Go Ad Free

The Ontario Court of Appeal has overturned a ruling by Superior Court Justice Paul B. Schabas that found the Ford government's plan to remove protected Toronto bike lanes violated the Charter.

In a unanimous decision released Aug. 14, Justices Grant Huscroft, J. Michal Fairburn and Benjamin Zarnett allowed Ontario's appeal in Cycle Toronto v. Ontario. The case concerned provincial legislation requiring bike lanes to be removed or reconfigured on major Toronto streets, including Bloor Street, University Avenue and Yonge Street.

Schabas ruled in July 2025 that removing the bike lanes would increase the likelihood of collisions, injuries and deaths, engaging cyclists' Charter rights to life and security of the person. He also found the measure arbitrary because the evidence before him suggested removing the lanes would not alleviate congestion and could make it worse.

The appeal court rejected that reasoning.

"There is no Charter right to bicycle lanes," Huscroft wrote. The court found Ontario was constitutionally free to create, retain or remove bike lanes and that ordinary legislation cannot establish a constitutional baseline that binds future governments.

The ruling went considerably further in criticizing Schabas's approach to the case.

Huscroft said Schabas had "lost sight" of the proper role of courts by weighing political and policy considerations, including statements from Premier Doug Ford and the transportation minister, contested road-use data, government advice and criticism from members of the public.

"None of this was relevant to the task before him," the appeal court said.

The court stressed that elected governments are not constitutionally required to follow the recommendations of bureaucrats, academics or other experts.

"The choices they make are the stuff of politics," Huscroft wrote. "We are governed by those whom we elect, and they are accountable to the people for the choices they make, not to the courts."

The appeal court also criticized Schabas's reliance on expert predictions that removing bike lanes would eventually worsen congestion.

It found there was a rational connection between the government's stated objective of reducing congestion and increasing the number of lanes available to motor vehicles. Whether the policy ultimately succeeds is a political question, not a constitutional one.

"The Charter does not require the legislature to act in a manner the court considers optimal," Huscroft wrote. "It does not require the legislature to legislate in accordance with predictions, expert or otherwise."

The court was similarly critical of Schabas's finding that the potential danger to cyclists was "grossly disproportionate" to what he characterized as saving motorists "a few minutes of travel time."

The appeal court said that characterization minimized the government's stated goal of reducing congestion while inflating the potential consequences of removing the lanes.

"Removing bicycle lanes is in no way analogous to imposing a sentence of life imprisonment for spitting on the sidewalk or exposing citizens to a high risk of being murdered to prevent nuisances," Huscroft wrote. "It is mere traffic regulation and cannot be described as 'draconian'."

The appeal was allowed unanimously, overturning Schabas's ruling.