Ontario Superior Court Justice Schabas made a landmark ruling on July 30, siding with cycling and safety advocates, finding the government’s actions violated Canadians’ Charter Rights under Section 7.
“Justice Schabas ruled that government decisions that increase risk to people, particularly vulnerable road users like cyclists, are unconstitutional when not made in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The ruling affirms that government action cannot knowingly make streets less safe, especially when it won’t achieve the goal of reducing traffic congestion, and that public safety must be a paramount consideration in policymaking.” – Cycle Toronto press release, July 30
“This ruling is a powerful vindication of what the applicants and cycling advocates have long said: cyclists are not the cause of traffic, they are among the most vulnerable road users, too often put at risk by infrastructure and policies that prioritize vehicle speed over human safety. The court’s decision affirms that governments cannot act in ways that knowingly increase danger without breaching fundamental Charter protections.” – Cycle Toronto press release, July 30
Selective Quotes from the judgment show how this impacts Brampton’s Active Transportation policy and implementation
While reading the 41-page judgment, I reflected on our 12 years of advocacy for active transportation. Every plan and document produced by the City has moved us in the direction of supporting exactly what is contained in Judge Schabas’ decision. One can argue that sometimes we have moved slowly in this direction, sometimes slight back-pedalling, and sometimes very quickly forward (as during COVID-19), but always moving towards the path that would lead to a healthier, more sustainable community in our transportation planning.
Cycle Toronto et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario et al. Reasons for Judgment (selected quotes from 41-page judgment, based on relevant implications for Brampton. Bolding is my own.)
1. Brampton should continue to use an Evidence-Based approach to Active Transportation decisions. There is no basis for personal opinions when it comes to the movement of people for the public good, now and for long-term planning.
Judge Schabas stated in [104] of his judgment: “The government’s evidence is anecdotal and of little assistance. The affiants are not experts and have not analyzed the causes of congestion. While their feelings may be genuine, their impressions do not constitute evidence of a link between bike lanes and traffic congestion. Undoubtedly, there are people who support the view that the target bike lanes should be removed, and others who oppose their removal. But Charter litigation is not a popularity contest based on attitudes or impressions or unattributed hearsay. Cases should be decided on well-grounded evidence, not on anecdotal opinions.“
This Charter Challenge elicited internal reports and briefings from inside the Ministry of Transportation that had not been previously made public.
2. Traffic Calming and Safety (CAA advised Provincial Government in their briefing)
[67] “An August 29, 2024 briefing note to the Ministry of Transportation advised that the Canadian Automobile Association recommended the use of cycling infrastructure as a congestion management measure, noting that bike lanes increase active transportation mode share, reduce demand on vehicle lanes, can move 10 times more people than a car lane, and that adding a protected bike lane reduces collisions and injuries by 30 to 50%.”
3. Expert Evidence on Congestion – (MTO Engineering Experts advised the Provincial Government, both before and after Bill 212 – Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act passed, that bike lane removal would not help reduce congestion, and likely have the opposite effect)
Judge Schabas stated [69]: “A Ministry of Transportation briefing dated October 28, 2024 (one week after introducing Bill 212) stated: “MTO does not hold any data on the performance of the identified three bike lanes to support a decision for removal, nor to assess the potential impacts of removal, including with respect to impacts on travel times and safety impacts to cyclists, motorists, pedestrians, etc.”
“The briefing note continued: Removing cycling infrastructure may not have the desired goal of reducing congestion. In the absence of dedicated cycling infrastructure, cyclists could continue to use key routes in affected municipalities, particularly in the absence of alternatives, which may not be in place until a later date. Cycling studies in North American and other large jurisdictions show bike lanes can have a positive impact on congestion and on safety of road users.”
[70] “The internal advice to the government before passing Bill 212 was confirmed following its enactment. An engineering firm retained by the government to move forward with the removal of the target bike lanes and restoration of lanes for motor vehicles, CIMA, provided a report on January 10, 2025, in which it stated: … While removing the bike lanes and replacing them with traffic lanes may increase the vehicle capacity along the immediate length of the roadway, the actual alleviation of congestion may be negligible or short-lived due to other confounding factors or induced demand.”
[71] “”Induced demand” was described by CIMA as “a concept widely accepted, and repeatedly proven, in the transportation industry.”
4. Expert Evidence on Congestion
[82] “The Applicants’ expert evidence on the impact of bicycle lanes on traffic congestion came from Dr. Shoshanna Saxe, a Canada Research Chair in Sustainable Infrastructure and Associate Professor at the University of Toronto. Transportation infrastructure, including cycling, is a core focus of her research and expertise. She has published many papers on quantitative assessments of cycling infrastructure and works in Canada and abroad.”
