Ontario just made a ruling that could inform bike lane removal cases across Canada

Ontario's highest provincial court has cleared a major legal obstacle to Premier Doug Ford's plan to remove municipally-built protected bike lanes from several major busy streets within the City of Toronto.

In an unanimous decision released last week, the Court of Appeal for Ontario overturned a lower court ruling that originally found the Government of Ontario's legislation violated cyclists' constitutional rights to life and personal security.

The appeal court concluded that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not require governments to provide or maintain bike lanes. It also found that courts cannot strike down transportation legislation simply because experts believe the policy will be ineffective or make roads less safe.

"There is no Charter right to bicycle lanes," reads the appeal court's ruling.

The highly controversial case centres on the Ford government's "Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act" in November 2024.

The legislation directed Ontario transportation minister Prabmeet Sarkaria to remove bike lanes from Bloor Street, University Avenue, and Yonge Street.

Advocacy organization Cycle Toronto — an entity similar to Edmonton's YEG Bike Coalition and Bike Edmonton, Calgary's Bike Calgary, Montreal's Coalition Mobilité Active Montréal and Velo Quebec, and Vancouver's HUB Cycling — and two cyclists challenged the legislation under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects the rights to life, liberty, and security of the person.

In July 2025, Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas sided with Cycle Toronto and the two cyclists who challenged the Ford government. He found that removing the physical bike lane separation between cyclists and vehicles would increase the likelihood of collisions, injuries, and deaths.

Ontario's lower court judge also accepted evidence suggesting that converting bike lanes back into vehicle traffic lanes would not achieve the provincial government's stated goal of reducing congestion and could ultimately make it worse. Based on those findings, Justice Schabas concluded that the Ford administration's legislation was arbitrary — that the safety consequences of the protected bike lane removals for cyclists were "grossly disproportionate" to its potential benefits of reduced travel time and congestion for vehicles.

Justice Schabas declared it unconstitutional and ruled that any attempt to remove the bike lanes to create or restore vehicle traffic lanes would also violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"The Charter does not require the legislature to establish bicycle lanes"

However, more than a year after Justice Schabas' original ruling, the Court of Appeal for Ontario rejected that reasoning.

More broadly, the decision draws a clear line between the courts and elected officials: judges decide whether laws are constitutional, while policy choices remain the responsibility of those chosen by voters.

The panel of three appeal judges ruled that the provincial government is generally free to reverse policies introduced by a previous government, as long as those policies were not required by the Constitution Act. Otherwise, governments could be permanently prevented from changing earlier policy decisions.

Moreover, municipal governments in Canada are governed by the provincial government. Municipalities have long been politically and legally regarded as "creatures of the province."

The appeal court ruled that Justice Schabas' decision of stopping the provincial government from removing the City of Toronto's bike lanes would effectively protect them under the Constitution Act, even though the constitution never required them in the first place.

"His decision is wrong in a more profound sense, for it subverts a fundamental principle of our democratic constitutional order: a legislature cannot bind its successors. Legislatures in the Westminster tradition are free to undo legislation by amending or repealing it as they see fit. That is the nature of democratic lawmaking in our constitutional order. Of course, all laws are subject to the Charter, but this does not preclude the amendment or repeal of legislation the legislature was under no constitutional obligation to have passed in the first place. Amendment or repeal of legislation may breach the Charter only if the breach can be established independent of the prior state of the law," reads the appeal court's ruling.

"The Charter does not require the legislature to establish bicycle lanes. Thus, the Ontario legislature is as free to establish bicycle lanes as it is to remove them or authorize their removal. The Charter has nothing to say about whether bicycle lanes are a good or a bad idea —  wise or unwise policy. These judgments are no business of the courts. The government is not constitutionally obligated to make policy decisions that accord with policy advice it receives from its advisors, nor is the legislature obligated to legislate in accordance with that advice — let alone the advice of academic experts."

"Common sense provides the answer here: increasing the number of lanes available for motor vehicles must, at least to some extent, and for some period of time, be capable of contributing to reducing traffic congestion. The legislation is therefore rational."

The ruling does not conclude that removing the protected bike lanes is a good transportation policy or that doing so will necessarily reduce vehicle congestion. Instead, the court determined that those questions belong in the political process rather than the courtroom.

The appeal panel found there was at least a rational connection between the provincial government's objective and its chosen approach: increasing the number of vehicle traffic lanes could provide some congestion relief, at least temporarily.

That was sufficient to defeat the argument that the Ford administration's legislation was legally arbitrary, according to the court. The provincial government was not required to prove that the policy would remain effective over the medium or long term.

"Common sense provides the answer here: increasing the number of lanes available for motor vehicles must, at least to some extent, and for some period of time, be capable of contributing to reducing traffic congestion. The legislation is therefore rational. Assumptions grounded in everyday experience and common sense need not be established empirically," reads the appeal court's ruling.

The appeal judges also considered evidence concerning "induced demand" — the general idea that adding road capacity can eventually attract more vehicles and return traffic levels to their previous state or make congestion worse. The court did not rule that the theory was incorrect.

Instead, it found that such evidence addressed whether the legislation would ultimately work, not whether there was any rational relationship between adding vehicle traffic lanes and attempting to reduce congestion.

The court acknowledged that adding vehicle traffic lanes can attract more drivers and eventually cause congestion to return or worsen. However, it found that this was only a prediction and that many other factors also affect vehicle traffic. Even if the provincial government's policy ultimately fails, there is still a logical connection between adding vehicle traffic lanes and trying to reduce congestion, so the law cannot be declared unconstitutional simply because experts believe it will not work.

