ruling. He maintained that as long as the province sought to remove separated bike lanes to restore vehicle traffic, the core issue remained unchanged.
The province contended in its appeal that Schabas misinterpreted the Charter’s right to life, liberty, and security by subjecting legislation impacting safety to judicial review. Premier Ford criticized the lower-court decision as absurd and ideological, emphasizing his preference for bike lanes on secondary streets rather than major roads. However, evidence presented to the court suggested limited alternatives on secondary roads for many sections of the affected bike lanes without creating disjointed and riskier routes for cyclists.
Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow’s spokesperson mentioned efforts to find mutually beneficial solutions maintaining both car lanes and protected bike lanes. The city estimated a potential cost of $48 million to remove the bike lanes, a figure initially rebuffed by the transportation minister. Subsequently, the government announced plans to reinstate vehicle lanes but retain bike lanes on a portion of Bloor Street at a cost of $750,000, including barrier curbs and bollards.
Cycle Toronto, the advocacy group leading the legal challenge, deemed the decision a positive compromise while questioning its feasibility for all targeted bike lanes. The case was portrayed as a stand for upholding the rule of law against what was characterized as the Ford government’s misplaced priorities and misuse of public funds in a statement by Michael Longfield, ahead of the court hearing.
The outcome of the appeal, to be determined by a three-judge panel, will be disclosed at a later date.