[83] “Dr. Saxe stated that “investing in cycling infrastructure is one of the most powerful tools available to reduce congestion.” She noted that “when there are safe cycle routes that connect to a network of other safe cycle routes people take up biking in large numbers.” In short, as safe alternative modes of travel are developed, people drive less and use other modes of transportation, thereby reducing motor vehicle congestion. As Dr. Saxe said, “in other words, when it’s safe, people bike.””
[84] “Dr. Saxe discussed the well-accepted concept of induced demand which applies to the use of bicycles as well as to the use of motor vehicles. Put simply, if you build it, they will come. More cycle lanes means more people will ride bicycles. More roads, or more lanes of motor vehicle traffic, means more people will drive. As Dr. Saxe summarized the research, “adding new lanes of traffic induces new driving such that congestion returns to previous levels and worse, but now with more people stuck in traffic.”
[86] “Of most relevance is Dr. Saxe’s opinion about what will happen if the target bike lanes are removed and replaced with lanes for motor vehicles. She stated: Removing the cycle tracks would make motor vehicle traffic worse, an effect that would amplify over time. Travel speeds will slow, trip times will get longer, emergency response will likely be worse and gridlock becomes a possibility.”
5. Expert Evidence on Safety
[75] “The Applicants filed an expert report from Dr. Linda Rothman, an Associate Professor at the School of Occupational and Public Health at Toronto Metropolitan University. Dr. Rothman is an injury prevention epidemiologist with expertise in road safety. Her opinion is that “cycle track installation has a protective effect on collision incidents and injury severity.”
[76] “Dr. Rothman summarized the quantitative research, stating that “literature reviews consistently show that cycle tracks are related to a reduction in the incidence and the risk
of cycling collisions.” She cited American studies showing dramatically lower rates of injury where there were protected bike lanes. Studies in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver had similar findings. Dr. Rothman also noted that the number of cycling injuries is underreported by police.“
[77] Dr. Rothman’s research showed that the target bike lanes saw reductions in collisions despite “great increases in volumes” of cyclists. She also warned of the “bait and switch
effect” caused by the removal of bike lane infrastructure which, studies have shown, “could actually increase the burden of injury from pre-installation.” As she summarized:
…it is my expectation that the removal of these major cycle track corridors in Toronto are likely to have several consequences related to injury including:
Some people are likely to stop cycling on these routes and switch to cars, increasing congestion and putting cyclists who continue to ride and pedestrians at greater risk. These effects all acting synchronously, would likely lead to increases in collisions and fatalities.
Some commuters and recreational riders are likely to continue to ride on these routes without the protective infrastructure.
Gig cyclist delivery workers are likely to continue to ride on these routes without the protective infrastructure.”
6. Ontario Traffic Council submission on Bill 212, addressing the government’s claim that bike lanes should be moved to secondary roads
[45] “While the thought of designing future cycling facilities off main thoroughfares may seem like a solution to traffic gridlock, knowledgeable and experienced engineers and planners would suggest there is no data to support this concept. Reducing the availability of dedicated cycling facilities will limit transportation options and only
add cars to our roads, which contributes to municipal traffic problems rather than resolving them. Conversely, every cyclist on the road is one less vehicle contributing to the congestion issues that Ontarians are facing across the province.”
7. Expert Evidence on Equity
[206] “The Canadian Public Health Association observes: Because of Ontario’s actions, cyclists will be forced to choose between cycling at an increased risk of bodily harm and death or being excluded from major public roadways. There are serious equity implications to Ontario’s decision: the perverse impacts will disproportionately fall on low-income and disabled individuals, increasing health inequities already experienced by these groups. Cycling has important public health benefits. Protected bike lanes ensure that they are available to all, regardless of age or physical and cognitive ability.”
8. Bike Lane Approval Specified Criteria
[34] “Schedule 4 of Bill 212 s. 195.3 … would require municipalities to seek approval from the Minister of Transportation before constructing bike lanes that would reduce the number of lanes available for motor vehicle traffic. In the summary of the Bill posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (“ERO”), the Government stated that “approval will be based on a set of specified criteria, to be set out in guidance and/or regulation.” The government has yet to provide any such criteria.”
9. Judgment Aligns with Brampton’s current plans
- Brampton 2040 Vision – 2018
- hierarchy: cycling, transit, goods movement, shared vehicles, private vehicles
- Brampton Plan – 2023
- Active Transportation Master Plan – 2019
- Streets for People
- Peel Region Vision Zero – endorsed by City of Brampton – 2019
Cycle Toronto Bike Lanes Rally and Ride, July 31st
YouTube Video by Barry Lavallee – Barry shot video and put together a short documentary with his original music.
Lisa Stokes’ Blog – Lisa provides an excellent description and photos about the Rally.