"Dr. Saxe clearly favours bicycles. That was clear from the tenor of her evidence, which included the assertion that 'investing in cycling infrastructure is one of the most powerful tools available to reduce congestion.' As the application judge noted, Dr. Saxe conceded that the removal of bicycle lanes might provide a benefit in the short term. But she expressed the opinion that, over the medium to long term, removing the bicycle lanes would make traffic congestion worse. She predicted that emergency response 'will likely be worse' and that 'gridlock becomes a possibility,'" reads the appeal court's critique of Shoshanna Saxe, an associate professor of the department of civil and mineral engineering at the University of Toronto.

According to the appeal judges, Justice Schabas greatly erred in relying and placing great weight on the "evidence" provided by Saxe.

"Dr. Saxe's evidence was based on the economic concept of 'induced demand', which the application judge described as 'well-accepted'. Induced demand is a theory that permits predictions to be made, all things being equal. But predictions may or may not prove to be sound. Induced demand theory offers no legitimate basis to countermand the legislative policy concerning road use — no legitimate basis to conclude that the legislation is irrational in the face of the obvious logical connection between the number of lanes on a road and the volume of traffic," continues the appeal court's ruling.

"The legislature may well be wrong; in time, the phenomenon of induced demand may operate to undermine the effects of the legislation as Dr. Saxe predicted. But many additional factors are and will continue to be relevant to traffic congestion: the price of gasoline; the availability of carpool lanes; and the availability of parking and parking costs, to name just a few. Then too, there are variables relevant to traffic congestion unrelated to road use and policy, including the ability of employees to work from home. No doubt there are many more relevant considerations."

The appeal judges therefore found that the legislation could not be struck down based on a prediction of how vehicle traffic patterns might change over time.

"But whether the legislature turns out to be right or wrong, in the medium or long term, induced demand is no more than a prediction as to what might occur. Dr. Saxe's evidence was not capable, in law, of establishing that the legislation was arbitrary. Her prediction that, over time, things would get worse, is concerned with the efficacy of the legislation. It does not establish a lack of a rational connection," reads the appeal court's ruling.

"Policy is for politics," not for judges

The appeal court also found that the lower judge set the bar too low when weighing the legislation's potential harm against its purpose.

A law is considered "grossly disproportionate" only when its consequences are extremely out of line with what it is trying to accomplish. The appeal judges found that removing bike lanes as part of traffic regulation did not meet that very high standard, even if it could increase the risks faced by cyclists.

The appeal court also criticized Justice Schabas' ruling for focusing too heavily on the politics behind the legislation. This included public comments by Premier Ford and Ontario transportation minister Sarkaria, advice the government received internally, and opposition raised while the law was being considered.

"Now, courts learn a great deal about a matter in the course of judicial review proceedings, and judges may be tempted to comment on matters of policy. The temptation to do so may be great; judges may suppose that they have much to offer to public policy debate. But the temptation must be resisted. It is not just that courts have no expertise in policy making – no expertise in making the sorts of polycentric decisions that legislatures make routinely. It is illegitimate for courts to involve themselves in matters of legislative policy," reads the appeal court's ruling.

"Policy is for politics. Whether courts think legislation is wise or unwise, is irrelevant so far as its constitutionality is concerned, and constitutionality is the only question with which courts are legitimately concerned."

The appeal by the Government of Ontario was allowed, overturning the previous ruling by the lower court that had prevented the provincial government from proceeding with the Toronto bike lane removals.

"None of this was relevant to the task before him," reads the appeal court's ruling condemning the methods and rationale deployed by Justice Schabas in making the original decision, adding that governments and legislatures are not constitutionally required to follow advice from bureaucrats, public servants, experts, or members of the public.

"Lest there be any doubt: in formulating policy or legislating, neither the government nor the legislature is under any obligation to accept policy advice, whether from bureaucrats, experts, or members of the public. The choices they make are the stuff of politics. We are governed by those whom we elect and they are accountable to the people for the choices they make, not to the courts. It is important to remember that judicial independence is a two-way street: the government and legislature must obviously respect the independence of the courts, but courts must respect the roles and responsibilities of the other branches of government. Judicial review under the Charter is not an occasion for courts to comment on or critique policy or political decisions," continues the appeal court's ruling.

Cycle Toronto and the two cyclists involved in the case could still ask the Supreme Court of Canada to hear an appeal. Both sides also have 21 days to submit their arguments over who should pay the legal costs.

Alberta government taking note of Ontario appeal ruling for its own legislation to remove municipal bike lanes

The decision is also being closely watched by Alberta's provincial government, which is developing its own legislation concerning bike lanes — including bike lanes created by municipal governments — within its provincial borders.

In a statement responding to the potential precedent set by Ontario's appeal court ruling, Alberta transportation minister Devin Dreeshen called it "a win for common sense and for elected governments' ability to make decisions in the public interest."

Dreeshen said the Alberta government is working on legislation intended to ensure transportation infrastructure "works for all road users." He did not provide further details about the proposed law, but said the Ontario appeal court's findings would be reviewed as the legislation is finalized.

"For too long, transportation decisions have been driven by ideology rather than common sense," said Dreeshen. "We need to consider how infrastructure works for everyone who uses our roads."

Alberta courts would not be required to follow the Ontario ruling, but they could consider it if a similar case were filed there. A Supreme Court of Canada ruling, however, would apply across the country.