The Ford government’s plan to tear out dedicated bike lanes from three Toronto routes has been deemed to be unconstitutional, according to a ruling by an Ontario court, halting a populist pledge driven by the premier.
In his ruling, Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas said the province’s move to take out bike lanes would be “inconsistent” with the constitutional protection of life, liberty and security.
The ruling said an updated version of the law, passed in June, would also breach the charter.
“Any steps taken to ‘reconfigure’ the target bike lanes that removes their protected character for the purpose of installing a lane for motor vehicles in order to reduce congestion, would be in breach of s. 7 of the Charter,” the ruling said.
The ruling comes after months of legal wrangling and a court-imposed injunction that has, so far, prevented the province from following through on its promise to scrub Bloor Street West, Yonge Street and University Avenue of its dedicated cycling infrastructure.
In an earlier injunction ruling, Justice Schabas cited the public interest in protecting cyclist safety and a lack of evidence backing the government’s claim that removing the lanes would reduce congestion.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.
The Ford government fast-tracked Bill 212 through the Ontario legislature in late 2024, giving itself the power to reject or even reverse the installation of separated bike lanes in any municipality in the province.
A cyclists’ advocacy group immediately launched a Charter challenge, claiming the law was “ill-conceived and arbitrary” and would result in an increased number of injuries and deaths.
“This reckless legislative act infringes the rights of people who ride bikes, other road users, and/or pedestrians in the City of Toronto under s. 7 of the Charter by depriving them of life and security of the person contrary to principles of fundamental justice,” the court application, filed by CycleTO, claimed.
Ford has long pointed to “nasty, terrible” bike lanes as one of the sources of traffic congestion and has advocated for separated routes to be moved to secondary routes instead of arterial roads.
He has insisted he is not opposed to the infrastructure but believes it should not be added to major routes.
In its court application, Cycle Toronto claimed secondary roads “do not exist,” that there was “no rational connection” between the government’s gridlock-reducing intent and potential effect, and suggested that the government is aware of the potential harms.
Cycle Toronto also argued that Bill 212 acknowledged the dangers the law poses since Bill 212 banned cyclists from suing the province if they are injured or killed by a collision on a road where bike lanes were removed.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Transportation said the province is still working with an engineering firm to plan for the eventual removal of the bike lanes — should the government win on any future appeal.
“We will continue with the design work necessary to begin removals of bike lanes and get some of our busiest roads moving, as soon as possible,” a spokesperson for the ministry said in an earlier statement.
© 2025 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.
