Cyclists on Bloor Street West. The Ontario government passed a law last fall giving itself power to remove existing bike lanes along Yonge Street, Bloor Street and University Avenue.Fred Lum/the Globe and Mail
A judge has ruled that the Ontario government’s plan to remove bike lanes along three major streets in Toronto is unconstitutional and violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by putting people at “increased risk of harm and death.”
The Ontario government passed legislation last fall giving itself the power to remove existing bike lanes along Yonge Street, Bloor Street and University Avenue, while also preventing municipalities from creating new bike lanes that replace traffic lanes. At the time, Premier Doug Ford complained about bike lanes creating gridlock.
The legislation was challenged by advocacy group Cycle Toronto and two cyclists who use the lanes regularly. During the court proceedings, the government’s lawyers claimed bike lanes contribute to vehicle traffic and said removing them would alleviate congestion in the city. The City of Toronto estimated the bike lanes’ removal and installation of vehicle lanes would cost taxpayers $48-million.
Ontario’s bill to remove three Toronto bike lanes to be tested with Charter challenge
Opinion: The bike lane debate isn’t a war on cycling – it’s a war on data
But Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas found the government’s argument was rooted in “weak anecdotal evidence and expert opinion, which is unsupported, unpersuasive and contrary to the consensus view of experts.”
He concluded that the law violates the Charter right to life, liberty and security of the person because removing the lanes would put cyclists and other users at risk in a way that is arbitrary and disproportionate.
“The negative effects of the impugned provision – injuries and death that will result from the restoration of a lane of motor vehicle traffic and the removal of the protected bike lanes – are completely out of sync with the aim of reducing traffic congestion, even with this objective taken at face value,” Justice Schabas wrote.
The province intends to appeal the court’s decision, Dakota Brasier, a spokesperson for Ontario’s Ministry of Transportation, said in a statement.
“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. To deliver on that mandate, we will be appealing the court’s decision,” Ms. Brasier said.
The government recently amended the legislation. Instead of explicitly requiring the lanes’ removal, the law now mandates “reconfiguring the bicycle lanes” to restore vehicle traffic. Justice Schabas said the change does not alter his assessment that the law is unconstitutional.
Lindsay Beck, a lawyer at Ecojustice who represented the plaintiffs in the legal challenge, said her team didn’t argue that bike lanes are a right, but rather that the government’s proposal would remove a road-safety feature, thus putting people at risk.
“The decision to remove protected bike lanes for the ostensible goal of reducing congestion was not grounded in any evidence,” Ms. Beck said. “I think it’s not only a vindication of our clients’ Charter rights, but of evidence-based policy making and decision making.”
More than a quarter of Toronto households don’t own a car, and half of vehicle trips in the city are under five kilometres, according to a city report. On average, thousands of city residents rely on the Yonge Street, Bloor Street and University Avenue bike lanes every day.
Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow has been negotiating a compromise with Mr. Ford for months, suggesting a solution that she says would keep bike lanes and add extra traffic lanes in each direction.
In a statement, Ms. Chow voiced her continuing support for bike lanes and said the city is reviewing the court’s decision.
“I maintain that the City of Toronto and its elected council should be the ones making decisions about municipal infrastructure,” she said in a post to X, adding that the city is hiring more traffic agents, incentivizing quicker construction and improving public transit to reduce congestion.
Michael Longfield, executive director of Cycle Toronto, said the judge’s decision makes travel safer for all road users.
“I think bike lanes are great – obviously – for people on bikes, but they’re great for everybody who moves around the city. They make things calmer, more predictable and ensure that everybody’s getting to where they need to safely,” Mr. Longfield said.
Mr. Longfield is recovering from a broken femur he sustained in a collision on an unprotected bike lane.
The court’s decision safeguards 19 kilometres across three routes of “protected” bike lanes, which are designed to keep cyclists safe by physically separating them from cars. Over the past decade, 68 per cent of the collisions causing death or serious injury to cyclists in Toronto happened on streets without safe cycling infrastructure, according to data from the city.
Mr. Longfield hopes to see more bike lanes constructed across Toronto. Cycling is convenient, good exercise, reduces carbon emissions and ends up being faster than travelling by car, he said.